Bricker, are you a fucking loon? Do you think this is an intelligent argument?
Really?
Where was the last Democratic Gerrymandering Thread I was involved in?
“Well Bricker, you obviously love fucking a box full of writhing maggots. Because I’ve never heard you decry it!”
Honestly dude, this is Clothahump stuff. Seriously, ask someone near you if you’re slurring your speech or if one of your eyes isn’t tracking. You may have had a stroke.
I’ve never seen someone spiral so hard. You’re losing it, old man. Try and pull your knees in before you hit ground.
You weren’t Mexican, for one. The vast majority of American Hispanics are of Mexican descent. Being of another country and in another community wouldn’t give you the same experiences.
And I suspect you don’t know what dirt poor is. Or if you did, you got over it early enough in your upbringing that you’ve forgotten what it’s like. I know you went to college and law school, so you weren’t so poor that you went to a shitty inner-city high school.
But let’s not make this about you, you’re obviously gonna give some bullshit sob-story about how poor widdle-old-you were growing up. But as we all know, you’re a liar and are more than willing to be dishonest to “win” a debate. Because you don’t understand that most people think cheating is wrong.
But if you don’t, then I am at a loss to understand this post. He asks a question about my experience, I answer it, and you come along to say, “To hell with who you were, who are you now!”
Who I am now is a guy answering a question about my past, a question someone asked me.
Translation: I admit I have never criticized the Democrats’ gerrymandering. But since it’s for a good cause, I wouldn’t.
So that I’m not accused of misquoting you: if a Hispanic is not of Mexican descent, they cannot speak to the Hispanic experience in America. Is that it?
Wow.
Are you thinking that no one from a shitty inner city high school can get to college or law school?
I am now certain that YOU have no goddam clue about being poor. You have an idiotic, liberal-guilt caricature vision in your mind.
Gerrymandering in general, or specific instances of Democratic gerrymandering that I have in fact decried? Because I’ve posted about my dislike for gerrymandering in general in this very thread, and I don’t know of any instances of Democratic gerrymandering in recent history…
I do note that you did not answer my question about gerrymandering earlier in this thread:
(You will note some slight hedging there… the case of “there’s a bunch of people who all live close together and all share a strong identity and set of priorities, and there are enough of them that they could easily elect a member to this body, except that their geographical enclave happens to lie on the intersection of three distinct districts, so they’re always 30% of each of 3 districts rather than being 80% of one district, and we find that unfair” is one in which Gerrymandering is, at least arguably, justified and ethical. Although of course it’s a potentially slippery slope, because there’s pretty much always going to be SOME group that ends up divided up or scattered around by the Gerrymandering, and of course it’s likely that one political party (whichever one this group aligns with) will benefit from this redrawing (although not necessarily… it’s certainly possible to have a big enclave of group A inside a larger area where group A is likely to lean towards one party over the other, but so is the surrounding area. In fact, some times the redrawing will hurt the party that group A identifies with and some times it will help it and some times neither). Anyhow, as I’ve expressed on more than one occasion recently, I think the entire concept of geographical districts is pretty obsolete in this day and age, and obviously abusable as seen here, although I’m sure there are some benefits to it.)
Any examples that would show you criticize gerrymandering even if your preferred party benefits.
Possible? All things are possible.
But as a strong general principle, if something is legal and constitutional, and has a rational justification and enjoys popular support, it cannot still be antidemocratic.
So, you’re dad told you about being in a country where the leftists were in charge, about how bad it was. Which was why Muskie was so very, very wrong. Because Muskie was a leftist? Huh? Muskie? Who ran in '72. When most if not all of Central America was in the grip of various murderous and bloodthirsty right wing tyrants. So, your old man wasn’t from Cuba, right?
As it happens, I was twenty four in '72, met my first Central American refugee, hiding out in America from Somoza. He had a very different story to tell, about how bad things could be when the wrong people were in charge. I heard later than he was caught and deported back. I hope he’s OK. I very much doubt it.
Point being, you can stuff your inherited expertise. Was Muskie more of a communist than, say, Archbishop Romero?
The higher principle is that everyone who has the right to vote is allowed to vote. You seem to think that just showing up at a voting booth is enough to determine you have the right. No, this is one case where you have to demonstrate that the right in question applies to you.
The argument here is on what constitutes enough proof. The rules have changed and you’ve gotten your knickers in a knot over it and are accusing others of being amoral rather than admitting defeat and fixing it so that it doesn’t affect people as drastically as you think it will.
And, once again, repitition number one hundred and fifteen, it isn’t the change of rules. Nothing wrong with voter id in and of itself. Have I already said that? Pretty sure. Come to think on it, a whole bunch of times, and its bounced off Uzi like a popcorn ball thrown at a tank. No matter how many times its explained to you, you blink, and then come back with “Oh, well, you guys just hate voter id”
You have reached neutron density, you are approaching the theoretical limit, you have an event horizon, where no information enters and even less comes out.
Yes, and all you have to do to resolve the issue is get people the proper ID’s. You would thus foil the dastardly plot of the Republicans and help any number of people.
But that isn’t your goal. You’re goal is to keep the current situation, which favors one party over the other, in place. And you are using an appeal to a higher principle that isn’t being violated to justify your argument.
Wait, what? Are you actually providing supporting evidence for elucidator’s speculation that rightwingers actually believe recent Democratic victories rely on fraudulent voters? Or is there some other reason you think the “current situation” where registered voters without photo ID are able to vote favors elucidator’s presumed political preference?
I would like to note, that Bricker is *lying *about my position on gerrymandering. He has utterly made up a fantasy version of my position, based on the fact that I haven’t participated in a gerrymandering thread.
You know, one of those abundant *gerrymandering *threads that are all the rage in GD. :rolleyes:
So can anyone, anyone at all claim he isn’t a filthy fucking liar? Anyone?
I’m being just as truthful as you always are. You’re my hero.
So, where are those posts of yours in which you have really harsh words for Democrats gerrymandering?
In fact, let’s expand it. Show me a couple of posts where you have really harsh words for Democrats for any reason… other than them agreeing with Republicans on a polcy. Any topic at all but policy agreement with Republicans. You seem to think here was no real opportunity to speak up about Democratic gerrymandering, so let’s expand it. Any post where you really had harsh words for a Democratic politician, pundit, or proposal.
In college, to pay my way through college, I had a job - one of several - that required me to be up at 4:30 AM and in the dining hall kitchen. I had to heat up the deep fat fryers, wait for them to get warm, drain the oil through a filter, and return the filtered oil to the fryer, topping it off with fresh oil. And then removing the shit that was left… Bones, detritus, the occasional weirdly melted oddity that must have fallen in during the day. It made me sick, and it stank, and by the time I got to 8:00 calculus class I smelled like grease. Nothing I did would get the smell out.
I had worked at something ever since I was 14. I cut lawns, had a paper route, painted numbers on curbs in front of houses, did roofing in summer. Lots of hard work. Lots of blisters after some days. But I never felt ashamed of any of those jobs. I was thrilled to have money. I also wrote COBOL and RPG code on an IBM S/3 for my school system. I was proud of that, more than any other work, because that was earning money with my brain, which I knew I wanted to do.
That fucking grease drainer job earned me less than minimum wage. The college was allowed to pay less than minimum wage. I hated that stench on me.
You are a typical brainless guilt-ridden liberal. You know nothing.
I don’t have any posts about not fucking your mom in the mouth either, but I wouldn’t do it.
Liar, can I call you liar? If you can’t understand why my lack of comment, in a thread I wasn’t in, in a thread that doesn’t exist, isn’t evidence for my position, you’re a fucking idiot. But then I guess you believe a lot of shit without evidence. Huh, mackerel snapper?
So can you understand it, liar? Can you?
I wasn’t a fan of Weiner, once it came out he did what he was accused of. Since he lied. I don’t care that he texted a pic of his hog, I care that he lied and looked stupid. I’m not a fan of Ben Nelson. I’m not a fan of Cynthia McKinney, I think she’s nuts.
Feel free to search my posts for mentions of these. Of course, since there aren’t a lot of threads about them, I may not be in any of them.
But, my little clot of ignorance, you’re just buh buh buh… you do it tooooooing here again.
Let’s try to keep on track about your utter, embarrassing pratfall in this thread, kay?
I know you’re a middling talent who has delusions of superiority and aside from a law degree you’re not that interesting.
No reason to believe you, since you’re a liar. As shown above. As it happens, I’ve cleaned out fryers too. It’s not that hard. It’s certainly easier than digging ditches or picking fruit.
Well, it may not be on your hands any more, but it worked its way into your soul, you worthless sociopath.
I don’t feel particularly guilty. Although I did touch myself earlier.
The whole point of this thread is the worry that the Democrats will lose votes because of more stringent requirements. That’s what I’m referring to. Looser, or easier, requirements favor the Democrats.
Unbelievable. Poor doesn’t mean retarded. Nor does it mean lazy, or any other thing other than not having as much money as someone else. It is harder to do the things most people might take for granted if you are poor. It doesn’t make them impossible or even anything more than an inconvenience. I’d suggest it is you who have actually never been poor if you assume it equals being incompetent.
As I quoted in the very post you were responding to: “totally legal and constitutional, but is always unethical and antidemocratic”. Did you want me to specifically point out that by “always” I in fact mean “no matter which party is doing it”? As for actual examples with democrats benefiting, point me towards some and I’ll strongly consider condemning them. Although, honestly, asking me to somehow prove my non-hypocrisy as some kind of prerequisite here seems a little skewed.
There was certainly a time in American history when Jim Crow laws were legal and constitutional and had rational justification and enjoyed popular support, but they (at least, the parts of them that dealt with voting rights, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.) were pretty much the definition of antidemocratic.