This is precisely the point.
Ah, vroom, I realize you're Canadian and the case-celebre of the moment is the Texas redistricting case, but the state legislatures are the ones in charge of drawing the electoral districts, and Democrats control quite a few of them.
In most cases, the problem with gerrymandering is that it is done with the full acquiescence of the other party, because the incumbents of the out-of-power party are willing to trade safe seats for the possibility of winning (or losing) more seats each election cycle.
I absolutely hate gerrymandering -- I think it's one of the three biggest impediments to a truly representative government that we currently face (for a refresher, the other two are activist courts and the delegation of lawmaking authority, under the misnomer of rulemaking authority, to unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the SEC). But that said, it's a cross-party problem.
And I think that's half right - but the second clause is utter crap. Both sides are fighting for control -- one side is doing it more effectively. I think we'd be better off if either side were arguing principles.
The Republicans do have disparate views on a lot of issues -- the "big tent" idea. But they're social issues, about which people are comfortable brooking disagreements. The Dems problem is that they look disorganized and confused on national security, which is certainly an issue on which people like to see leadership and unity.
The first sentence of this paragraph finally gets around to agreeing with my main point. The other is recycled Thomas Friedman pap.
In your twisted reality political disagreements lead to hate.
In my world political disagreements lead to a minor difference of opinion.
Using your logic most of the country hates Bush because they disapprove of the job he is doing.
That is with out a doubt the stupidest F'ing idea you keep regurgitating.
Not only is that idea stupid but it greatly diminishes what hate really means.
I doubt you run your chemical supply buisness with the same illogical mindset.
'Drinking the Kool-Aid' means that you blindly embrace a certain idiology.
Please show me where you don't blindly embrace Bush and the current GOP's platform without question.
Show me where you have not defended Bush on any major issue.
The Dems are lost and pathetic.
I do not support the Dems BS and my only hope of getting what I want is if the GOP were to get back to their paleo-conservative and libertarian roots.
Bush, Frist and Boehner will not get us there.
Wake up. Maybe listen to the left-wing rhetoric. My reality is fine.
The hatred spewed by the left does not sound minor to me. Talk of impeachment is not a monor disagreement.
I said nothing about most of the country. I am talking about the dem leadership. Maybe you should work on your own logic before critiquing mine.
The left hates Bush. They can offer no reason to vote for the left other than a vote for them is a vote against the right. Wake up. Look at the last few congressional elections. This is not brain surgery. I know you can keep up if you just give it a shot.
I have no idea what that has to do with my business. But yes - we try to give the customer reasons to buy from us. We don't try to give them reasons not to buy from the competition without giving them more resaons why they should spend their money with us.
I have no idea why you keep bring up the irrelevant left with me?
The right and left are one in the same when it comes to spewing nasty words about the other side of the isle.
Would you refuse to sell to a left wingnut liberal if they place a huge order with you?
Maybe if you were to check the title of the thread, you would see why the left and right are being disussed as different entities, but I could be wrong.
You seem to have me mistaken for someone that carries their politics with them where ever they go. I am not that guy.
And I have yet to see the connection between my business and November. Please explain. I am curious. Really.
I'm quite well aware of what it means, hence my retort.
As to your question, a quick search of T-Nation posts revealed this quickly:
but certainly if you invested time you could find more.
Now please show where you have demonstrated any critical thinking skills in any of your replies. Actually, I'd be happy with a ratio of replies that were one-word/one-phrase stuff picked up from perusing self-described independent websites, the topicality of which is usually questionable and the conclusions of which are amusing (see all your conclusions regarding Plame), versus those that are a paragraph or two, on topic and actually address someone else's points.
Just making sure you just play a wacko on this forum but real life intrudes into the fantasy world you create for yourself here.
I bet your favorite Kool-Aid flavor is fruit punch.
FYI - The Plame grand jury did indict Rove but Fitz decided not to unseal the indictment. Horse trading saved Rove.
BREWSTER JENNINGS & ASSOCIATES
Are you going to tell me that BREWSTER JENNINGS & ASSOCIATES was not a CIA front company?
Go ahead...tell me how BREWSTER JENNINGS & ASSOCIATES outing did not compromise national security.
Thank you for illustrating my point so quickly and thoroughly.
It might only be me, but I think that if the left were willing to give up some perks and lead with some meaningful political reform, that it would help.
I think people are very unhappy with the corruption and crap in the capital. Actually cleaning it up, with a tough stance going into the election, and following through with it... would get them in, and then get them the presidency.
Focus on what's inside the country, not outside.
Serious security, serious reform and get the hell off the "pull out now" bandwagon which is not a good way to talk about Iraq if you want votes. For Iraq, find some meaningful ways to help them move to independence, and then get the hell out when Iraq says they have reached those goals.
At least then it is a clear road. People would vote for a clear road... given the republican murkiness and non-answers on every issue that comes up.
Too bad I'm not in charge.
Also, opening up the fact that Christianity is NOT aligned with big business and big riches, splitting the religious right between the dems and repubs would be a massive move. It's about time to remind people that Jesus fought against the aristocrats. Jesus was a liberal. Hello?
You are babbling about something that is really none of your concern.
The topic is "Do dems have new ideas?"
Focus. Your tangents are tiring and less than inspiring today.
Absolutely. I cannot see it happening.
The topic is "Do dems have new ideas?"
I already stated that the Dems are clueless.
Hijacking the thread was the only way to keep it alive.
I don't even know why I am asking you this - but can you please explain to me the connection to the topic and my business?
Just answer that - and perhaps how that business is being compromised by my internet persona?
You are certainly correct in saying that Jesus condemned the religious establishment of his time. The reason they did not like him was because he constantly confronted them with their hypocrisy and self-righteousness. He threatened their power base, which is why he was eventually killed. He was "liberal" in the sense he was no respector of persons; he taught that rich and poor, male and female could have the same standing in his kingdom. He pretty much stayed out of politics except to say that it was correct to pay taxes to civil government, which was ultimately established by God. Beyond that, it is hard to pigeonhole a person who says "I am the way" as particularly liberal.
I figured your Internet persona has nothing to do with real life.
You helped me show that.
Keyboard muscles in a political sense.
They are going to need every advantage they can get.
I don't think incumbency is going to help at all during mid-term. If anything, it is going to hinder them with the independent voters.
As far as the historical vantage point that they have the advantage, that doesn't really mean anything anymore--just ask your conservative friends--"the times have changed."