Covered. Doesn’t matter how malign the intentions, the thing itself is full of crunchy voter confidence goodness. Of course, those malign intentions are precisely what we are pissed about.
In a way, it reminds one of the miracle of modern capitalism, whereby greed becomes a positive virtue. Shit, makes water into wine look like child’s play!
Thanks, 'Luci. I’ll admit to having wandered in and out of the thread. So, they’re trying to skew the vote, but incompetent to do so. I guess, then, that if the NYT is biased against assault rifles (another Bricker favorite), we similarly shouldn’t worry about it, because the reporting itself still magically comes out accurate.
Yanno, not really. They could intend whatever they want if their actual results were ineffective - the intent, being obvious to most folks, would actually work against them. And it wouldn’t matter (nearly as much) what they intended if the effect really were to undermine democracy itself, as it is. In fact, good faith would lead them to reverse themselves. No, what pisses *me *off is two things: The damage to democracy itself, and the condescending, transparent lying about the reasons.
I was thinking of people who,rejected the legal standards of a crime when discussing George Zimmerman, actually.
When Ben Franklin said “A republic, if you can keep it”, the kind of person he was worried about was that exemplified by Bricker.
You rang?
Seriously, you seem to practice a fairly limited application of that standard. Shouldn’t we also be denouncing those who reject the norms of SDMB posting behavior when discussing other posters? I mean, if a post complies with the usage rules of the message board, what business do any of us have complaining about, say the liberal hypocrisy exemplified by a particular poster, or the group biases of the liberal posters in general, or the unfairness perpetrated on conservative posters by those hive-minded liberal hypocrites? Just as a few examples off the top of my head.
Might there be other considerations besides an individual’s SDMB rule adherence or statutory rectitude that could legitimately be discussed in a purely social medium? Might we even go so far as to discuss and support our personal differences with existing authority structures? Might it be appropriate, do you think, to kvetch or even kvell every now and again about aspects (or the totality) of an individual’s actions, or attitudes or general demeanor that we enjoy or that just fucking piss us off?
Don’t bother to craft a response to these questions, Bricker; they are rhetorical. And you are a dumbass.
Never read it, myself. Indeed never heard of it outside of references on this message board, though I had in fact gathered that it was a magazine
And this just in…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/gao-study-voter-id-laws-cut-turnout-by-blacks-young
GAO Study: Voter ID Laws Cut Turnout by Blacks, Young
But we knew that, didn’t we?
But voter confidence is increased. As in, “I need to be confident that fewer black people and young people will vote, since my party has written those people off.”
Laws continue in force. Life is good.
Liberals win the SDMB, lose in real life.
You really don’t bother with moral analysis at all, do you, Bricker?
One of your more soundly reasoned and cogent “neener-neener!” arguments.
You have no moral system I recognize as valid. You are amoral.
Regardless, I’m willing to contemplate outcomes and evidence in my moral and ethical judgements, rather than simply gloat because things happened to go my way.
For example, abortion is legal in Canada. I could simply do a smug happy dance about that to annoy prolifers, but I consider it important to analyze why this is a morally sound situation and the circumstances under which I’d consider modifying that view.
For what it’s worth, this makes me a better person than you.
You pretty much abandoned our discussion about the moral judgment of these actions once it was pointed out that an OH Republican admitted almost the exact same motivation that I had hypothesized.
The only system **Bricker **recognizes as valid is submissiveness to institutional authority. Any suggestion that there might be more to consider simply confuses and irritates him.
Says the guy who would have seen nothing wrong with slavery either, since it *was *the law.
Elvish, I’ve told you a million times: don’t exaggerate!
I am unfortunately *not *exaggerating.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
What does any of this have to do with a helipropter?