they really ARE using pre-emptive lying! Palin clears self!

[leander]

@Strassia

I understand that Bricker has made a lot of people upset this election cycle. I took him to task for jumping into this thread with the argument that this was no different then the ACORN statement about fake registrations. But, instead of calling him names, I did it by clearly stating why I thought they were different. And you know what? He accepted what I wrote and admitted that I had a point. That shows some class and willingness to see that someone else may be right, neither of which say troll to me.

Jonathan

It’s a good thing then that Bricker didn’t resort to calling anyone names in this thread…

@Bricker

TVeblen, Darth Sidious called and left a message for you. I didn’t get it all, but there was something about, “Yessss… yesss… I feel your hatred… it gives you power…”

And the cleaners called; your cape and breathing apparatus are ready.

[Count_Blucher]

@Bricker

If you accept Palin’s and crucify ACORN’s, I’m needling you.

Or if you accept ACORN’s and crucify Palin’s, I’m needling you.

If you inject silly “whataboutery” into threads having Nothing To Do with ACORN, I needle you…

But…but…but… Nixon’s cronies broke into Watergate…! = Just As Silly = Just As Irrelevant.

…maybe Desperate Hijackers only equal Terrorists off the coast of Somolia…? :dubious:

[Wile_E]

Speaking of hijacks;

This may have been posted already in one of the many Palin threads but since Search isn’t working for me I am going to plop it into this thread for the heck of it.
I ran across this in the comments on some blog or news site a few days ago.
POST TURTLE
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher who caught his hand in a gate while working with cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.
The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.
The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle.”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face so he continued to explain.
“You know she didn’t get up there by herself, she doesn’t belong up there, she doesn’t know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.”

[Frodo]

@RickJay

You’re all misinterpreting this entire thing.

It’s not Palin’s campaign releasing a self-serving “official” clearing.

It’s a maverick investigation, which resulted in a maverick report. Oh, perhaps it’s not exactly an official report, but this is the sort of thing a maverick would do; take the bull by the horns and, like a true maverick, issue a maverick representation of the facts. Only a maverick would have the guts to take on the elitist law enforcement lobby and do such a maverick thing.

Also, in order to solve the financial crisis, she and McCain are going to print and distribute “Maverick Bucks.”

You forgot “Also”

[wonky]

@Strassia

I understand that Bricker has made a lot of people upset this election cycle. I took him to task for jumping into this thread with the argument that this was no different then the ACORN statement about fake registrations. But, instead of calling him names, I did it by clearly stating why I thought they were different. And you know what? He accepted what I wrote and admitted that I had a point. That shows some class and willingness to see that someone else may be right, neither of which say troll to me.

Yeah, until you read the ACORN thread in which he ignores all evidence that doesn’t share his biases and conveniently manages to skip over posts that clearly show he’s a partisan fool with the wrong end of the stick again.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The Branchflower Report

Go to p.8 for the findings. They’re basically, “well, she fucked up, but it was all legal.”

[Frodo]

I think they say

1. Presuring Monegan to fire Wooten was unethical and illegal (Violates Alaskan law)
2. Firing Monegan is legal since the Governor has the right to fire whoever she choses for whatever reason.

[Mtgman]

@Strassia

I understand that Bricker has made a lot of people upset this election cycle. I took him to task for jumping into this thread with the argument that this was no different then the ACORN statement about fake registrations. But, instead of calling him names, I did it by clearly stating why I thought they were different. And you know what? He accepted what I wrote and admitted that I had a point. That shows some class and willingness to see that someone else may be right, neither of which say troll to me.

Jonathan

I’m no longer sure. I’ve been reading threads where Bricker does this kind of thing for a LONG time. I’m beginning to think it’s just a shyster’s trick to look good in front of the jury. The trick works like this, advance a line of argument which is total BS, but sounds good and has plausibility. Attorneys being trained at stopping lines of BS they know it’s BS, but are counting on the jury not spotting it as easily. If they get called on it by the opposing attorney, retract it as quickly as possible and move on.

Maybe Bricker’s just too busy throwing stones at whatever the “usual suspects” are ranting about to think it through and formulate a line of reasoning which stands up. Maybe he actually believes everything he posts at the time he posts it and is genuinely swayed frequently. Or, maybe he posts things he knows, or strongly suspects, are bullshit and hopes he can bluster his way through, or at least withdraw it and prove how "amenable to reason’ he is when his bullshit is called.

It’s a win-win really. If someone buys the false equivalence, then he strikes a blow against the accusations in the OP. If he’s called on it, then he gets “intellectual honesty” cred. And all he had to do was throw out some BS and see if it sticks. Just get the jury nodding along with what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, just get them nodding.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Strassia]

@Mtgman

I’m no longer sure. I’ve been reading threads where Bricker does this kind of thing for a LONG time. I’m beginning to think it’s just a shyster’s trick to look good in front of the jury. The trick works like this, advance a line of argument which is total BS, but sounds good and has plausibility. Attorneys being trained at stopping lines of BS they know it’s BS, but are counting on the jury not spotting it as easily. If they get called on it by the opposing attorney, retract it as quickly as possible and move on.

Maybe Bricker’s just too busy throwing stones at whatever the “usual suspects” are ranting about to think it through and formulate a line of reasoning which stands up. Maybe he actually believes everything he posts at the time he posts it and is genuinely swayed frequently. Or, maybe he posts things he knows, or strongly suspects, are bullshit and hopes he can bluster his way through, or at least withdraw it and prove how "amenable to reason’ he is when his bullshit is called.

It’s a win-win really. If someone buys the false equivalence, then he strikes a blow against the accusations in the OP. If he’s called on it, then he gets “intellectual honesty” cred. And all he had to do was throw out some BS and see if it sticks. Just get the jury nodding along with what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, just get them nodding.

Enjoy,
Steven

You may be correct. The problem is that it throws anyone not familiar with this pattern off. You see someone offer an incorrect but plausible argument, get rebutted, and then own up to being wrong. Then you see multiple vitriol filled posts attacking him. Someone walking into the thread without the back story would think the attackers are unreasonable.

Jonathan

[wonky]

@Strassia

You may be correct. The problem is that it throws anyone not familiar with this pattern off. You see someone offer an incorrect but plausible argument, get rebutted, and then own up to being wrong.

More often, he just disappears, only to show up in a different thread pulling the same shit.

[Cervaise]

@Mtgman

I’m beginning to think it’s just a shyster’s trick to look good in front of the jury. The trick works like this, advance a line of argument which is total BS, but sounds good and has plausibility. Attorneys being trained at stopping lines of BS they know it’s BS, but are counting on the jury not spotting it as easily. If they get called on it by the opposing attorney, retract it as quickly as possible and move on.

I observed that he was engaging in exactly this type of tactic in the original ACORN thread. He didn’t post again. I’m not so self-absorbed that I can believe that I, like, nailed him to the wall and scared him off, or anything so egotistical. More likely, he got fed up with the topic in general (as he was essentially trying to argue that air is a solid) and bailed out, and wasn’t reacting to my specific comments. Still, it is interesting.