I Told You So

[Scylla]

@Finagle

Bricker,

This was one of the most classless posts I've ever seen on the SDMB.    I've lost a lot of respect for you in the past few weeks reading your election-related screeds.

You must be joking. Bricker has a been a paragon of restraint and virtue for like five fucking years.

Take your double standard shove it up your ass and twist it counterclockwise.

How many times has Bricker been attacked accused of bigotry, and had his character assasinated simply because those he was discussing issues with were too fucking stupid and lazy to respond to him on the high ground he refused to abandon?

A hundred? Two hundred times?

You ever once defend him? You ever once apply your standard to those attacking him?

I guess it’s ok for Hentor to say what he says, but God forbid Bricker should give back 1% of what he’s received.

Fucking hypocrite.

It pisses me off so much I could stick tomatos and hot peppers up my ass and shit salsa over you.

Take your stale pretentious and hypocritical dorito of disaproval and dip it in that!

[MaxTheVool]

@Scylla

You must be joking. Bricker has a been a paragon of restraint and virtue for like five fucking years.

I agree that Bricker is generally a very decent guy, who is willing to listen to reason, admit when he is wrong, and articulately defend his positions without resorting to insulting or name calling.
On the other hand, he DID start a thread entitled “I told you so”. So let’s not go starting a religion to worship him.

[Bricker]

@MaxTheVool

I agree that Bricker is generally a very decent guy, who is willing to listen to reason, admit when he is wrong, and articulately defend his positions without resorting to insulting or name calling.
On the other hand, he DID start a thread entitled “I told you so”. So let’s not go starting a religion to worship him.

Brickerism

I like it.

[Lobsang]

I actually kept my implied word and spent time away from the SDMB.

But I’m coming back (from sleep) to say this… I have noticed, mindfully (in the sense of looking at ones own feelings as if from a 3rd person perspective) that I don’t actually care much that GWB won. I feel an unexpected sense of apathy. A feeling that bizare things are going to happen whether I care about them or not, so I may as well not care. I happen to think it is totally bizare that GWB was re-elected, but so what? What good is my non-counting (and non-educated) opinion going to matter? I want all the election threads out of the way becuse my newfound apathy (while it lasts) means I aint participating in them, and they are kind of crowding the mundane pointless threads I know and love.

[Lobsang]

Heck, even if the religious are right and I am going to hell. Hell here I come cos I aint going to start believing.

[yosemite]

@MaxTheVool

On the other hand, he DID start a thread entitled “I told you so”. So let’s not go starting a religion to worship him.

I think he earned that, actually.

I don’t have a big dog in this race. If you look back at all the threads where everyone was duking it out with Bricker, you’ll rarely find me there. That’s because I usually wasn’t involved, and frequently wasn’t even reading.

I used to see mentions of Bricker here, and I think a Pit thread or two directed at Bricker (can’t really remember) and since I wasn’t really paying attention, I was getting the impression that Bricker was some First Class Prick. But it looks like he really hasn’t been that way. I haven’t read all his posts so I don’t know for sure, but generally, he doesn’t seem that way. (And I see MaxTheVool confirms this.)

But I was getting this impression—for the longest time—that he must be some sort of complete asshole ogre. But he’s not, is he? And it looks like he’s taken more than his share of flak, hasn’t he? There’s a whole lot of you who seem to pile on him, isn’t there? (I could be wrong, but it sure looks that way to me.)

So given that he’s taken all of that, I think he deserves this thread. The OP isn’t venomous or nasty. He was just following through on something that he said he was going to follow through on, and, I believe, he deserves to follow through on.

@Scylla

I guess it’s ok for Hentor to say what he says, but God forbid Bricker should give back 1% of what he’s received.

I suspect that Scylla is right about this.

I’ve had a few run-ins with this kind of treatment in my past, and it always is amusing. You stick your neck out, you take a stand. You get skewered for it. Cornered and perhaps bullied. You take it. Then comes the time when you are proven right, and then everyone’s sullen and deeply offended that you have the audacity to say, “Remember that thing that you skewered me about? Well, I was right. How do you like them apples?” Oh no. Nobody likes to hear that. They’d prefer that you’d tastefully forget all about what they said to you—how they treated you. But they don’t deserve that, you know?

Now, since I admit I’m partially out of the loop with the goings-on between Bricker and the rest of you, I cannot be positive that the same thing has happened here. But it sure smells like it from my perspective.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

As I said before, I expected an “I told you so” from Bricker. Some people are quietly confident and don’t need to derive their sense of satisfaction from needling others. Then there are people like Bricker. That’s fine. I would have said I was wrong and left it at that. I was, plain and simple, wrong. I had my reasons for believing what I did, and they were wrong.

However, “I told you so” and this…:

@Bricker

What do you have to say now, Hentor? I was certain, and I BACKED UP THAT CERTAINTY with a lot of talk, and some cash. You were “certain,” too, but the only thing that you backed it up with was talk. And here we are. I told you I was certain, and you tole me you were certain. Only one of us actually put something on the line, and it was the guy who was right.

…this continuation of the “if you don’t wager, you aren’t certain” bullshit makes him a cunt. Fuck his presumptions. I’m still curious what his response would be to my questions. If you’re certain about your child’s surgery, would you wager on it? Would you make a bet about the next terrorist attack? Are some things too important to wager on?

I explained once, and his response was, “Well, I’ll allow that you might have reasons not to wager, but if you don’t rebut my position, you don’t know what you are talking about.”

So, fuck off, Scylla. I’m man enough to state plainly that I was wrong, but I won’t eat shit from a little gloating weasel like Bricker.

And Shodan, you are a sniveling little pussy.

[samclem]

Bricker.

First, I’ll admit I was wrong about the Republican strategist mishandling the re-election. They did it right.

My statement/question is----you aren’t the Bricker of 1-2-3-4-5 years ago.

Is it just the election? Or is something else going on? While you were/are the consumate stickler for being precise, you have developed an edge. If it’s just about the election, then it’s understandable.

If it’s too personal a question, then just ignore it.

[samclem]

@manhattan

And, for whatever it’s worth, Paul Wellstone also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, his “no” vote on the force authorization notwithstanding. (cite)

Since individuals had no information about the existance of WMD other than the incorrect information provided by the Bush Administration, it’s pretty hard to condemn a person for saying there were WMD.

Wellstone, much like Sen. Wayne Morse during Viet Nam, didn’t let mis-information stand in the way of opposing something that was basically a bad idea.

That’s what Viet Nam was and Iraq is–a bad idea. One conceived by a Democrat, the other by a Republican.

[Bricker]

@samclem

Bricker.

First, I’ll admit I was wrong about the Republican strategist mishandling the re-election. They did it right.

My statement/question is----you aren’t the Bricker of 1-2-3-4-5 years ago.

Is it just the election? Or is something else going on? While you were/are the consumate stickler for being precise, you have developed an edge. If it’s just about the election, then it’s understandable.

If it’s too personal a question, then just ignore it.

I think that edge has come from being called evil, racist, homophobic, bigoted, and an Uncle Tom on this board, with very little rebuttal or defense from others, and apologies later from, I think, no more than two or three of the attackers.

Yeah, I’d say it’s given me a little edge.

[Scylla]

@samclem

Bricker.

First, I’ll admit I was wrong about the Republican strategist mishandling the re-election. They did it right.

My statement/question is----you aren’t the Bricker of 1-2-3-4-5 years ago.

Is it just the election? Or is something else going on? While you were/are the consumate stickler for being precise, you have developed an edge. If it’s just about the election, then it’s understandable.

If it’s too personal a question, then just ignore it.

Though this has not been addressed to me, I would like to respond. This is not the board of 1-2-3-4-5 years ago.

Rather than wonder why Bricker has gotten pissed off and gained an edge, I would think the better question would by members of the reasonable and rational left such as yourself failed to support the rational right as exemplified by the behavior of Bricker these last years?

By all rights, it seems to me that you should have been firmly on his side and supporting him against the hateful and fringe elements of the board. The fact they also lean left should not excuse them your ire. I would have expected that your ire and zeal in attacking them would have increased since the fact that they were on your side and behaving so poorly reflected badly on your positions.

So, why are you asking why Bricker has a slight edge, and quietly ignoring the fact that for the last 4 fucking years the likes of Hentor and Elucidator and Stoid have been attacking him and his beliefs and painting him as a bigot and engaging in cruel and demeaning insults and attacks on a constant basis?

Why was the rational left not questioning that behavior?
It seems to me like you guys just stood and watched and didn’t do anything and now you wonder why we’re a little pissed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@manhattan

And, for whatever it’s worth, Paul Wellstone also believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, his “no” vote on the force authorization notwithstanding. (cite)

I’m getting kind of tired of this continuing justification that everybody and his dog thought there were WMD in Iraq. That incorrectly frames the justification. The mere presence of WMD in Iraq was NOT an ispo facto justification for an invasion. Sure, everybody thought he probably had somethingb (and what they really thought was that Saddam had some mustard gas or some old ricin cannisters, nobody thought he had fucking ICBMs) but the justification for the invasion was not the presence of banned weapons but the FALSE allegation that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US which could only be stopped by a preemptive attack on sovereignty.

Paul Wellstone did NOT believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US and neither did John Kerry or Bill Clinton or the Dali fucking Lama or anybody else you warhawks keep trying to point to as being in W’s camp on the war.

WMD is an oversimplification of the justification. Imminent threat was the justification and imminent threat is not satisfied by the mere presence of some unexploded ricin shells or some goddamn yellowcake ore.

Having said that, I will say that I don’t care if Hillary approved of the war or if Carl Sagan, Jesus and Jerry Garcia all thought Iraq had nukes. That doesn’t mean I have to believe it. They do not speak for me and I don’t care what they think.
Also, I would just like to remind everybody that there WEREN’T ANY WMD! No matter how sure anybody was before the war. Nobody KNEW and being sure just wasn’t good enoufgh.

[Scylla]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Paul Wellstone did NOT believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US and neither did John Kerry or Bill Clinton or the Dali fucking Lama or anybody else you warhawks keep trying to point to as being in W’s camp on the war.

If they did not beleive it, that makes them liars because they sure as hell said it. Kerry said it as recently as the last debate. Clinton said it all through the accusations that he was “wagging the dog.” Truth is I don’t know what the Dali Lama or Wellstone thought.
(BTW, I made a response to some questions you asked on page 2. My response is post #98 on that page. If you don’t mind, I would like to here your thoughts on that response, if any.)

[elucidator]

(I just posted this to the wrong thread, so I repeating myself. If thats wrong, I’m sorry, but as sorry as I am already, it hardly matters…)

I see it now, as through a glass, darkly. I remember now, why this all feels like deja vu. Its going to be Nixon, all over again. A fiercely divided nation, a stupid and unjustifiable war. The fierce patriots, blinded by pain, insisting, demanding, that any dissent is treason, that all must march in step. And we who dissent, unable to gaze upon our own flag without mixed feelings. And like Nixon, the lies hidden away till after the election will surface, like the poisoned mud at the bottom of a polluted pond. The defenders will deny the truth, even as it stares them in the face like a betrayed lover. the dissenters will flinch every time another one surfaces, to the shame of our beloved country.

There is only one word.

Heartsick

[yosemite]

@Scylla

Though this has not been addressed to me, I would like to respond. This is not the board of 1-2-3-4-5 years ago.
…

It seems to me like you guys just stood and watched and didn’t do anything and now you wonder why we’re a little pissed.

I’d like to second this.

I don’t engage in a lot of the political debates. Just now and then. I know I’m a lightweight when it comes to politics. But Scylla and Bricker are right. Things have gotten really bad lately. Bad enough so that someone like me—who’s a lightweight and who half the time isn’t paying attention—is noticing. And as you all can tell from my join date, I’ve been here a looong time.

You guys (some of you guys) are losing it. Things are different now. Things are much worse. Some of you are beyond the pale. You’ll notice lately that I’m participating in threads where I’m trying to explain that the spittle-flying, raving lunacy and demonizing isn’t working, and there’s a reason for that. When someone as out of the loop and oblivious as me has had enough, (and I’ve certainly had ENOUGH) then I think that it’s an indication that things have really changed for the worse.

While I don’t think excessive gloating is the best approach and it’s certainly not something I’m inclined to do myself at the moment, I can’t begrudge Bricker popping a cork a little. It seems to me that he’s been long-suffering for quite a while.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Scylla

If they did not beleive it, that makes them liars because they sure as hell said it. Kerry said it as recently as the last debate. Clinton said it all through the accusations that he was “wagging the dog.” Truth is I don’t know what the Dali Lama or Wellstone thought.
(BTW, I made a response to some questions you asked on page 2. My response is post #98 on that page. If you don’t mind, I would like to here your thoughts on that response, if any.)

There is threat and there is imminent threat. None of those individuals thought that Iraq represented an immediate threat which required a preemtive military invasion. They though Iraq had to be dealt with. They did not think it had to be invaded.

I’ll find your other questions and respond.

[Random]

@Bricker

I think that edge has come from being called evil, racist, homophobic, bigoted, and an Uncle Tom on this board, with very little rebuttal or defense from others…

I wasn’t a participant in those threads, but I did read them. Most of the time, I agreed with you. There were times that I considered joining in on your side when the Shrill ‘n’ Irrational Brigade attacked you, but didn’t. Mainly, that was because you didn’t seem to need the help.

[Scylla]

@Diogenes the Cynic

There is threat and there is imminent threat. None of those individuals thought that Iraq represented an immediate threat which required a preemtive military invasion. They though Iraq had to be dealt with. They did not think it had to be invaded.

I think that’s pretty easily disproved. There’s a quote in this thread saying what Kerry thought, and Kerry signed a resolution stating that Iraq was an imminent threat and authorizing the President to use military force at his discretion, and during the debate he said (my paraphrase) that Saddam was a threat and that his stance was consistent in authorizing the war but his key difference is that he would have built a better consensus than Bush did before the invasion.

Clinton himself instituted the no fly zones and was lobbing tomahawks over there (IIRC) correctly and both of those are certainly invasions and his stated objective with Iraq was regime change.

SO… I think you are wrong on your statement.

If you will consider that for the moment and permit me the courtesy of trying to articulate what you are really trying to say, then:

If you mean that neither Kerry nor Clinton would have reacted or endorsed a reaction as extreme and immediate as Bush’s to the threat they beleived Saddam presented, than you are probably correct.

[elucidator]

Or to rephrase it another way, neither Clinton nor Kerry would have gotten a thousand of our best and brightest killed for what proved to be a chimera.

Really, its just a matter of phrasing. Except, maybe, to them.

[milroyj]

Seems the board is acting all wonky again, and the hamsters are eating posts wholesale. Else, where is elucidator’s apology for his lie in this thread? Curious…