Ah. I’d just assumed, based on sufficient precedent, that Bricker was taking one detail out of context and reflexively outraging (or perhaps just tangentially time-wasting) over it, i.e. interpreting a mention of a teenage girl as an intended insult to his daughter.
Personally, I think his parents quite likely did raise him wrong.
Dunno. Seen insensitive and clot-brained louts raise some fine people, and conscientious and intelligent parenting turn out some of the nastiest little shits you’ll ever meet. Its a mystery.
Whoosh.
It’s more like your personal version of Poe’s Law. There’s nothing you can say sarcastically that could be clearly distinguished from something you’ve said sincerely but stupidly.
Seeing as you’re acting like a petulant child, it’s reasonable for people to assume that posts you make in that voice are genuine.
I remember reading the word “bovver” in the context of British soccer hooligans and violent racist thugs. Like they might prefer a particular brand of shoe for its utility when confronted with a “bit of bovver”, i.e., the necessity of curb-stomping some innocent Pakistani’s head.
That being the case, I cannot approve Bricker being “bovvered”. That far exceeds the bounds of civility and decorum that the Pit traditionally demands. Also, not very nice.
I’m pretty sure it involves copious amounts of santorum…
You would be guessing incorrectly. But that’s par for the course for you guys.
Says the delusional goof who thinks fatcat scientists are inventing global warming for that sweet, sweet grant money.
So have you compiled data on your toenail fungus’ intelligence quotient or not? If you haven’t, you simply have no basis for comparison to anyone here, let alone a basis to make claims about our commentary.
Of course if you were just speaking figuratively, then you’re a lame-ass for presenting such childish imagery.
Perfect example of the liberal approach.
Conservatives always need to set the bar low for perfection.
A man’s reach should exceed his grasp
So when he gets to Hell, he’s used to it.
- Robert Browning (improved)
Even if true, your mechanism of insult is unclear, since I lack the preconception that “liberal” = “bad”.
I get, however, that your entire personal philosophy rests on such.
Childish? In what manner? I’m assuming that people on this board know what a fungus is; perhaps I am incorrect in making that assumption. However, we will proceed as if I am correct, which is usually the case. Given that, we all know that fungi of any kind have no intelligence to speak of. And given that, my comparison to Lobo was right on target, as he exhibits no intelligence to speak of.
So before you call me a lame-ass, Bryan, stop and think for a moment. If you can, that is. If you can’t, you can join Lobo in the fungus category.
You mean asking if someone has run numbers on an assertion?
Unlike your faith-based nonsense beliefs, you mean?
You think that global warming is a scam. You’re mislead and gullible.
I’m certainly not the smartest person on this board. I am however, smarter than most Texans. 
Sorry for the slow reply, real life intruded.
Except that in this thread we’re not saying “did the texas legislature pass this law, or did they not”. That’s not a very interesting discussion. Instead we’re discussing whether these laws are good/moral/ethical/democratic. A key data point that informs that discussion is how much actual obstruction to voting these laws cause. You said “At the level that actually exists, which is permissible, there’s no problem.” That implies that you KNOW the level of obstruction that actually exists, and I questioned that (note that I did not claim that I know the level). Saying that the Texas and Wisconsin legislature passed the laws in no way supports your claim that you have actual knowledge of the level of difficulty imposed by the laws. There might be some useful data there if, for instance, we knew that the Wisconsin legislature had a historical reputation of being scrupulously fair and careful about how it passed voting laws, and if we knew that the Wisconsin voting commission had done a multi-year-study and presented its finding to the relevant committee before any voting happened, or something like that… but that does not seem to be the case.
Certainly. I absolutely positively admit that I can not prove anything about the actual level of suppression/obstruction that will face voters after the implementation of these laws. But I claim that you don’t either. And that’s why (a) it would be great if there were some really good studies on the topic, and (b) I think we get really good circumstantial evidence from the reaction of various people who are more knowledgeable than either you or I, namely the politicians actually involved in this law. Why would so many Democratic lawmakers be so opposed to these laws if they didn’t think that there would in fact be a large impact? Why would so many Republicans support it?
Or is your position something like “these laws likely WILL have a noticeable and potentially significant effect on voter turnout, to the benefit of Republicans, but that impact will MOSTLY consist of people who basically are just lazy and could have voted had they exerted a constitutionally permissible amount of effort”?
Hardly a compelling threat, coming from you - I assume your responses by default are insults instead of attempts at reason and I adjust my expectations accordingly.
The childishness as I perceived it stemmed from you using “you’re dumber than my toenail fungus” twice, as if it was some joke you’d heard recently in middle school and wanted to use because it sounded so awesome and wicked.
Besides it’s obviously not literally true that Lobohan displays no intelligence. He’s using a computer, after all. You and I don’t interact much so I don’t know what your correctness percentage actually is. You’re certainly not boosting it with this.
As an incidental note, when Clothahump says, twice:
You’re dumber than my toenail fungus.
…the information I glean is…
Clothahump has toenail fungus.
…and from there is a short hop to…
Clothahump has poor personal hygiene.
For what it’s worth, of course.