Well, then, sorry to interrupt. I believe you were just finished with patting yourself on the back for your strict non-partisan objectivity, and were heading towards offering me another condescending lecture on besmirching a reputation without having the facts at hand.
Please continue. I’m rather a partisan, as you may have noticed, and somewhat callous about the reputation of a man who has all the qualities of a rattlesnake, save that he lacks the warmth.
Oh. My. God.
Other members of the posse who are still members are assholes. It’s not clear that being convicted of a felony automatically disqualifies you.
After that one guy was fired in 2007, I figured the other 3450 would be clean as a whistle.
For fuck’s sake, I can only imagine that Clark guy making any violent situation worse.
Minor point of minor interest: I hear these guys described as “volunteers” then I hear the word “hired”. So, are they paid?
No. We’ve been using the word “hired” as shorthand for “accepted for the purpose of providing volunteer security and law enforcement services under the aegis of the MCSO”.
The whole point of this thread is that Arpaio’s posses are a terrible idea because they include one or more sex offenders. It turns out that this is categorically untrue. It might be nitpicking were this a general “posse idea stupid” thread (and I agree that the whole idea is a recipe for a highly public fuckup), but it’s not nitpicking in *this * context.
That’s not what I had in mind when I said “give him his due”.
Oh. So, as long as there’s no sex offenders, its a good idea? Drug crimes, DWIs, domestic violence, all kosher?
So.. this was “owning” jumping the gun?
Who said it was a good idea? I specfically said it was a bad one. As to whether the other stuff is kosher, is there any evidence that there are convicts volunteering?
You mean, besides post #122?
Yes, since that refers to arrest records rather than convictions.
So – has BrainGlutton fulfilled your expectation?
I will not be satisfied until **BrainGlutton **performs seppuku.
What about you? How much does he have to do until you’re satisfied?
This answer seems insincere to me.
In contrast, your prior post seemed sincere:
But perhaps I also misread it. Did I?
He should post something along the lines of, “I was wrong to attack you for merely correcting a factual error,” or anything remotely similar that suggests he acted in some way in error.
Unlike seppuku, that seems a reasonable reaction to having called me a bigot for defending Arpaio. I’ve made factual errors many times over my thirteen year history here, and I have forthrightly said, “I was wrong.”
Oh, Sheldon, I love you.
He kind of did that, as quietly as he could, in the post you cited. He may do more. Humans need time.
I don’t agree:
The “both points” appear to be that my defense was correct and that magellan’s was lucky. It doesn’t remotely address the calling me a bigot.
Or do you read it differently?
More to the point, you said, “BrainGlutton will be back and own that he jumped the gun on calling you a bigot.” Do you now think he’s done that? I know you’ve answered this question twice, once facetiously and a second time … er… gently. But is this what you were picturing when you said he argues in good faith?
For a first pass, yes.
Now will you please address what a reasonable middle ground might be in the ‘how long should 102 year old black women have to wait to vote’ thread, instead of saying limo rides are silly and simply stating there exists a reasonable middle ground?
What does that mean? You expect him to return with a statement that is more clearly inculpatory?
I can’t. I don’t have anywhere near the knowledge of the relevant factors.
Brain Glutton gets to join Bricker in the whole “Oops I posted a factually incorrect thread for partisan gain” group of Dopers. Congrats to you to join such fine company.
Ah, yes, my non-union electrical workers turned away from hurricane relief thread.
I was sure wrong about that, even though I relied upon a story that seemed legitimate to me.
And when it became clear that I was wrong, i said:
See that? A clear, unambiguous, complete admission of error, and an apology to boot – and I didn’t even call anyone in the thread a bigot for correcting me.
Yep, and BG should apologize also, especially for calling you a bigot. It was unfair, unwarranted, and too typical of BG. I can get out my condemning stick and whack him a few times with it if that would please you.
So, in that sense, you are better than Brain Glutton. But, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, I’m not so sure that’s any great shakes.