Especially those with a positive penchant for probing the penumbra of particularly problematic points.
P’s on you!
And your morality is to say the crap you said, which doesn’t resolve anything either. You seem to think that your morality is sacrosanct but no one else’s is.
You also seem to think your morality is very different from everyone else’s. I’ve never seen you attempt to find common moral ground. You fall back on the legal system, but you know that pretty much everyone thinks there are some laws that are immoral.
Your intentions are no more pure than anyone else’s. The same faults you find in everyone else also apply to you.
I don’t rest my arguments on my morality. Sure, people think some laws are immoral – I do myself. But when my morality conflicts with the law, I acknowledge that the burden is on me to persuade others to change the law. I admit that those following the law have every reason to believe they are in the right.
…if you were being ironic, that’s cool, but the link is to a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic who uses STOID-SPEAK (aka: overuse of fonts, colors, underlines, exclamation points, etc) in place of arguments.
Anyone who hasn’t followed that link probably should, just to see someone on par with the Time Cube guy for sheer insanity.
McAfee keeps telling me that site has cooties. I’ll take your word for it.
Holy fuck.
The law is the law and the law can be very confusing. Bricker has attempted to explain the law to the membership here. I thank him for his efforts and value his input in the many threads that he has participated in.
Some people prefer to judge legal situations by their own personal feelings. That’s fine but they can’t provide a legal viewpoint or a legal history of an issue. When deciding a legal issue, feelings are pretty much useless. Statements such as, “I don’t think that’s fair” or “I demand the courts rule according to my personal guidelines” may be therapeutic but do nothing to help others understand the law or translate legalese into English.
Providing information on the legality of issues is all well and good, but mostly the discussion is on whether a law or practice is right, not whether it is legal. Sure, we can acknowledge that some of the tactics being used by Republicans to suppress minority votes might be technically legal, but they are repulsive nonetheless. I think Bricker tends to believe that every discussion begins and ends with whether something is legal or not which is understandable given his profession but there are a ton of things that are legal that aren’t right.
(bold and underline added)
If I had a plumbing problem, I would turn to a plumber for assistance. I wouldn’t demand that the plumber accept my version of groupthink. (At least until after they had completed the plumbing repair. 
)
Internet bullies and haters refuse to accept the fact that other people can have their own opinions AND continually badger them with Cloward-Piven horseshit in order to drive them away from specific internet forums. One-by-one, those who refuse to accept groupthink must be driven out. :smack:
The bullying FAILS when the bullies realize that their intended target doesn’t care what the latest groupthink opinion of them is. Defend your position to the best of your ability and I’ll defend my position to the best of my ability. Then we can get together to share enough beers to make hold-my-beer-and-watch-this sound reasonable.
Bricker, as well as the other lawyers who post here, provide a valuable service. The same can be said for the other experts in their fields. Let’s be realistic, how long would you belong to a website where everyone you talked to was exactly like you? Where’s the challenge?
I don’t mind that he disagrees with me. I just wish he’d be more willing to talk about whether something is right, not whether something is legal. If people aren’t disputing that something is legal and go on for page after page discussing the moral remifications of it, you’ve got to stop beating the dead horse of the legality question at some point.
There are a lot of lawyers on this board. Only one feels the need to lecture people constantly on the law. Why do you think that is?
Probably the same reason most people post on the internet, boredom. If you had something better to do, would you be here?
(underline added for clarity)
Yes you do. 
You want another poster to post in a manner that you find acceptable. Ain’t gonna happen. We would never have had a chance to pleasantly discuss many issues if we hadn’t disagreed with each other.
Well, I definitely find something better to do than read some posts. I like some things other people find tedious, but there is a limit.
If there is one clear answer regarding legal issues - which you contend that Bricker is providing for us - then I don’t understand your last sentence. Your argument is apparently that Bricker is a legal expert, and the discussion that the rest of us provide (which is founded upon our personal feelings and our own sense of ethics or morality) is as good as groupthink.
So, how is it that we can have the kind of interesting or challenging discussion you suggest is worthwhile, when you also suggest that we should simply be agreeing with Bricker because we are not lawyers?
It’s almost like there’s some value in discussing how legal issues impact how people live and behave more broadly, and in discussing how particular legal decisions accord with values and societal mores. Wow!
(In other words, I think that your assertion that we should stop arguing with Bricker about legal issues is moronic. Go on and continue to bow down before him, as is your wont. I’ll continue to discuss legal issues from whatever point of view I choose, dumbass.)
Why can’t you motherfuckers quit this motherfucker?
Hahahaha. I didn’t tell you to stop arguing with anyone. OTOH, arguing that someone/everyone should think like you do is, at best, an exercise in futility. Keep up the good work.
I really don’t mind if people disagree. They have merely yet to see the light. It may be too late for 2016, but I think by 2020 I’ll have you and Bricker and adaher voting a straight Democratic ticket.
I realize that but sometimes your rhetoric can confuse the masses.
I’ve voted for Democrat candidates before. I’ll vote for Democrat candidates in the future. I would never vote for a Chicago Democrat to occupy the Whitehouse. That’s just plain cRaZy.