O'Reilly smears people who won't appear on his failing show

[Dinner]

Originally posted by pchang
Actually, the other guy already cheated.

The claim of cheating originated in the post Civil War time frame until the 1950s or 1960s. It's time for you to let go. I think somebody needs a hug. Come here, man.

(reaches out to hug pchang)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by pchang
Everybody. You have to remember the origin of the term gerrymandering.

“An official statement of the returns of voters for senators give[s] twenty nine friends of peace, and eleven gerrymanders.” So reported the May 12, 1813, edition of the Massachusetts Spy. A gerrymander sounds like a strange political beast, which it is, considered from a historical perspective. This beast was named by combining the word salamander, “a small lizardlike amphibian,” with the last name of Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusettsa state noted for its varied, often colorful political fauna. Gerry (whose name, incidentally, was pronounced with a hard g, though gerrymander is now commonly pronounced with a soft g) was immortalized in this word because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander. According to one version of gerrymander's coining, the shape of the district attracted the eye of the painter Gilbert Stuart, who noticed it on a map in a newspaper editor's office. Stuart decorated the outline of the district with a head, wings, and claws and then said to the editor, “That will do for a salamander!” “Gerrymander!” came the reply. The word is first recorded in April 1812 in reference to the creature or its caricature, but it soon came to mean not only “the action of shaping a district to gain political advantage” but also “any representative elected from such a district by that method.” Within the same year gerrymander was also recorded as a verb.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gerrymandering

[JohnT]

****, Oerdin, if you're gonna repeat the exact same passage that I c&p'd ten-odd posts earlier, at least you could cite the original source.

[JohnT]

Essentially, what pchang is saying is that gerrymandering is almost as old as the Republic and complaining about it is as fruitless as complaining about yesterday's sunset.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Be sides you really should hold your leaders up to a higher standard then just whining about somebody else did it too at some time in history. That really is a pathetic excuse.

Actually if I had my druthers gerrymandering for any reason political or whatever would be illegal. However as that isn't the case (nor is it likely to be the case in the foreseeable future) whining and making Doomsday predictions about the death of democracy about the use of a common tactic both parties use even today only serves to grate on my nerves.

Nope, if you revist the thread, he was engaged in a strawman and corrected him.

I did and really saw no evidence that the GOP broke any rules. I guess that Imran was right after all.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by JohnT
****, Oerdin, if you're gonna repeat the exact same passage that I c&p'd ten-odd posts earlier, at least you could cite the original source.

I didn't see yours.

I quoted Dictionary.com so I suspect your source stole it from there.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I did and really saw no evidence that the GOP broke any rules. I guess that Imran was right after all.

If by "rules" you mean "laws," no, and I pointed that out. But if by "rules" you mean the procedures laid out for the state legislature and established precedent, as well as the spirit of the consitutional mandate for redistricting, then yes. You should learn to stop relying on others to do your arguing for you.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
making Doomsday predictions about the death of democracy about the use of a common tactic both parties use even today only serves to grate on my nerves.

Please, try to be a bit honest. Republicans are the only ones doing it now and whining about post civil war history really is a red herring. We should be correcting the abuses which are occuring today instead.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Please, try to be a bit honest.

OK. Let's try this in a few easy steps.

1) You are whining and making unsupported Doomsday predictions about the death of democracy.

2) Republicans are the only ones doing it now All parties do it when they achieve majorities. It's a common though abhorent practice that all parties do. Given that there is no popular mood for ending the practice outright, complaining about it when one party decides to take advantage of the spoils is a fruitless endeavor. That only serves to annoy me.

You should learn to stop relying on others to do your arguing for you.

I called it as I saw it. I would have joined the debate but I had no knowledge of Texas law and had no real reason to comment since he seemed to be handling himself as far as I could tell.

How's that for a bit of honesty, Oerdin?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I called it as I saw it.

How do you "see it" when it's explained that the Texas GOP held a special session of the legislature to pass the redistricting, but in that session ignored the rule that a 2/3 vote had to pass special session legislation and let it go through on a simple majority? Would you call that breaking a rule?

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
but in that session ignored the rule that a 2/3 vote had to pass special session legislation and let it go through on a simple majority?

Arong as usual. No such rule. Legislation passes the same way in a special as in a general. A special seesion does have different rules on what legislation may be introduced and some of the 'calendar' rules are differnt IIRC.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) You are whining and making unsupported Doomsday predictions about the death of democracy.

2) Republicans are the only ones doing it now All parties do it when they achieve majorities.

1) All I said is if Republicans keep gerrymandering state then we could end up with one party perminently the majority. Which is exactly what Tom Delay said his goal was in the second paragraph of THIS Economist article. I doubt they'll be able to do significant amounts of more gerrymandering due to the bad publicity the last round of gerrymandering got.

2) No, everyone else does not do it everytime they are the majority. You are still attempting to rationalize away Republican abuses by whining "but they did it too".

How about the Republicans prove the talk about integrity and values isn't just talk and they try to lead by example? I guess that's to much to ask for and you'll be there to excuse any abuses or ill behavior along the way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, everyone else does not do it everytime they are the majority.

Are you THAT naive?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, everyone else does not do it everytime they are the majority.

Are you THAT naive?

Apparently.

[Dinner]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying it doesn't happen every time which was the claim made.