Well, I must admit I was hasty with that characterization. I found it after a quick search, and didn’t look into it thoroughly. So I withdraw it, and concede that the shitheels obstructing things in NC were Republicans.
But that doesn’t alter my point… just that particular exemplar of my point.
Bricker, I think you are one of the more honest supporters of the conservative cause around here, and the above “Whoops” supports that. However, when I read the OP, my first thought was to wonder when you would be in to list some Dems obstructing gambling. Man, you did me proud, the second post.
I appreciate your reasoned response to my earlier questions regarding certain types of busness and the lack of a moral compass in a free market. Are you saying that it is OK to regulate the sale of sex toys, but not push for higher fuel efficiency? Because I see them both as negatives, but you seem OK with one and not the other. Yeah, I probably just built a nice straw man. Be gentle with him, OK? It’s not his fault.
Exactly who are you, and what bridge did you crawl out from under?
I suppose it might require work to put your money where your mouth is, and explain exactly what was innacurate about my previous post? I shouldn’t expect much from someone who cheerleads the “debate” efforts of fool who can’t even properly define the meaning of a tu quoque fallacy and ignores various citations provided when they displease him.
The only people who appreciate a sycophant are people worthless enough to be themselves easily swayed by flattery. Unless you have something more than bullshit to offer, don’t waste my time.
Me? I’m nobody, who are you?(That’s Emily Dickinson, I wouldn’t expect you to get the reference)
I’m no sycophant of Bricker’s, in fact, I don’t believe that he particularly likes me, but your pathetic attempts to define this argument as a tu quoque fallacy even after it has clearly been demonstrated that it is not merely reveal your own idiocy. Try doing what you are so ready to accuse others of and actually read what the definition of a tu quoque fallacy is. Bricker never tried to excuse the Senator’s actions by saying that the other side did it too. Learn to read you fucking moron.
I didn’t accuse him of tu quoque originally, just introducing bullshit partisanship into the equation where it didn’t belong.
Secondly, his entire first post of saying, “What about the Democrats? They do it too! See?” isn’t him saying that the other side did it too? I suppose that tu quoque is no longer latin for “You, also” as well? Your argument might be worth its weightom shit if Bricker had actually defined the fallacy correctly, as you seem to have chanced upon.
Seriously, if your going to be sucking this guy’s dick so passionately, at least read through the thread so you don’t catch some sort of sexually transmited stupidity.
Snort. I said you were prevaricating. You say that you were possibly committing the fallacy of amphiboly or equivocation (which is pretty much the same thing) but say in your “defence” that you did not commit the fallacy of tu quoque, a fallacy I never mentioned or suggested you were committing.
I’m not saying i t’s OK. I’m saying neither represents hypocriscy. I personally don’t believe onerous regulations in either area are wise public policy. But those that do are simply in error, not hypocrites.
Yes, yes, I can see how my reading skills deserve to have been criticized, given your on-going passionate commitment to stepping back and washing your hands of this.
I’m a little confused as to why the federal government even bothers about online gambling. They have no problem with states allowing various forms of gambling, and the lion’s share of states do. It used to be that you had to go to Nevada or New Jersey to find a casino but that’s hardly the case any more. And that’s not to mention other forms of state-sanctioned gambling like horse racing and lotteries.
The main point of the segment on 60 minutes was that the federal government doesn’t bother about online gambling. It is illegal, but no one enforces the laws. The show did not make it clear to me whether it doesn’t bother because it has more important things to worry about, or because it can’t do anything about it anyway. But the show left me with the impression nothing was going to be done about it any time soon, so the whole show seemed pointless to me.
Another thing the show did not make clear was what forms of online gambling are illegal, and which are legal. They implied that ALL online gambling was illegal. But if that is the case, why would a gambling site withhold taxes for the federal government and report winnings above a certain level to the IRS? There must some exceptions to the online gambling laws, but the show didn’t say anything about those. Does anyone here know what the actual rules are?
No, I meant, why did they even bother to pass the federal law? For instance, wrt the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) I disagree with the whole idea of drug prohibition, but these drugs were already strictly controlled separately by the laws of each individual state, so I can understand how the CSA was the result of a perceived urgent national need. Gambling’s different in that it’s been legal in Nevada for time out of mind, and the Feds never saw the need to crack down on it–and now it’s legal in one form or another, in certain places at least, in nearly every State.