I believe Bricker made arguments that he did not believe just to stir shit up. He started threads with the same purpose.
I believe that Bricker has had shit thrown at him so much and so unjustifiably on this board that he occasionally loses best judgment in his responses. And then those people throwing shit point to this to prove that they were right about Bricker and his positions.
I also don’t believe that Bricker has ever made an argument just to stir shit up.
He opened the Acorn thread and fought for pages as he was dismantled.
He opened a thread saying he was thinking of voting for Obama. It was bull and we all knew it.
He argued for Palin being the head of the Senate. He used forceps to rip arguments out of his sphincter.
Then he has defended Palin over and over. He is 90 percent on his wat to being Shodan.
He’s also honestly and openly changed his mind on major policy issues at least twice due to the sound arguments put forward by others.
I did vote for Obama, gonzomax.
Covered. (Not WRT to Bricker, see above, but in, you know, general terms.)
Well, all right then. Now, here’s your Birkenstock catalog, some tofu recipes…
How come, Bricker? (Yes, because you felt he was the right man for the job.) But still, talk to me, here.
Yeah, I’m still new to all this – do I have to start hugging trees now, or wait until spring?
I stood in line for more than two hours, trying to decide what to do. I always used to mentally sneer at people who claimed they were “undecided” a week before Election Day; now I have some insight on that.
In the end, I replayed in my mind Palin’s voice saying breezily “I read all of 'em,” when asked what specific news magazines she follows, prayed urgently for the health of the extant Supreme Court justices, and voted Obama/Biden.
Not without conflict, mind you. But that’s how the balance resolved itself.
And how did you resolve the issues you found so deeply disturbing about Obama? I’d be more specific but I don’t have handy the link to your announcement of deciding he was unworthy of your vote.
If you’re talking about the Pit thread that was inspired by the idiocy of “Palin’s faked pregnancy,” I disavowed that shortly after starting it, in that same thread.
But even in that thread, I said I found anything deeply disturbing about Obama. I defy you or anyone to find such a comment from me about him. Obama’s idiot supporters got my ire. I did (and do) disagree with many of his policies, but that disagreement was balanced by my concern about Palin’s intellectual chops and my admiration of the kind of campaign Obama ran.
Would it be too Freudian of me to point out your innocent omission of the word “never” (I presume) in this sentence? 
D’oh!!
Yes, I did inadvertently (and not Freudianly! 
) omit “never.”
I never said I found anything deeply disturbing about Obama. The only serious criticism I leveled against him was his campaign finance reversal, and even that was tempered with a “completely understandable” caveat.
There were many things I thought McCain held better positions on. But in the end, I felt McCain had let himself become too controlled by advice from staff, and Palin couldn’t name a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade and couldn’t name a news magazine she read. I didn’t want to reward that decision-making process with a vote.
Oh, there’s plenty of things to worry about Obama with. His interactions with John McCain trouble me a bit, but it’s all he-said she-said.
(You’ve read the Newsweek article series? The bipartisan letter bit.)
I can’t agree with you more about the staff thing. The staff was running McCain’s campaign, and that’s no way for a president to behave. Obama, on the other hand, took control of the entire Democratic Party, and I have no idea how the hell he pulled that off.
Considering what the Marine Corps band was playing at Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration, I’d say that’s not out of the question.
If he pays off then tries to take it back you know what that’d make him.
Ya gotta figure, anyone who can tell Howard Dean to sit down and shut up for a minute has got to demand some respect.
A ni–oh, nevermind.
Except I can’t see any of those as examples of Bricker just “stirring up shit”. The man’s changed mind multiple times on this board, often over positions he publicly defended on this board. If he’s just trying to stir up shit why would he do that?
Just because you disagree with him doesn’t mean he’s not sincere in what he says. I don’t post a lot, but I pay close attention to Bricker’s arguments when I come across them because I’ve always found his logic to be sound, even if he’s arguing from unsound premises.
I’ve also found him to be gracious in victory as well as defeat. Except for when he gets tired of people slinging shit at him just because they disagree with him.
That is, generally, the only flaw in Bricker’s arguments. Trying to spot his unsound premise is not easy.