Just because you see an angry, huffing, clot of shit in the mirror, doesn’t mean the rest of us are so burdened.
Bricker, you’re trying to be clever and failing. If it’s okay to pass laws based on unevidenced belief (some people lack confidence in elections because of virtually nonexistent voter fraud), I’m just noting that the belief that armed thugs might try to intimidate voters might deserve some respect simply by virtue of far greater plausibility and historical precedent.
I’m smarter than you are, Bricker. Your attempts to imply otherwise are barely worthy of notice.
It’s safe to say he didn’t get your point. It was a big woosh.
I enjoyed it, by the way. Very clever.
I guess when conservatives believe in fantasies, that’s a basis for legislation. When liberals believe claims that are plausible but actually false… ridicule.
I have to admit, I would indeed be annoyed at someone who claimed voodoo would punish voters, to the same extent as leaders of more mainstream religions doing the same (and they have), but my contempt is for the suckers who fall for it. In any case, I recognize the distinction between this and a government official imposing ACTUAL barriers, though Bricker’s repeated use of the analogy implies he chooses not to.
On further reflection, I think a year ago I would have dismissed the idea of guys with guns showing up to “monitor” an American election as obvious Onion-ish satire, but in light of recent 2nd Amendment demonstrations involving carrying slung AR-15s into restaurants, the idea doesn’t strike me as automatically dismissible, though I wouldn’t expect more than a handful of hardcore nuts to try it, if that.
Yeah. On the one hand, it’s everyone’s responsibility to verify the accuracy of news reports before passing them on. On the other hand, the fact that a ton of liberals seem to have found this story very plausible probably says more about conservatives than it does about liberals. You don’t win some point for clever trolling by coming up with a story that’s 5% more extreme than reality, and then pointing and laughing when people believe it.
Well, what if it DID happen, one case, a guy named… say… Ramon Cute, takes it upon himself to show up at a polling station to “monitor it for voter fraud” while openly carrying a firearm. Assume open carry is completely legal and that Cute doesn’t brandish or menace or do anything considered legally threatening, nor does he actually enter the polling station but stays on public ground nearby, basically doing nothing that would justify legal intervention (I assume open carry near a polling station is not illegal in this venue - I’m not sure it would be illegal in ANY venue where open carry was legal, but I’m open to education on the matter) but the public response and public perception is broad and negative, and legislators consider laws that will require a citizen to hold a special permit to open carry on election days, even in venues where open carry is otherwise legal year-round.
This will not affect most citizens, as most don’t open carry at all, and the permits are not difficult to get, for MOST citizens. Some will have difficulty, some may find the process prohibitively burdensome. Protests about the perceived 2nd Amendment infringement start to sound.
-Is the popularity of the law relevant?
-Is the reasonableness of the law relevant?
-Is the small number of people affected relevant?
-Is the extent of the burden relevant?
And can arguments against the laws always be trumped by “Remember Ramon Cute!” ?
As bad as the GOP-ALEC vote suppression via ID requirements are, I find the treatment of likely Democratic polling places by the responsible officials even worse.
Long lines at minority polling places
I have related the story of my daughter’s friend at Oberlin College who waited in line in the cold rain for over four hours to vote in 2004.
From the link
Winning the stodgy old Secretary of State job in many states now becomes very important since that is the office in many states responsible for the voting process. I seem to recall reading about a strong effort of the part of the GOP to win those jobs.
It occurs to me that I should be clearer in anticipating and eliminating likely nitpicks. Assume the legislation under consideration is that in venues that currently practice open carry, open carry on election days will be by special “may issue” permits.
Also that Ramon Cute won’t be arrested for loitering or some such thing.
I should have tried that defense when I posted the story about the non-union electrical repair crew being rejected after offering to help with Sandy damage.
Instead I just admitted, repeatedly and fully, that I had been wrong.
You’re omitting the plausibility part.
At the risk of totally hijacking this already gargantuan thread, I think there’s a distinction between believing (and reporting) a claim of fact, a claim of “X happened”; vs believing (and reporting) a claim by someone as to what that person plans to do. That said, note that I myself did not in any way comment on the report that turned out to be a hoax. If I had promoted it as if it were real, I hope that I would have had the grace to apologize unreservedly.
That said, do you think “conservative citizens are publicly discussing plans to congregate near voting places visibly (legally) carrying firearms” is something so ridiculous that it could not be anything but satire?
That was not the extent of the story.
"Please private message us names of people you know are active voters and wanted on warrants. We can get our agents to watch their polling location, identify the individual, and then follow them to their residence. A call the police and they will be picked up for processing.”
So it is your contention that in this day and age, anyone who would believe that a group of right wingers (presumably extremist fringe right-wingers) would actual discuss engaging in that type of action is so stupid that the proper response to them is
?
What an ignorant pretentious twit you are. As Max pointed out, the story is pretty typical of real-life Republiopaths. Should we each have spent hours researching it?
BTW, is denouncing Ann Coulter now also off-limits? – Many think her level of hysteria and stupidity is compatible only with a progressive playing fake wingnut to troll.
What’s your take on Ann Coulter, Bricker? Troll? Idol? Shining paragon of Republican insight?
To bring closure to Bricker’s own ignorance, let me hypothesize that, like the Dan Rather forgeries, the armed poll watcher story was invented by Rove or one of his apprentices to divert attention from similar but real incidents.
Speaking of Karl Rove, why don’t you, Bricker, go punch yourself in the face until you figure out how to apologize for defecating in my years-ago thread. We don’t need you to admit you took a dump – that much is obvious. Just take an Imodium in future before you respond to my OPs.
Not exactly.
My contention is that anyone who would uncritically believe it – that is, report it without any attempt at verification – ought to find the mirror and start punching.
Look at this post. It’s a love letter to the worst of liberal idiocy. “Many” of us think this, Bricker!
Caught by an obvious lie, and having spent time wringing hands over how terrible the horrible evil conservatives are, learning that the entire exercise was a fabrication produces only a doubling down: what’s important to this kind of liberal mind is ideology, not truth. Aunt Polly slaps Tom for the sugar bowl, and when she learns Sid is guilty, she’s undeterred. “You didn’t get a lick amiss,” she says. “You been into some other audacious mischief when I wasn’t around, like enough.”
If this shit were on on some liberal hugfest sty, I’d accept it: liberals need somewhere to wallow.
It disgusts me that you pollute a place that supposedly is interested in fighting ignorance.
We can get our agents to watch their polling location, identify the individual, and then follow them to their residence. A call the police and they will be picked up for processing.
Would the agents have used helicopters? I love it when they use helicopters.
And “picked up for processing?” Seriously?
You are idiots.
Not so much for the initial belief – you see something that fits your preconception, you don’t apply the critical analysis that you’d use if you want it to be untrue.
You are idiots for learning you were suckered and doubling down on the side of ignorance.
Wow. Just wow. I wonder if you could guess how many milliseconds I devoted to that news story? Unlike you apparently, following American politics is a very tiny part of my life. I admit that I do devote time and energy smearing your nose in your own shit, Bricker.
And you talk about fighting ignorance? What a laugh! Do I need to smear your nose yet again in the profound ignorance you demonstrated about Karl Rove, apparently assuming that with the (R) by his name he was saintly?
True, there are millions of Republiopaths almost as ignorant as you about Karl Rove. But they don’t do what you did, prattling on and on and on about his moral character without even clicking Wikipedia … without even reading the OP of the thread you defecated on.
Although surrounded by genuine imbeciles like Shodan it is still you, Brickhead, who, despite the brain you were born with, appears to be the stupidest Doper of all. Congratulations!