^ That. ^
Especially this:
At the very least, it opens a window of opportunity for people on the other side to plant the seed for such a perception.
Bricker, thank you for the service you provide in trying to keep us honest.
Yep, just all that waste of money on the birther idiocy is enough to put Arpaio in the hall of eternal shame.
If this were the only thread by which I had to judge 'luci, I’d say no. But it’s not. Let me expand my original claim to:**elucidator **argues in good faith, in my experience, therefore I extend him the benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure he did call anyone but Arapaio a bigot, anyway, but he could have read the first part of the thread more carefully.
**BrainGlutton **will be back and own that he jumped the gun on calling you a bigot. Your defense of Arapaio was correct (magellan’s was lucky).
Good grief, yes. That idiocy speaks for itself.
Well, I’ll be impressed if you’re right.
Yep. That’s the worst aspect of our highly partisan posters, be they left or right. That, and the need of some posters to start a thread every time they read some bit of trivia about the evil folks on the other side of the aisle. No need to check on the story, just run with it. It’s more important to be first than to be right.
Note that the OP linked to the DailyKos. Anytime I see something from a partisan site like that, I always find it useful to try and trace things back to the original story, because those sites are more about pushing an agenda than getting the facts right.
I’d like to see BG come here and admit his mistake, but I think it’s more likely he’ll be off starting his next quota of 50 threads before he even bothers checking back to this one.
Agreed on both points.
This is what it says now.
I searched the KPHO website for “arpaio posse” and I think Salon’s initial confusion came from this story from March 2012:
That was all before the Newtown massacre and before anybody floated the idea of school-protection posses, of course.
Wonder if Jon Stewart will issue a retraction . . . that would be interesting . . .
And your OP?
You must go now to the river, to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Offered in good faith based on the Salon article as (at that time) posted. So was Jon Stewart’s bit on the subject, I suppose. And don’t gimme any bullshit about magellan01’s “only one sex offender” nitpicks, that was nonsense, which only an Arpaio-fan would have posted.
I tried that, I couldn’t find enough Tasmanian virgins. And now I’m not allowed into Australia. :o
Only one? And all the rest of these fellows, sterling citizens all? And those crimes that went uninvestigated, none of the happened either? And Sheriff Joe does not have a multi-year record of racism, stupidity, and cruel humiliation?
Well, my what a splendid fellow! I am so sorry to have misjudged him.
Do you read DailyKos, John? Caught them in lies, have you? Any of them right at your fingertips, by any chance?
Aw, did I hit a tender nerve?
Ah! So, that would be “No”, then?
No, it wouldn’t. DailyKos is a political organization whose purpose is to advance the progressive agenda. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as one does not confuse it with the NYT (an actual news organization).
What was the financial point of the pink underwear for inmates anyway? To keep them from taking it with them after release? Why?! A cost of one pair/set of underwear per inmate should simply be factored into the general incarceration-cost, as it is utterly trivial compared to the whole incarceration-cost. An uncharitable perspective might well suspect Sheriff Aripaio of seeking to inflict needless and silly psychological humiliation on inmates for the sole sake of reactionary voter-appeal. The which apparently got Arpaio re-elected in 2012, and shame forever upon the pink-trousered people of the City of Phoenix and the County of Maricopa and the State of Arizona.
I think most of us(*) agree that Arpaio’s idea of volunteer posses is a very bad idea for several reasons, only one of them being that it will attract pederasts. That one known pederast applicant has in fact been exposed is given anecdotally to support the larger point. To focus one’s energy on a nit-picking distinction between “pederasts” and the fact that among the convicts to have turned up so far, only one is a known sex offender is to miss the forest for the tree(s). This is especially so since, as the linked article points out, Arpaio seems to be one of the many Republicans who regards rape and molestation as unimportant, diverting his attention from more important crimes, like being Hispanic.
(Most of us agree. Don’t know about Bricker who, unlike you, really isn’t all that bright.)
Ha! Man, you have a low bar of honor for yourself. I revealed your OP to be yet another of your highly partisan pieces of bullshit. The cite you provided didn’t even support the nonsense you wrote, even if every word of the Salon article were true. So you go right on continuing your huffing and puffing and posting your hyper-partisan bullshit and think it’s justified because “B-b-but, it’s a Republican. You know, one of the bad guys. And just look how many of my fellow shallow crusaders agree with me!!!”
The only smart thing you did in this thread was not try to defend yourself when you posted back on page 1, first against me, and then against Bricker, whose research eliminated any doubt of your ass-hattery. Except, of course, with this:
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
In all the Doper community, only Bricker and magellan01 are such flaming bigot assholes as to rush to the defense of Sheriff Arpaio.
[/QUOTE]
Well done, genius.