I’ll give you that it doesn’t roll off the tongue very well, but it’s not hostile or braindead.
Come on, now. Bricker’s fun - he took the bench in the “Baleful Polymorph” thread in GD. This board is supposed to be an enjoyable place to talk with smart people - if Bricker doesn’t want to participate in a particular thread, there’s no need to get nasty about it. The dude’s an asset to the board - let’s be civil.
No problem. However, when someone chooses to wade in with a snarky, smarmy tone implying crazy conspiracy theories, I find this neither to be an asset nor to be civil. My opinion is that he ordered up a big shit sandwich by doing so, and I’m not surprised he doesn’t want to eat it.
Bricker sure can turn on the sagacity when he likes, but that doesn’t always prevent him from making very stupid comments when he’s in winger mode.
While I agree it’s not a DS-style line, I wouldn’t say it’s because whenever Jon Stewart’s mouth opens rays of sheer comedic ecstasy shoot out into people’s brains. Stewart and his writers have had some fine moments, but a good portion of the weight of the DS is pure hackity hack hack. For chrissake, he still does the invisible-tie-adjustment schtick. I agree that he’d realize that “Janet Waco” is a non-joke, though. It’s not that it’s offensive, it’s just stupid. It’s like calling Bush “George W. Iraq”. I know a name and a significant event associated with it! I too can write comedy!
Oh, it is, I assure you.
You’re probably right, although I’ve noticed he’s a bit selective about which issues he insists on not prejudging without all the facts.
Anyway, regarding Stewart, I doubt he’d simply refer to Reno as ‘Janet Waco’ for the same reason he doesn’t refer to the President as ‘Shrub’: it’s the easy way out and anyone can do it. If the names could be worked into a larger joke, on the other hand, I could see either one happening.
See, this I just don’t get. I was under the impression that clearing out the ranks of U.S. Attorneys was so commonplace among newly-minted administrations that there wasn’t anything controversial about it.
Frankly, I thought the episode with the Branch Davidians was more controversial than replacing the U. S. Attorneys. Hell, I remember her more for the chilly reception she gave the first gathering to present her with a bouquet of roses than for replacing the U. S. Attorneys. Even the fact that it took such a long time to get her into the position was more controversial. Mind you, over the course of eight years, I thought she did an excellent job, so on balance, she was worth waiting for.
So why are you saying that replacing all of the U. S. Attorneys was one of the most controversial and well-known events she was associated with?
Are you wooshing me? I was talking about Waco.
That’s pretty good, but it doesn’t really capture the folly of the war. I’d call him “George W. MDs”.
George bumbling douche?
Daniel
See, this is the part that makes you a douchbag. Happy marriage!
Edited to add Wait a minute! Are you saying that Robin is an idiot? You just insulted everyone who watches TDS in a nasty way and then, a few posts later, add that you are thinking of getting rid of it to spite your wife-- who watches it?
Seriously dude. WTF is your problem?
Damn - once again I underestimated the speed with which the millions would see through my pitiful attempt to obscure my true meaning. Thought it would have taken longer than this for folks to realize that my OP was really intended to convey my distaste for Alton Brown! (Who?) :smack:
Poly, IMO you are being extremely generous to both the poster in question and members of his profession in general when you characterize his efforts as:
While that might be what one might wish of lawyers in the abstract, IMO&E a significant element of lawyers’ training is to act as an advocate. Hired gun, pit bull, and whore are perhaps less charitable but by no means entirely inaccurate characterizations. Also IMO&E, it is very common for lawyers to have this aspect of their professional persona carry over to how they conduct themselves in personal matters.
IMO&E it is an unusual lawyer - or human being for that matter - who views facts objectively, rather than within the context of their client, their area of practice, and/or their personal philosophies, preferences, prejudices, and self interest. Also IMO&E, “procedure and detail” have many many uses for an attorney, and need not be raised only for purposes of ensuring a fair and studied review of matters - nor, for that matter, whatever might be “right” or “wrong”.
Strawmen! Get your strawmen here! Get 'em while they’re hot!
Seriously, the boy comments that he dislikes a program and you say he’s called his wife an idiot. Bonus points for transmogrifying “If I do that it’ll make for some very quiet evenings, because that’s about all Robin watches. If I lock out TNT as well she’ll never watch TV again, because that would get rid of the abysmal Law and Order, too.” into “you are thinking of getting rid of it to spite your wife”.
You disagree with him, cool. I like the Daily Show, and I think the boy Doors is wrong. But just stick to what he said, don’t distort things just for a cheap shot.
Hello!
OK, let’s see if I can respond to some of the issues floating about. Since capturing them in chronological order might be too easy, I will try to reply to them in order of most to least silliness:
-
Why didn’t I answer this thread before now?
Because I didn’t see it until now. I don’t do “vanity searches” to discover if my name’s being bandied about, and although I usually get a fairly good review of the forums I read, it’s not unheard of for me to go a day or two without seeing something interesting. -
If my response was so critical, why didn’t the OP use the Private Message feature to call my attention to this thread, or to the original thread?
Beats me. -
Why didn’t I admit I was wrong?
I have, in the past, gladly admitted I was wrong when a claim or position I held was rebutted. In this instance, however, I originally simply asked for additional evidence to support a claim that was being offered without any. If the implication now is because additional evidence has been offered, it shows I was wrong to ask for it in the first place… I think the readers of this thread can quickly see the problem. My sarcasm and disbelief was based on the lack of supporting evidence for a fairly extraordinary claim. If, tomorrow, someone offers another extraordinary calim with no evidence, I will likely be similarly skeptical. -
Yeah, OK, but NOW why don’t you jump back into the thread and discuss the issue in depth?
*Two reasons: there is now certainly a great deal of new evidence surrounding these claims, but it’s not all out yet. I no longer would claim there is no evidence for an extraordinary claim; neither would I say that all evidence is in. So I’ve gone from attacking a claim presented with no evidence to waiting to see how a claim with evidence settles out.
It’s also the case that in my professional world, I have some dealings with the Justice Department. I no longer practice law, but I am a federal contractor and my firm has some dealings, both direct and indirect, that involve Justice. While it’s appropriate for me to look at an unfounded claim and point out there’s no evidence for it, it’s not so appropriate for me to wade in and start weighing evidence after it’s been presented. It IS appropriate, however, to simply step back and say nothing.*
Um, he said the people who like TDS are idiots. His wife likes TDS (I know this for a fact). He then said he is contemplating blocking Comedy Central because HE doesn’t like it (along with blocking other channels his wife likes and he doesn’t). That’s controlling.
Bricker, I like you but this paragraph sounds very much like weaseling. Can we assume this means you will no longer weigh in on any threads related to DoJ or the AG?
If it is inappropriate for you to weigh evidence after it’s been presented, you probably shouldn’t be looking for or at evidence at all. So, if someone brings a up a claim related to these topics, shouldn’t you just ignore it since you won’t be able to respond if they do back it up? Isn’t this preferrable to bringing the snark?
A finely crafted answer Bricker. Excuse me if I don’t buy it.
But it really doesn’t matter. You’ll continue to act however you wish, and justify it to yourself however and to whatever extent you feel appropriate.
And I’ll continue to perceive your posts as primarily partisan, deceptive, pettifoggery.
stretch - I didn’t interpret that paragraph in that manner at all. Instead, I considered it primarily a response to suggestions made upthread that he was being silent because for some reason professional obligations prevented him from participating (while at the same time trying to impress upon us his status as somewhat of an insider with experience/information we mere peons in the hinterlands lack.) Just my interpretation, colored by my previous impression of this individual’s posting style and practice.
No. If this gets to a more settled point, where I can legitimately say that it’s now obvious that ‘X’ has happened, I don’t think I jeopardize my career by making the comment. It’s probably an excess of caution now to refrain from comment.
But you didn’t answer if you like the Daily Show or not! Really, stick to the thread topic.
What the hell was that about? Is there some reason to think anyone cares?
Anyway, back to the argument. The Daily Show and The Factor are not comparable even leaving aside the quality of their humor. Stewart is a hack comedian. O’Reilly is a political hack, who employs humor that is “on message” and relies on quips like changing someone’s last name to a city in Texas.