It’s the only means.
I’m sure there may have been instances over the years in which I have absented myself from an argument I previously engaged. But I would hope there have been more instances in which I had the decency and honesty to acknowledge that events had changed - whether or not my opinion had as a result. Especially if my previous participation had been extremely partisan and dismissive.
No - I’m not saying every partisan defender of the current administration is a cowardly, disingenuous weasel in every instance. I’m just saying that my “records review” strongly suggests to me that this particular partisan defender of the current administration has acted in such a manner on this occasion.
Strikes me as curious that he would pick and choose the instances in which he is willing to instruct us less-enlightened folks as to the legal nuances that make this administration’s every whim just hunky dory.
I suppose that might be an explanation for why it’s so often used. 
I was once pitted for not starting enough threads, so I’m not surprised by anything any more.
No it isn’t. A discussion is a two-way exchange of opinion. On can also particpate without having a discussion - in two distinct fashions. One, read and not respond. Two, post your own views only and simply ignore everything that’s said by others.
What? Link?
Bryan Ekers, you are a thread-pissing dumbfuck
People get pitted for some very strange things.
With regard to Bricker, I expect he’ll show up once events get past the acute hitting-the-fan phase, and there’s something to sink his teeth into. So far, things have just been one revelation after the next.
No, I got it from Jon Stewart.
Upon review: not starting threads is not what he was pitting him for, exactly, but it’s what he was basing his argument on. And that seems confoundingly stupid.
I have many times found one of Bricker’s one-liners like the one referenced here to appear to be supercilious pettifoggery in defense of the indefensible.
But I have also come to realize that he is doing, very ethically and laudably, what any good lawyer ought to be doing, i.e., refusing to prejudge an issue without all the facts, and raising questions of procedure and detail where they might constitute worthwhile reasons for delay in the Olympic Broad-Jump to Conclusions.
I suspect strongly that this was his purpose, however snarkily phrased, in the first thread. About his absence from the second one I have no more clue than anyone else – except to say he had no obligation to post where’er he chooses not to.
ETA: I have no clue what about this thread provoked a Google ad for Mayan Hammocks, but I found the concept that something did hilariously incongruous.
Seconded. I am very sure that, unless he was portraying a very stupid wingnut, he would not call Janet Reno “Janet Waco.”
Why do you think that? It is one of the most controversial and well-known events she is associated with, and contrary to many people’s beliefs, Jon Stewart does not have the hand of the entire Left Wing up his ass.
Actually, I’m disputing the implication that Stewart compared the actions of Gonzalez & Reno and found them analogous in some way (as Liberal suggests in his original post).
Oh, now that I’m not sure about. They do seem very different.
Because it is the kind of thick headed, unfuny, hostile joke that conservatives would make, and he wouldn’t. “Janet Waco?” It’s just not funny.
Cite for me Jon Stewart saying it and not parodying a wingnut.
Let me know when Jon Stewart (or his moronic protege Colbert, for that matter) says something that is funny, willya?
Actually, I was joking — responding to a snarky question with appropriate flippant sarcasm. I do not watch the O’Reilly Factor. Best of luck peeling your knee off your face.
Yeah, it’s a real shame those guys can’t ever come up with anything funny. I bet if they could, they just might get someone to watch their shows.
I suspect that the people that watch Jon Stewart are the same people that think the Scary Movie series and Meet The Parents are top-notch entertainment, too. As for myself, I think that they are inane, boorish, and arrogant, and I do not find them funny at all. Especially that douchebag Colbert.