Can you cite where he said that municipalities can do the job better? He may have, I just didn’t see it. Can you point it out?
The pitting is lame. This excuse is even lamer.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Why don’t you get to know him to know him a little better before you jump to his defense?
[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn’t he evaluate him on the example you gave? If it was so stupid or ridiculous, that would be enough, wouldn’t it. Seems like you had a weak point and now that you’ve been called on it you want protection from the general left-leaningness of the board. The old, “but he’s one of the bad guys”. Whaaah.
Actually, as has been pointed out, his statement is not indefensible. For instance, San Francisco has some laws in place that protect the environment as well as, if not better than, the federal government. Recycling for instance.
The fact that you’re pitting someone for a position that they’ve never actually taken is a bit more than a “very small” issue. It’s more along the lines of “gaping flaw that entirely destroys your position.”
If you don’t like people pointing out how much you suck, the best solution is to stop sucking so much. Throwing a tantrum doesn’t make you look any better.
Also:
[Moderating]
Telling other posters to fuck off is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid using these terms in the future.
Well, the fact is that there is an “optimum” crime rate, in the sense that trying to push it below that level costs too much in money, civil liberties, etc to be worthwhile.
Miller’s line reminds me of an episode of Office. Michael tells Dwight. “Don’t be an idiot”. Cut to Dwight talking to the camera. He says (something along the lines of), “I appreciate Michael’s advice. And when he tells me that I think, ‘What would an idiot do?’, then I don’t do that thing.”
Honest to god, couldn’t we just have pitted him for his user name alone? I can’t ever get past it, because it leaves the impression that he’s a conservative because it’s contrary and shocking, not out of any real conviction. This isn’t political: if someone’s user name were “OMG . . . a pagan!” or “OMG. . . a cancer survivor” or “OMG . . . a home-schooled red-headed midget!” I’d have the same reaction. It’s adolescent and distracting.
Color me confused. You directly quoted a post of his that wasn’t quoted by anyone but you, so you couldn’t have seen it as a second hand quote from someone you don’t have on ignore. So clearly you either don’t have him on ignore, or you do have him on ignore but can’t stop yourself from using the ‘read this one post by the poster on your ignore list feature.’ Which would kind of indicate you in fact do waste time thinking about him, more than you would waste by not bothering to put him on ignore in the first place.
“But, Lady Foxfyre. you couldn’t have arrived on the 3:17 train from Bollocks because, due to a mishap at the Cockupshire station, the Bollocks Limited did not arrive until 3:47!..”
His user name is significant because of the stereotype that conservatism is anti-black. He knows better, and thus has obviously chosen to debunk that stereotype and proclaim his credentials as a free-thinker by chosing the user name he did. I say kudos to him.
Jesus christ. Yes, I do have him on ignore. I read his posts in this thread because this thread is about him, and some of us can’t help but watch the train wreck every once in a while. It’s really not the national scandal you’re both making it out to be.
Then be “Black Conservative”. The “OMG” sounds childish, and suggests that he’s already decided everyone else is going to just being reeling in shock that such a person exists.
And the more interested someone is in emphasizing that they are free-thinking, the more skeptical I am about their actual free thinking tendencies.
