I don’t know who you’re addressing. I’m no “filthy dishonest uberlib” – the only reason they let me on the Ilk Bus is I’m bringing some potent Thai-stick from Kanchanaburi. I get lumped by the Republiopaths into the Lib Ilk just because I denounce their filthy dishonesty. I call you Brickshit because you present yourself as a very shitty person.
But speaking of filthy dishonesty, have you read my post immediate above? Do you admit, despite that the 5 Republiopaths on SCOTUS announced that racial discrimination in voting is no longer a problem, that official treatment often discriminates?
I’m vaguely considering starting a thread called “Praise the Bricker-that-was”, in which respondents are encouraged to quote and link to past posts of Bricker’s in which he established the reputation of being a sane, rational conservative (a reputation he must still have, judging from the number of people who refer to it). Any bashing of the Bricker-that-is will be discouraged in my OP, though I’ll have no ability to stop such if it occurs. I suppose that could be avoided by starting the thread somewhere other than the Pit, but none of the other forums seem more appropriate.
It will of course be very meta; there are few praises more faint and damning than “you USED to be smart.”
A Google search suggests that I was talking about the Brickey Shuffle as early as 2005 and ShitBricker (a la American Pie) a little later, so I won’t be able to post in your fond remembrances thread. I’ll have to stick with damnation by frank damnation.
It’s kind of surprising that it took this long for him to put me on ignore, really.
Which is, of course, not the question I asked you, now is it? If you would like to make up another question to answer, you are free to do so. And it is a time-honored tactic of yours, so I cannot doubt you are capable.
Lets try it again, shall we? Triumph of hope over optimism. Did you intend to imply, suggest and insinuate that CASA volunteers were counseling or otherwise encouraging illegal aliens to vote, or not? Pretty simple, really.
(This could be good, you are the Nadia Comaneci of semantic gymnastics employed to evade a straight answer, always look forward to it…)
So, then, your point is nothing more than a technicality about the precise definition of “conspiracy”? Much appreciated, hard to get through a day without a bit of your legalistic sophistry.
In principle you’re right. But we’re only human. You insult people, misconstrue arguments, dodge and weave direct question, and then then brag about it; that makes it very hard to support you even when you’re 100% correct.
You’re not 100% correct, by the way.
Obviously you did not see a conspiracy in the legal sense. But there is no reason to think that elucidator literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge. “Fighting ignorance” requires a good-faith effort to understand others’ arguments. Willfully misinterpreting them spreads ignorance regardless of how factually correct you happen to be.
Incidentally, a tiny bit of Googling led me to the Brandenburg test. Do you believe that CASA’s actions meet all three prongs of the test? Since I’m fairly certain that elucidator’s “conspiracy” meant “plan to incite illegal action,” and Brandenburg governs incitement in this country, it seems that someone truly interested in “fighting ignorance” would want to bring it up…
Shit, I would have, if I had ever heard of it! Just a poor ol’ country boy from Waco, only Brandenburg I know about is a concertina by some German guy!
But even when I was patiently, correctly, precisely responding to points, no one stepped up.
How about that?
The quoted and emphasized words from elucidator are reason to think that elucidator literally meant that CASA’s actions would support a criminal conspiracy charge.
Do you seriously mean to argue that they don’t?
Seriously?
No, someone wouldn’t, because it’s completely and utterly inapplicable.
Would you like to know why?
(1) One of the Brandenburg prongs is imminence. In this case, the conduct in question was months away. Brandenburg requires that the lawlessness be imminent.
(2) Brandenburg weighed a concedely-violated criminal statute against the First Amendment. Here, there is no statute that has purportedly been violated. In other words, Brandenburg sought to punish a guy for speech that supposedly taught the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, because Ohio had a law that forbid such speech. Here, there is no law supposedly violated by the speech – the speech in question explained how easy it was to vote illegally. Even if the speech had directly and specifically urged listeners to vote illegally, it wouldn’t have violated a Maryland law. Voting illegally certainly does; urging others to vote illegally does not.
It should be noted that Bricker has never once made a significant argument for his position other than, “It ain’t that big a deal to get an ID” and “It’s the law, cry suckaz!”
He’s attempting to craft a narrative here by pretending there was a point where he was genuinely debating point by point.
And remember, he outright lied about my position on the Mass. legislature flipping who assigns replacement Senators. He did it several times and ignored my asking for cites to prove it. He’s not honest, he’s perfectly willing to call a win for himself if the throws a bunch of horseshit at the wall.
But even when I was patiently, correctly, precisely responding to points, no one stepped up.
Imagine that I tell someone “go out and shoot orange people! There are some in the orange-people convenience store across the street! They deserve to die!” That person takes my words to heart, goes out, and shoots up the store. I would be guilty of a crime.
Now, imagine that a layperson–let’s call him delucidator– says that I was engaged in a conspiracy and that clearly my actions constituted a crime; someone should do something.
Your answer is, “it’s not conspiracy, asshole,” and nothing else. That’s not helpful. That’s not fighting ignorance. That’s not making even a token effort to figure out what was really meant, or the source of confusion. It’s spreading ignorance, with the goal of making yourself feel superior. And this has been your MO long before your tantrum in this thread.
Basically, Bricker, you seem to treat every argument as a house of cards–if one element is slightly disrupted, the entire thing crashes down unrecoverably. That’s not how you fight ignorance. When elements of an argument are wrong, isolate those elements; figure out whether there is a reasonable interpretation of the argument that despite the error; correct the factual mistake; and, argue the main point in good faith.
I did not know this; you stated that you had seen it, but did not know when it occurred. Is there jurisprudence defining “imminent,” or is it common sense of the judge?
Are you certain of this? Direct urging to imminently commit a crime seems like the kind of thing that could fall under a number of broad statutes, even if the particular illegal act isn’t explicitly legislated against. I make no claims about Maryland in particular, but it would surprise me if there was no attempt in at least some states to generally outlaw directly and imminently inciting a felony of any sort (notwithstanding that in this exact instance, it apparently wasn’t imminent)
Not a badge of honor, just an easy to remember example of Bricker being a shitty lying douche.
He’s done it before, years ago, but here is the most recent example from this very thread a few weeks ago, which is why I mention it, it’s still fresh and he’s still running from it. Necessarily this excludes some stuff other people were saying, so to read the whole thread click on the triangle at next to my username on the first link and it’ll take you to the thread in context.
Did you read the context of the discussion? There was no other reasonable read to it. elucidator brought up the fact that I had heard CASA volunteers discuss how easy it was to vote without being caught, and wondered why I had failed to report this crime. I replied that it wasn’t a crime.
That’s when he trotted out the “we all know what conspiracy is,” quote.
In that discussion, with him asking why I didn’t report the crime, what other interpretation is there? Explain it to me, please.
You’re certainly correct that I did not patiently and attentively explain each and every error he made.
Really?
Have you followed this thread? Haven’t I done that for pages and pages and pages? I patiently and carefully isolated misstatements, restated my clear points, and kept things focused.
Did that change any behaviors?
You know the answer.
The word “imminent,” means “ready to take place, near at hand.” (*Forest Conservation Council v. Rosboro Lumber Co., 50 F. 3d 781 (Ninth Cir. 1995) quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1939).
Months between the exhortation and the election cannot qualify as “imminent.”
I can’t find a Maryland law that does so.
Maryland is a common law state, and certain types of solicitation – those that constitute a breach of the peace – were prohibited at common law. LaFave and Scott § 6.1(a), say that in addition to breach of peace:
A 1704 case seems to indicate that inciting a servant to steal his master’s goods was at least indictable. (Regina v. Daniell, 87 Eng.Rep. 856).
In any event, the Brandenburg limitation imminent limitation applies.
I get lumped by the Republiopaths into the Lib Ilk just because I denounce their filthy dishonesty. I call you Brickshit because you present yourself as a very shitty person.