Hahahaha, but wait, we gerryamndered that special! :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#28 Aug 04 2006 at 8:38 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Youshutup wrote:

"He did it first!" makes a pretty poor argument, in my opinion. Demographics change over time, the only way to ensure things are unfair now is to manipulate them for your own advantage now.

Ok. But are you saying that didn't apply then when the Dems manipulated things to their advantage? The fact is that redistricting is a legal component of our political process. It's a benefit provided to the party that wins control of a state legistlature. Always has. To argue that it's ok for the party in power to use redistricting at a state level to give them an advantage at the federal level only when it's your party doing the redistricting is hypocrisy.

Dunno. Seems pretty darn obvious. If you don't like the practice of redistricting, then by all means make it illegal. But then make it illegal regardless of which party was the last to do it, not only when it's "set" in a manner that favors your party.

You act as though this is an illegal practice. It's not.

Quote:

And only someone as insular and bloody-minded as yourself could possibly miss the point. It's not about your stupid two-party system. It's not about republicans being worse than democrats or vice versa.

It's simply about me being amused by the complete hypocrisy of on the one hand condemning what you percieve as misrepresentation and manipulation whilst praising it in the same paragraph.

Huh? When did I do that? I simply said that the rules need to be applied equally to both sides. If it was "ok" for Dems to redraw district lines to their advantage for the 80 years that they controlled the Texas state legistlature, then it must *also* be "ok" for the Republicans to do it now that they have control. I did not condemn Dems for that prior redistricting. I simply stated a fact: That Dems did use the power of redistricting to allow them to have an advantage politically, and that it's hypocritical for them to now ***** and moan when Republicans use the same power to do the same thing for their own advantage now that they have the power to do so.

I'm not making any moral condemnation of the practice of redistricting itself. I'm just saying that the process needs to be viewed the same regardless of who's benefiting from it.

Quote:

Hypsorisy. Amusing.

Get it?

Either you don't know what hypocrisy means, or you totally misunderstood what I was saying.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#29 Aug 04 2006 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good

Kelvyquayo

Imaginary Friend

16,112 posts

gbaji wrote:

Either you don't know what hypocrisy means, or you totally ignored my slant.

/nod

____________________________

With the receiver in my hand..

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#30 Aug 04 2006 at 10:24 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

It's "slant" to simply argue that political processes that are ok for Democrats to use are also ok for Republicans to use?

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. If you can't see the bias then you just plain wont get what I'm talking about...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#31 Aug 04 2006 at 10:45 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

More Republican Primary Wackiness -- This time in Florida

The AP wrote:

The state Republican Party bluntly told Rep. Katherine Harris that she couldn't win this fall's Senate election and that the party wouldn't support her campaign, a letter obtained Monday by The Associated Press shows.

Party Chairman Carole Jean Jordan made a last-ditch attempt in the confidential May 7 letter to force Harris out of the race for the nomination to challenge Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson. But the next day, Harris turned in paperwork to get her name on the Sept. 5 Republican primary ballot.

The letter came as Gov. Jeb Bush was trying to get state House Speaker Allan Bense into the race. Bense announced later that week that he would not enter the race.

Harris rose to national prominence as Florida's secretary of state during the bitter presidential election recount in 2000 that gave the White House to George Bush. She was elected to the U.S. House in 2002.
[...]
The letter was also signed by national committeewoman Sharon Day and national committeeman Paul Senft.

"Katherine, though it causes us much anguish, we have determined that your campaign faces irreparable damage," the letter said. "We feel that we have no other choice but to revoke our support."

"The polls tell us that no matter how you run this race, you will not be successful in beating Bill Nelson, who would otherwise be a vulnerable incumbent if forced to face a stronger candidate," it said.

Heh. No real deep thoughts behind that except to say "Ouch".

As of right now, Harris is still in the race and favored to win the primary and then lose the general.

Oh, and I see that Election Projection is running guesses on the mid-term races. Nothing too exciting right now, it shows moderate gains but no majorities by the Democrats and, of course, at this point in the game it's all a crap shoot anyway. Still, thought someone might find it momentarily amusing.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#33 Aug 06 2006 at 5:25 AM Rating: Decent

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

You sure about that?

This clearly non-pro-Delay article certainly indicates otherwise, and matches everything I've heard about the redistricting he did.

No, actually it indicates that presicely the opposite of what you posted was true. It's ok though, we all realize you're functionally retarded. Don't feel badly about. It's really amazing that you somehow managed to learn to cut and paste. Honestly, kudos. We're all very very proud.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#34 Aug 06 2006 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good

trickybeck

Tracer Bullet

12,636 posts

Quote:

It's "slant" to simply argue that political processes that are ok for Democrats to use are also ok for Republicans to use?

Apparently you're the only one that thinks it's ok at all.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#35 Aug 07 2006 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

You sure about that?

This clearly non-pro-Delay article certainly indicates otherwise, and matches everything I've heard about the redistricting he did.

No, actually it indicates that presicely the opposite of what you posted was true. It's ok though, we all realize you're functionally retarded. Don't feel badly about. It's really amazing that you somehow managed to learn to cut and paste. Honestly, kudos. We're all very very proud.

Please tell me this is the patented Smasharoo "bluff big when you're wrong" going on here.

What part of Democrat voter share increasing 5 percent in Delay's district is confusing to you?

It was gerrymandered to pull voters out of a strong Republican district and use them to put 4-5 other districts in play. Even if the Republican's lose this particular district, they'll have gained overall in Texas.

But don't let that stop you and your ******...

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#36 Aug 07 2006 at 6:51 AM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Youshutup wrote:

One last time..

You are outraged at what you percieve voter misrepresentation. In the same paragraph you boast of the success of a practice that is unashamedly undemocratic.

Could you perhaps quotethe paragraph in question? Cause I don't recall expressing "outrage" about voter misrepresentation in this thread at all, much less in the same paragraph where I boasted about anything.

I'm serious here. Quote the freaking paragraph. You've made the claim twice. I've re-read my posts in this thread several times. I can't find this mythical paragraph anywhere...

Quote:

The fact that both parties participate doesn't somehow make it fair; it merely means that whoever is in power is more likely to be able to stay in power. It's manipulation.

I thought I was clear. I am not making *any* moral judgement on the practice. Merely pointing out that it's legal, is done by both sides, and that it's hypocritical to only opposit it when the "other side" does it.

Heck. I even made a comparison to how the lobbying system works, and benefits the party in power in Congress as well. I'm not saying *that's* a good system either. Just observing that Democrats seemed to have no progblem with it for the 40 years that they controlled congress and suddenly called it a "culture of corruption" once they lost control and the money started flowing to Republican candidates istead of Democrats.

Quote:

It's not the hypocrisy of party politics; it's the hypocrisy of feigning outrage whilst in the next breath talking with glee of the same thing that you claim is getting your panties in a knot.

Lol. My first sentence in this thead was something like "I wouldn't get too excited". If you got "outrage" out of any part of any of my posts, it's you reading *waaaay* too much into things.

Quote:

OK? It's not about Republicans being evil and Democrats being good; it's about you not actually caring about voter misrepresentation. Because if you did, assuming your IQ is actually positive, you would get a slight tingle when talking with no particular distaste of a practice far worse than the one the OP discusses.

Look. The *only* statement I made about voter representation had *nothing* to do with gerrymandering. I said that in any sane system, a party would be able to replace a candidate under indictment with one that wasn't. Didn't express "outrage". Just commented that when you look at the particulars of this case, it's a bit bizarre for the courts to force a candidate to stay on the ballot under these specific circumstances.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Hahahaha, but wait, we gerryamndered that special!Follow