Wow. You’re edgy.
Wow. You’re original.
Do they have giant schlongs, or doublejointed knees?
"Twas destined to become a joke thread.
Bricker is a lawyer!
How’s that?
You realize, of course, that that makes no sense.
And if you want to find out what my entire position is on immigration, rather than just pieces, you’re welcome to start a thread on that. You can even Pit me for not having an actual position on immigration.
Maybe I have no complete, fully-thought-out position on immigration, and if I don’t, so what? The two pieces you have are not in contradiction: an awareness that we as a nation can’t just open our borders to tens of millions of immigrants of all ages and circumstances, and a belief that it’s wrong for Christians to oppose showing hospitality to tens of thousands of unaccompanied children that have endured a long and dangerous trek here.
Feel free to demonstrate how these two positions, combined with my “whacky system of what * think of as morals leads to no other conclusion” than support of unrestricted immigration. Actual quotes, with links, substantiating the “whacky system” are required, however. Your recollections of what I may or may not have said in some ancient thread don’t qualify. (You’ve tried that gambit before.) Nor do bullshit assertions.
Speaking of your usual bullshit assertions, in the original thread, you rather went on about my making moral decrees and the like. The statements you claimed were my moral assertions and decrees were (a) my pointing out that what the law says and what is moral don’t always coincide, and (b) my pointing out that there can be more ways a punishment can fail than being too harsh or too lenient.
But if you want to come up with more examples of my trying to win arguments by asserting the truth of my moral beliefs, be my guest. Third time’s the charm, right?
It’s strawmen all the way down, the same way liberals are intrinsically immoral and will fiddle as the US of A burns. “I’m convinced that applying your concept of morality to our country would destroy us in a couple of generations,” indeed! That is bizarre hyperbole, with utterly no basis in fact, and an insult to millions of Americans.
The liberals did take away your matches, and your lighter fluid. There is nothing left in the fire extinguishers, because you foamed up the parking lots to play your drifting games. And you have linked arms and leveled your guns to keep the liberals away from the blaze. What more do you want?
Bricker is a non-practicing lawyer. That is kinda like what conservative Christians expect gay and unmarried people to be with respect to sex.
A genie in a bottle Obama opens says she will grant the Prez three wishes, provided that you must choose one of Bricker, Michelle Bachman or Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Whom do you choose? Answer: Obama doesn’t believe in genies or Republican promises (any more), he chooses Lucy Koh.
Told you it was a gateway bug.
We were all expecting a knockdown drag-out between **RTFirefly **and bricker, and armchair QBs are keeping this thread alive with bug puns. At least one of the duellists has a bug for a name, so points for continuity, but this pitting is still not up to preliminary level yet.
Whoa, dude. That’s just beyond the pale.
Since when is Bricker not practicing? And qualifications aside (though Bachmann’s background in litigation is not particularly impressive) that’s not a close question. Bricker is pro-gay marriage and pretty moderate overall. In fact, he favors many of the same things you do; he just doesn’t favor the same means of achieving them.
Guess you’d like to be a fly on the wall for that fight, wouldn’t you?
Which, by the way, ohmygod thank you! Just cranked through the archives. How have I missed this?
I still have matches. I still have lighter fluid. And the fire extinguishers are full. I guess your liberals failed but have somehow managed to convince you that their failures are actually a success?
(post shortened, bold and underline added)
Are you saying that the genie lied to you?
Lucy Koh has a fine liberal reputation.
I believe Obama would chose Susan Rice.
Neither. Just a confused metaphor on my part. All these “let’s get Bricker!” threads work the same way. His opponents come charging in, all het up on their righteous anger, sure that THIS time they are going to give him what he deserves. Then he lawyers and parses them right the fuck to death without them doing much but impotently calling him a great big poopy-head. I, personally, am Bricker-neutral. I agree with him on a couple things and disagree with him on others. As a somewhat sadistic observer of the human situation, though, I do enjoy watching him reduce his opponents to rage-quitting jelly.
Why is it that when people post as “neutral” they often come off as stupider than either side?
Who are you, again?