I am eager for strict voter-ID requirements, for the generously broad definition of “eager” that now seems to be in play.
I’m of an age, see the doctor unexpectedly pulling on rubber gloves, I get all eager.
The majority of Republican voters would certainly support a similar zero-cost law that sought to increase ALL turnout, rather than just “historically underprivileged” communities.
Because of course what I said was not somehow limited to “historically underprivileged,” was it?
Perhaps you are judging a caricature.
What would you say about people that simply ignore police killings of unarmed black citizens but rise up in outrage if the police do the same to a white person?
And in their defense, they simply claim they never paid attention to the former. But for some bizarre reason, the latter event really engages them?
I bet that liberal heart of yours would pound with outrage at the unfairness of such reactions.
Real brave betting on a scenario you know will never happen, Bricker-“I bet if such-and-such happened you would do so-and-so in a heartbeat!”
Shut up, liar. When you have the balls to actually bet on one of your lame-brained liberal predictions that you routinely make with confidence, knowing there’s no penalty here for being wrong, then come talk to me, ass.
We have few other options, when you post.
You post in GD with those fingers?
What a pathetic pile of bullshit. Choosing the posts that interest me to read in full is not the same as ignoring unjust deaths, you whiny little baby. You can’t possibly believe such a load of crap. What’s next, Hitler ignoring the suffering of the Jews?
Jesus. When did you get so damn pathetic? Can’t you just accept that posters are going to respond to the posts that interest them, and stop whining about it?
What a fucking baby.
It’s not the same in some respects. For example, it’s spelled differently. It has a different number of words in it.
But it’s a relevant analogy, because it highlights the result of what you’re doing. You ignore content that benefits your side even when it contains tactics that you supposedly deplore when you see them coming from me. You thus benefit from the tactic and condemn it at the same time, leading to the obvious inference that your supposed horror at my use of it is not horror at the tactic, but a convenient handle to attack me.
You don’t really mind the tactic when it helps you, kinda like Lobohan’s desire to serially fellate the Massachusetts legislature, or at least such members thereof with members.
It also has nothing to do with a dead person, or any harm at all. It’s a ridiculous comparison.
What “benefits”? What the fuck are you talking about? How the fuck do I benefit from stupid posts that I skip over because I’m not interested in them?
God, the whining (and more bullshit about how I supposedly “benefit”). Is it really that bad that I called you out for childish, jerkish, sweeping, ignorant insults? Do you really think that such posts don’t reflect poorly on you? Can’t you just say “okay, I wish you’d call out liberals who did this, but you’re right – I shouldn’t malign all liberals, including liberal veterans like you and your former shipmates”?
How the fuck does it help me? If anything, it hurts my “side”! Just like it hurts your side and your argument when you make those very foolish insulting posts about all liberals.
Crap is crap, and doesn’t help anyone. Liberal crap doesn’t help liberals, and your crap doesn’t help you. It just makes you look bad. And when I explain this to you, you whine and whine like a fucking baby.
I’m going to continue reading and responding to the posts that interest me, and skipping over the ones that don’t. That means I’m going to skip over some stupid posts – both liberal and conservative. There are many threads with very stupid conservative posts that you don’t respond to and criticize – probably because you’re not interested in them. That’s just fine with me… go ahead and post and read what you want, and don’t post and don’t read what you’re not interested in.
Huh. Bricker also said I approved the actions of the Mass. legislature. Despite my disagreement, can I look forward to finding out from him that I also wish to fellate them, or am I back on his ignore list for now?
I’d just like to know what role I’m playing in his imagined reality.
Sure it has to do with harm. I grant that physical harm is not involved.
It’s an analogy. Think back to the SATs. Remember them?
Maybe you saw a question that looked like: “Usher is to aisle as actor is to _______.” And I suspect you did not refuse to pick “stage” from among the available answers, and instead pencil in, “It’s a ridiculous comparison!”
Or perhaps you did.
A message board discussion is a public discourse, in which the sides being debated are affected from input offered up by participants. You may piously claim to be unaffected by allied posts that stoop to these tactics, but they affect the mood, momentum, and overall progress of threads.
And why are you supposedly “not interested” when other people do it, but very interested when I do it?
Because every time in this thread that I have answered as a reasonable rhetor I have come to regret it as my good faith is answered by poor tactics in return.
Amazing that my posts with stupid tactics still deserve your attention, though, huh? Almost like you want to refute my stupid tactics while leaving stupid tactics that help your side untouched.
Was it the same in the GD threads on this topic?
Should I simple re-acknowledge victory at this point?
If anyone is harmed, it’s you – the one making the stupid, foolish, sweeping insult. You harm yourself, and I try to point this out. It’s certainly not me. I’m not harmed by dumb insults.
They do – and they hurt the arguments of their posters. When you make such posts, you hurt your own arguments.
Because I’ve been engaging with you, and pretty much only you (in this thread). I haven’t been engaging with other posters for the most part. In general, I’m not interested in arguing with liberal posters – that’s boring to me. I’m interested in arguing with conservatives – that’s fun. Fun stuff. I come to the Dope for fun – arguing with you (and others) is fun. Arguing with liberals who I mostly agree with is not fun.
Really? Every time? And you regretted posting reasonably every time? Be personal and vicious if you want – I’m certainly not criticizing “screw you asshole” types of comments. Say “screw you asshole” all you want. I’m criticizing your comments that explicitly maligned all liberals, including liberal veterans like me. Do you really believe that liberal veterans like me are all dishonest and/or stupid, or the other nasty things you said about us? If this wasn’t meant, then I’d like to offer you the chance to take it back. If you think I’m being hypocritical, then I challenge you to find a single post in which I similarly maligned all conservatives (or all Republicans, or something similar).
How the fuck to such tactics help my side? They hurt my side! If ignoring them helps anyone’s argument, it’s yours. In almost every other thread you don’t make sweeping, maligning posts about liberals. Have I ever criticized your posts in another thread in an unreasonable, unkind, un-neighborly way? Why do you think I’m only focusing on your posts in this thread that maligned all liberals?
But of course it’s historically underprivileged communities in which turnout is worst, and thus the impact of a general voter-encouragement program is likely to have the largest impact there.
Nonetheless, this is a ridiculous and pedantic tangent even for this thread, which is saying something, so it doesn’t really seem worth pursuing.
And this fact somehow justifies your transformation of my claim that Republicans are eager for ALL persons qualified to vote to vote to a proposition that they should favor a program to assist only SOME to vote?
Suuuuuure they hurt your side.
Is this really what you’re harping on? For one thing, this is a message board, not an article with comments. Can’t you just accept that my criticism of your posts maligning all liberals was a reasonable criticism? You haven’t even tried to defend it, beyond “others do it too!!”.
Heck, we’ve made positive comments to Bricker, in the sense that we analyzed the issue without personal insult, and it has no effect. In any case, I don’t get what he’s complaining about - he certainly hasn’t been shy about making negative and insulting comments of his own, so is it simply an issue of volume, the side that make a greater number of insulting comments loses, or something? Quantity over quality?