This does not really respond to the argument you quoted, but to put this in context, after a several days of news coverage of the crazy shit people were saying about Obama at McCain rallies, McCain did correct one woman at a town hall. Perhaps he was being forthright and perhaps his campaign was worried that reports about the nutcases at their rallies would offend moderate voters. What that one incident has to do with the weirdness that preceeded it and the years of insanity since then is beyond me. But I’ll point out that McCain’s VP was more popular with the party base than he was.
Well, you were wrong about Angle. Were you wrong about Pelosi or Obama?
I don’t think so.
Of course, my defense of Angle was subject to intense testing, so that its error was very likely to be exposed. My defenses of Obam and Pelosi were subject to eager agreement and no particular effort to rigorously test their merits.
So my answer is: I believe I was right, of course, since I offered the defense. But I can’t say either defense had the thorough vetting that my dialog about Angle did.
Testing? What testing? The test on how to read and understand English?
You just can’t admit that you were full of shit from the get-go, can you?
Come on Bricker, you know better than that. The second amendment is inextricably linked to guns and perhaps to the militia. She might have been speaking rhetorically but she wasn’t talking about just voting the bums out because we already have another mechanism for voting the bums out, they’re called elections. She was talking about overturning the results of an election.
As has been said in other threads that ended exactly the same way…
How about if you do some basic research and figure out that you are wrong BEFORE YOU POST such partisan foolishness? Is that simply too much to ask?
You’ve been batting 0.00 for the past few weeks - this should be a clue that you should examine your positions a little more carefully before shooting your mouth off.
In other words you realize your position is not defensible. Its not reasoanble to say that your interpretation is just as valid as the OP. Why can’t you admit that there are aty least as many whackos saying ridiculous things on the right as there are whackos on the left? I don’t think anyone believes that all conservatives advocate the violent overthrow of government if things don’t go their way, most of them are content to rebrand themselves as tea partiers instead fo Republicans and heckle Democrats at town hall meetings.
LOL, reminds me of “my cousin vinny” where Joe Pesci goes to confront the guy who stiffed Marisa Tomei on a pool bet and asks for the money and the guy says “how about I just kick your ass instead” and Joe says “hmm, I think i’d rather have the money”
Damuri, not to get in the way of a Bricker-bashing mid-bash, but he has conceded the point – waffling about ‘testing’ notwithstanding.
A chance to tell a favorite story:
A young man enlisted in the army during wartime. “Welcome, son!” said the recruiting officer. “I’ve got bad news and good news. The bad news is that we’re all out of rifles, so I can’t give you one. The good news is that you can have this stick. Just point it at the enemy and say ‘Bangity bangity bang!’ and you’ll do fine.”
The young man took the stick and looked it over. “But what if they get close, what do I do?”
“Easy!” said the officer. “Pretend it has a bayonet on it. Poke at the enemy and say, ‘Stabbity stabbity stab!’ and you’ll do fine.”
So the young man went to the battlefield with his stick. Soldiders were dying all around him, and the enemy was advancing. He pointed his stick at an enemy solder. “Bangity bangity bang!” he shouted, and the enemy soldier fell down dead!
“Bangity bangity bang! Bangity bangity bang!” Enemy soldiers were falling left and right, but there were so many that soon they were upon him. So he switched, and started shouting, “Stabbity stabbity stab! Stabbity stabbity stab!”
Soon he was surrounded by the bodies of the enemy, and nobody stood on the battlefield except for him–and one enemy soldier in the distance. He pointed the stick at the enemy soldier. “Bangity bangity bang!”
But nothing happened: the enemy kept coming. “Bangity bangity bang! BANGITY BANGITY BANG!” The enemy walked closer and closer, until he was upon the young soldier. “Stabbity stabbity stab! STABBITY STABBITY STAB!”
To no avail.
The last thing the young soldier heard as he was crushed beneath the enemy’s boots was the enemy’s voice muttering,
“Tankity tankity tank! Tankity tankity tank!”
I don’t see how it lends to any “sedate” interpretation unless you were predisposed to want such an interpretation. That interpretation is such an outlier that you would need some extraordinary evidence to make you even consider it.
And surely you’re not going to fall on the “major party candidate” defense, as if this is the first time a “major party candidate” has said something foolishly inflamitory. Not to mention, this is the very same candidate who talked about bartering chickens for health care. There are plenty of nuts in the “major parties”, and elections often bring out the worst in them. This last one was a doozy.
Bricker admits error more frequently than most and its not SOLELY a function of being wrong more than most, its also largely a fuinction of being able to admit that he is wrong when presented with enough evidence taht a reasoanble person would admit their error.
He is also more comfortable with admitting that his opinions aren’t some sort of inescapable truth that are the only logical conclusions that can be reached from facts in evidence. A lot of conservatives and liberals feel the need to prove that their opinions are the only logical conclusions that a reasonable person can reach.
I can’t believe I’m defending bricker but I don’t think it was obvious to everyone that PP actually paid for mammograms before this otherwise the thread would have been a LOT shorter and to be fair, Bricker is the one who pointed out that PP in Virginia subsidized the cost of mammograms, he doped himself.
I think this baord would be a lot better if more people would take these sort of admissions of error in stride rather than use them as bludgeons or scalpels to beat or carve up the other guy.
Don’t we want to encourage these admissions of error rather than beat people up for admitting error, it probably leads to less entrenchment of attitudes.
If he had won the Republican primary in 2000, I would have voted for him. But after being primaried out in South Carolina because someone spread a rumor that the daughter he adopted from one of Mother Theresa’s orphanages was actually his love child with a black woman and getting attacked by pro-lifers and religious nuts despite having a 100% pro-life voting record, he got the message and started talking crazy during the 2008 primary and it got him the nomination and lost him my respect.
Probably also a function of the fact that he’s on the right. While I believe the SDMB is not the liberal bastion people sometimes make it out to be, it’s certainly true that there are more people to point out Bricker’s errors than, say, mine.
ETA: Not that I ever make any, of course. preen
I miss the old McCain, hell, I miss the old Republican party.
heheh, sorry. I always have trouble keeping up.
And there’s the getting-up-on-the-cross part that is also integral to his stupid little wanking game. Right on schedule. We’ve already seen the part where he trolls for praise for “admitting his error”. That comes a little earlier in the game.
The guy puts 2 principles above all, and I mean all: Absolute loyalty to the Vatican, and absolute loyalty to the GOP, and both as organizations of people rather than as representatives of any particular principle he believes in. That’s it. Nothing that anyone in either organization does, in any sort of capacity as part of it, can get any response from him but an ardent (self-appointed pro bono) defense, however hyperlegalistic and ridiculous as it has to be for him to find himself convincing.
Indeed, it was such a reasonable argument that only fell into disfavor with thorough groupthink nitpicking. No reasonable person would’ve thought twice about your defense of Angle’s words, only superliberals.
That was actually Sue Lowden, another candidate for the same seat. Easy to mix them up I guess.
Angle has plenty of crazy on her end though.
So are you conceding that the Second Amendment isn’t about metaphors? It’s about actual firearms? And if so, are you also withdrawing your claim that Ms Angle meant voting when she invoked the Second Amendment as a means of getting rid of Senator Reid?