Well yeah, I would have. But I didn’t do so great in school. I did give my honest answer, even though I can make a reasonable assumption about what answer you are looking for.
I really was a smart ass in school. I always recommend that people teach their kids to gve the answer they know the teacher wants, even if it’s not correct for some reason. But I usually didn’t do that. Lost points that way, on tests that is, in other ways it was beneficial to me.
“Pubbies” has a completely different definition to me than “Republicans.” I didn’t even know the guy was talking about Republicans until the second paragraph, by which point my eyes were glazing over from boredom anyway. If you have a point, make it mothafucka!*
*Not directed at anyone in this thread, but at the guy being quoted. Pretend Samuel L. Jackson is saying it!
The poll’s not closed yet: there’s no rush.
This whole thing gives off the strong vibe of being some kind of gotcha setup, mostly because the quoted text is very clearly and obviously negative toward Republicans, including use of what I generally consider to be a pejorative term, “Pubbies.” So that’s why everyone seems to be wondering what your actual agenda is here, as it is difficult to believe that as a human being who is capable of reading and discussing here at an adult level, you are genuinely confused and needing help understanding the text you quoted.
Edit: And no, I didn’t respond in the poll. I don’t like feeling set up or tricked.
I don’t have any confusion at all. I am confident about my conclusion. But the author of the piece believes that it constitutes a condemnation of Dems. The author points to the fact that the piece says, “…dared the Dems to commit a sordid and partisan act. The Dems called…” as evidence that the piece says the Dems committed a sordid act. Therefore, according to the author, the reader should conclude that the intent was to criticize Dems.
I disagreed, and offered to post it here to garner reactions.
Thanks. This makes more sense. I have no idea why you didn’t just say that in the first place.
Edit: It’s not exactly glowing towards Democrats but it’s pretty clearly written by someone who is very anti-Republican. Also someone who needs to sell his thesaurus and learn how to write a clear sentence. God.
Class disMISSED!
I didn’t want to skew anyone’s answers; I wanted the piece to be read tabula rasa.
So instead of just providing the name of the author and the source of the text so you could present the ravings of one idiot as representative of all liberals, you made up a game about a high school standardized exam to associate that concept with the lunatic as well. Very clever for a conservative.
My sister’s been taking a test with parts similar to the SATs, including these types. They’re absolutely stupid, and this question shows why.
I think the obvious choice is that it shows more negativity to the “Pubbies” than the “Dems”. The entire piece criticizes the Pubbies in various ways, and is largely silent as to the Dems except as to their role in balancing the Pubbies. A closer reading shows that the Dems committed a “sordid act”, which could reasonably allow for “equal reaction” or “it is unclear” or “something else”, but never would I say the answer could be “more negative to Dems than Pubbies.”
I’ve always hated these questions because a person could reasonably argue something many different ways, and more than one answer has validity, turning figuring out the “correct” answer into a measure of degree. (“Which is most right?”) Ugh. And of course ending it with “some other answer, explain below” is just diabolical for a multiple-choice test.
What? Where have I once said this was representative of all liberals? Where have I even implied it?
You still have made a choice.
Just do a search on all posts by Bricker. It’s your constant theme, one liberal does something stupid that you characterize as representatives of liberals. Can you tell us any rational reason for starting this thread in this manner. The text clearly shows bias toward Republicans, and only contorted reasoning could be used to show otherwise. Your example gave no indication of the author, so I had no basis to establish it’s intent, but you have a history of using the conservative tactic of framing specific questions within a general political context, so you made it easy.
OH COME ON. Seriously?! This is about a post that was made three years ago?!
Christ on a cracker.
Edit: This is really obnoxious behavior. Taking another SDMB poster’s words (made 3 years ago, no less) and putting them up here “anonymously” to get a bunch of reactions that you can then take to that poster and say “ha, I was right,” when nobody in this thread knew who you were talking about, much less that it was a fellow Doper, is really low.
If that’s the case (and you might ask why so many people suspect you of trying a gotcha) then I agree with you. I feel this post condemns Republicans more than Democrats.
eta: This is about a post from 2009? Why should we still care?
Well said.
The poster who dug up the three-year-old post was not Bricker but the poster himself, several days ago, and he did it to “prove” that he was critical of Democrats.
Oh, OK. I retract my outrage. Still, though, is it any wonder that everyone in the thread thought this was going to be a big “gotcha” when in fact that’s exactly what it was?
No. The basis of the poll was a more current post. This one.
THAT is the post that occasioned this poll.
elucidator offered up his own post from three years ago as evidence he criticized the Democrats for the swappero law changes. I said to him, in reply:
His response:
And I responded:
All that was from posts made June 11th, 2012.
Please explain how this was wrong, obnoxious, whatever.