I can’t make it, but I’ve dropped off my saguaro cactus to take my place.
I wasn’t suggesting you were a mind reader. But surely you can have an *opinion *on what someone else is probably thinking. I take it from your above response that you think it’s unfair of me to ask for an honest opinion, in a thread where you deem honesty to be in general short supply. Would you mind if I started a new GD thread sometime and asked you your opinion on Tarzai’s likely motivations there?
Giving you a rhetorical ass-whipping, proving you wrong over and over, and making you look foolish are not at all dishonest. I invite you to put forward any lie I have ever told in this thread or any other.
Just as a quick gut check here, let me review this. You’re asking this of a person who just told you that his inclination toward honest representation of his beliefs to you is dependent on how he feels about the sincerity * of others*.
Do you expect such a person to be more or less disingenuous in a more formal debate setting?
I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, particularly since, in a public forum, he can’t very well state his beliefs only to me, even if that’s his intent. Rightly or wrongly, it looks like he feels I’d be setting him up for a sucker punch by another poster.
It’s the Pit. In my lurking experience, the balance here between honest debate and emotional fist-swinging is quite different from the “more formal debate setting” over the in the next room.
Suit yourself, Parthol, of course, but I think you’re buying into a shaky idea - that if one is arguing with person or persons who’ve shown bad faith, one’s own continuing good faith opens one up to damage in some way. This actually makes very little sense. Failing to perceive bad faith in others invariably leads to frustration in your own efforts, and failing to call out the tactics of such people can lead to poor advocacy of your own positions, but this is far different than opening yourself up to “a sucker punch” of some sort. In rhetoric all it really means is one more bad faith argument you must deal with that doesn’t actually imperil your own position.
Anyone who flat out tells you their honesty is provisional on the level of rhetorical advantage or disadvantage it entails is not to be trusted. That they are so proud of their mercenary code of ruthless advocacy that they display it like a badge should be a bit of a red flag to you that, even when you reveal one dishonesty, they’ll unabashedly continue to lie to you, because they think it’s morally upright to do so in defense of their position.
The downside is so tiny as to be irrelevant?
Are you SHITTING me, dude?
MILLIONS of people will be — will be — disenfranchised by these laws. Millions.
And fewer than 10 in-person voter fraud cases have been prosecuted and won in over ten years across the entire country. You really hold that the “threat” of fewer than one individual per year casting a vote in person**** as someone they aren’t is greater than the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible voters?
I wonder why Republicans haven’t been enacting legislation to restrict absentee ballots, considering that absentee ballot fraud is actually quite rampant.
Oh wait. I don’t actually have to wonder. A significant portion of their constituency votes using absentee ballots!
There’s the evidence that puts the lie to the claim that Republicans actually give two shits about voter fraud or the “feeling” that their elections are “safe” from nogoodnicks masquerading as others. If it’s so goddamn important that everyone have a photo ID that meets exact specifications from a specific source in order to vote, then make it that way UNIVERSALLY. No more fucking absentee voting. Either show your face or fuck off. Buh-bye military advantage! How’s that for treating everyone equally?
Yeah, didn’t think so.
An honest mistake on his part. I’m sure he thinks ‘Democratic’ is spelled t-i-n-y.
I very much doubt there’s enough illegal voters voting to sway an election either way. I also think that’s not the point.
Yes.
No.
Not one person will be disenfranchised by these laws. Anyone entitled to vote can get ID, for free if they can’t afford it. There will be some people who choose not to vote because of this. That’s not disenfranchisement.
I don’t buy the “anyone can easily get ID” bullshit. A lot of people were born in different states than where they live, getting a birth certificate so they can get the ID may be difficult and time-consuming. And all this to solve a problem that doesn’t fucking exist.
I assume they received a birth certificate at birth. Getting a replacement isn’t a service that’s required to be free. That said, if it’s either extremely difficult or expensive, it could rise to being an unacceptable burden. Do you have any evidence that it is so in any state?
I actually checked earlier how easy it would be for me to get a replacement, for what little value that would be as I’m not in the US, and it consisted of paying a small fee, entering my full name, place and date of birth, and parents names into the government website, and waiting a few weeks.
Ever occur to you that not everyone has internet service? Not everyone even knows what state they were born in. Not everyone has the means to send money out of state to process the application for a birth certificate. And all to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist.
Dishonest debate is what I had in mind from you.
So, that’s a “no” then?
KFTC, Bricker.
You lied when you again defended your dishonest repetition of my line about how it is acceptable for some people to die for lack of medical funding.
I have no interest in handing you any additional bullets for that gun.
I haven’t lied about a damn thing. In fact, it’s hilarious now that I’m being asked my opinion and refuse to give it, when the simplest thing would be to lie. Right?
I know that’s foreign to you.
And notice how your goal posts veritably leapt around the field.
Oh, I never said a thing about gerrymandering. I never saw any such thread!
Ok, forget gerrymandering – any negative words about any Democratic politician?
uh… that’s a bizarre test, so I won’t answer!
You don’t know what, or how, to think. You read Huffngton Post or the New York Times, learn the liberal line, and parrot it. For a supposed independent thinker, it’s amazing that no Democrat has ever done anything, anything at all, that caused you to comment unfavorably – except agree with a Republican. Yet somehow, you’ve found plenty to disagree with from Republicans.
What would be a better test of blind partisanship?
Sure.
And those Voter ID laws? They still in effect?
Yes?
Ahhhhh… Life is good.
Exactly. I answered an honest question from another poster, once upon a time, and was rewarded by shit-for-brains Lobohan linking to just my answer, without the question and the debate that surrounded it, crowing how Bricker wants people to die.
No more. You want to know what Tarzai thought? Ask him. I am not serving up any good faith admissions here.
Name them.
There have been more voter fraud cases. Many more.
Do you see my point?
Your rebuttal to my claim is, I assume: “Name them.”
Why must I name the specific voter fraud cases and you can skate by with vague claims?
No. Someone might not be able to do or know those things right now, but they could easily do them at some point over the course of several years.
I’ve already said I doubt there’s a significant problem with illegal voters, and that in some states the Republicans are doing this purely for partisan reasons. That doesn’t mean I’m suddenly going to agree that it’s difficult to get ID, when no-one’s actually shown evidence of that.
So, name that then. Give me one example of dishonest debate from me.