You got me mixed up with somebody else, apparently. Didn’t say anything about correlation/causation, nor anything about the culture in Georgia. Only that there is a perfectly obvious reason why there might be an increase in minority voting as a result of these laws being passed.
It is considered good form hereabouts that a post directed towards a quote have some actual relevance to that quote. Just a hint.
It ain’t all about you, Sunshine. I’m responding to your post along with others.
If you read my post, you’ll determine that I wasn’t just replying to you. Hence the usage of, “I’m told”, rather than, “You told me”.
I’ve also responded to questions that were posed to others, should I stop that, too?
If you want a direct reply to your post here it is. If more people get out to vote because they are pissed off, then what are you complaining about? More people have voted and more of them are minorities and the poor and thus we have a government that better reflects the will of the people.
That they have good reason to be pissed off. Duh.
I offered an alternative. You didn’t want to think about it, so your mind simply wouldn’t process it.
The alternative: Obama’s already in trouble. Across the entire country, his numbers are getting weaker, because he’s got a terrible economy to deal with.
Didn’t I say that? Yes. Didn’t you ignore that and substitute “pixies?”
Yes.
You can certainly argue that’s what he met. You cannot truthfully say that he admitted it, definitively. You can say things like, “What he said is essentially an admission…” with safety, because that line shows it’s not literally an admission, but simply your conclusion.
And what about Skip’s claim that I also “admitted” it. You can’t try that dodge with me. I have explicitly “clarified” and denied the meaning Skip ascribes to me. And yet… he still charges forward and says I admitted it.
elucidator:
Since you have indicated that it’s acceptable to say that you “admitted” something, based solely on the inference and reasoning of the person announcing the “admission:”
You have some nerve complaining about the process by which Voter IS laws are passed, since you yourself admitted[sup][/sup] that the only reason Democrats fight against these laws is their wish to retain all the non-citizens and felons that routinely vote Democratic.
[sup][/sup] For this new, broad version of “admitted,” which allows me to say this without elucidator having said any such thing.
So, Bricker, are you ready to apologize to me for lying about my position on gerrymandering?
I mean your lie was so brazen, that I assume you’re alluding to it here.
Not at all. You can easily get my apology by linking to your previous posts that show how wrong I was. Why don’t you do that?
Because, you are offering an illogical and nonsensical method of proving you wrong.
As far as I know there has never been a gerrymandering thread in GD. The fact that I didn’t interact in said thread, if it existed, and didn’t mention that Democrats are wrong too when the gerrymander, in a thread I never attended, doesn’t mean that I support Democratic party gerrymandering.
Much like you don’t support raping tiny baby ducklings. Wait, actually you must. Because you’ve never posted in a duckling-raping thread that you are against it. :rolleyes:
Bricker, I know you’re just lying about my position so you can bat your eyelashes and play stupid. But you’re not stupid and you’re not a great actor. So how about you apologize and move on.
One also might note that you’re a complete hypocrite for accusing 'Luci or what you specifically have done. But then, evidence of you being a complete hypocrite isn’t exactly as rare as sasquach eggs.
Got a little amnesia, do you?
I didn’t insist on seeing only your gerrymandering bona fides:
You forgot that one, huh?
What’s next, Lobohan?
Here’s my guess: “As far as I know there has never been a thread in GD where Democrats were criticized. The fact that I didn’t interact in said thread, if it existed, and didn’t mention that Democrats are wrong too when the Democrats were criticized, in a thread I never attended, doesn’t mean that I support Democrats.”
I’m sorry, liar, you actually did:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15301034&postcount=1616)
You later moved the goalposts. Are you admitting that you’re doing that?
Is your logical contention that if I find one thing I don’t agree with any one democratic lawmaker on, I suddenly don’t support Democratic gerrymandering?
Bricker, your utter failure has driven you to incoherence. You need to admit you’re lying about me so you can get better.
<3
Yes, I moved the goalposts – in your direction!
You objected to my demand that you produce posts criticizing gerrymandering Democrats, so I expanded it – doesn’t have to be gerrymandering now. It can be ANYTHING, except criticisms for Democrats who are agreeing with Republican policy.
And you still can’t do that!!!
And you can’t admit it.
This is great. This is what I’ll start linking to from now on, Lobohan, everytime you open your mouth around me.
This does not logically follow.
I don’t support gerrymandering. I know districts need to be redrawn, and it should be done in as neutral a way as possible.
And you’re lying about my position based on nothing more than the “fact” that I never previously, on this board decried “Democratic Party Gerrymandering.”
Anyone can see that this isn’t sound. We don’t regularly have gerrymandering threads. And I haven’t been a part of those we did have (that I can recall, anyway).
Of course the real takeaway here is that you’re trying to suggest that gerrymandering is a particularly Democratic Party problem. I haven’t heard that before. I assumed it is either relatively equal, or because Republicans like cheating (see the voter ID thread we’re in) it was more on the Republican side. Although I’d be open to information either way.
It’s like you’ve forgotten how to think. Or at least are so shrill and angry that you’ve forgotten how to hide that you aren’t thinking.
And I’d like you to retract your original claim.
I’m saying that even if I don’t have anti Democratic Party posts here (and I surely do) it doesn’t have bearing on whether I believe that gerrymandering is okay if Democrats do it.
It’s incoherent. You’re asking for my height to prove I didn’t watch an episode of Matlock on Thursday. The thing you are asking for doesn’t prove what you want proven.
Please do. You’re obviously trying to get back on the attack after slippy-sliding for days in your own shit.
But don’t lie to do it. Try to win the argument on the merits.
Well, sure except he didn’t mention any of that. He said “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.” The subject of the sentence is voter ID. The subject of the sentence is most assuredly not the state of the economy, because it is not mentioned. Typing too fast for you? Let me know…
And if he states that voter ID is “gonna allow Governor Romney to win”, he probably means that voter ID is going to allow Romney to win. See the quote marks? They’re there because that’s precisely what he said. The only conceivable interpretation is that he thinks that Obama will get less votes than Romney, due to voter ID restrictions. Rhetoric getting a bit too complex for you? Let me know…
Ah. So your complaint is not with the actual content, but with that one word, “admitted”. I suppose “gloated” might have been better. But to be perfectly neutral, “stated” would have been best, as it has no conclusion about the mind set of the speaker.
So, he didn’t admit that the point of the legislation was to tilt the playing field in favor of Republicans, he merely alluded to it. Huge difference, being somewhere between a gnat’s eyelash and a butterfly fart.
Not Skip. Me. Over here. The lefty hive mind exists only in your fevered imagination, we do not collude on our postings. The fact that we have very similar views as to your dishonesty and utter lack of scruple has one essential origin: your dishonesty and utter lack of scruples.
Uh dude, I was just following your lead. My Communist Party Dispatches didn’t arrive this week, so I wasn’t sure of our talking points. 
Fine, forget gerrymandering. I’m sure you’ve never seen it mentioned, probably had to look up the word when I said it here. You’ve never been given a single opportunity to assess Democratic gerrymandering in your history here on the SDMB, and that explains why you’ve never criticized it.
Now – what explains your lack of any examples of criticizing Democrats for other things? (Except, of course, for agreeing with Republicans).
Is that a retraction for your continuing lies about me and my position on gerrymandering?
It doesn’t sound much like a retraction.
I’m pretty sure I called John Edwards a douche at some point. Good enough?
No. Why is that the only conceivable interpretation, when I gave you another one? His was not a thesis statement. It did not mathematically lay out each of its assumptions. Merely because he did not explicitly say, “…along with a weakened economy and a foundering President Obama…” does not mean it’s excluded. Everyone in the audience knew the economy was weak and Obama is in trouble.
In any event, this entire conversation is moot, as you admitted[sup]*[/sup] before that the guy was being treated unfairly for his remarks by Democrats, who were seizing on it and twisting it to mean something he didn’t say.
I’d give you “alluded.” Because at least “alluded” recognizes what “stated” or “admitted” does not: that there is an inferential gap between what was SAID and what you’re claiming. An allusion may be debated.
As you yourself have admitted[sup]*[/sup] multiple times.
Leaving aside, for now, the sad spectacle of Bricker abandoning his last shred of dignity…
What does Turzai actually believe? Does he really believe that the Dems are marching hordes of illegal voters to the polls? Or does he think his audience is so stupid that they believe it, even if he doesn’t? How deep does this rot go?
I fear I have been operating under outdated notions, such as the relative sanity of my political opponents. I have underestimated the depth and virulence of their hatred for Obama, and everything he represents to them. Not my father’s Oldsmobile, and not his Republican Party.
What would Barry do? Not Barry Obama, Barry Goldwater. Kinda my “go to” guy when thinking about the honesty and integrity of Republicans. I have little doubt he would have favored voter ID laws, as I do, if honestly and sincerely applied. But I very much doubt he would have stood silently by as such laws were applied to create an unfair and undemocratic advantage for Republicans. He was not a perfect paragon of integrity, no politician can be, it is functionally impossible. But he stands head and shoulders above the people who have taken his place. He wouldn’t have scraped them off his boots, he’d throw the boots away.
I remember reading about his vote against the Civil Rights bill, how he agonized over it, but finally decided that it was a “states rights” issue and his principles would not let him vote for making it a federal issue, however worthy the goal. I thought then, and think now, that he was tragically wrong, but at least I understand the reasoning.
But not these people. I cannot grasp any of it, its insane, it is venomous and hateful. We need an honest conservative party, it is necessary, even if only as a Loyal Opposition. We need someone to counsel for prudence and caution. We need people who accept the inevitability of change but will offer guidance on careful consideration. This is legitimate, valid, useful.
But even here, the madness abounds. **Bricker **remains our most intelligent and coherent conservative. And what a sad commentary that is!
Bleeding Og, its come to this? Should we place an ad in other message boards, honest conservative wanted, must possess rudimentary awareness of scruples and dignity?