| Author |
Message |
    
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 69
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 7:56 pm: |     |
first the justice department defied a federal judge in the moussaoui trial, now this in alabama:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html
i believe the neocons are attempting a fascist takeover of this country, and it will take a concerted effort to keep them from prevailing. i'm not optimistic, fwiw. |
mike
Citizen
Username: Mike1
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 9:28 pm: | |
Hello Hello
I believe your style of post is a bit antagonistic, but hey its all in fun and its time to stir the snake pit anyways. Good luck.
Been gone for awhile and need to catch up.
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 9:50 pm: | |
Here he is, our boy, the Honorable Chief Justice Roy Moore.
I say he looks confused.
Confused and dangerous.
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10180
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
A fascist takeover Hello? What's next? Are you going to equate Bush to Hitler?
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <---- |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 259
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
if you dislike the right-wing's attempt to take power by force where democracy doesn't yield them success, pay attention to what's going on in Texas - and if you disagree with the Republican strong-arming, send some dough (they've raised $400k so far):
an excerpt from the advocacy against redistricting:
"Impeachment. The 2000 Election. The California Recall. The pattern is becoming clear: there's a group of men in power who will do anything to consolidate that power, including undermining our democratic institutions. We've got to fight back. In Texas, they are fighting back. And while the world is focusing on the California mess, they are fighting alone. They need our help."
http://moveon.org/texasads |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 28
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
The TX Dems are gutless wonders. The state is solidly republican, and it's about time the districting and representation reflects that. The republicans are legally entitled to do this.
Dems lost there, have lost elsewhere and are losing the debate. A cowardly evacuation and obstruction are their only recourse since they can't win in the arena of ideas. Since their policies can't carry elections, this is what they're left with. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1672
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:04 am: | |
Reality check: If Bin Laden hadn't attacked the WTC, the mid-term elections would have been a catastrophe for the Republican Party. Instead of a focus on Iraq, the focus would have been on business scandals and the cozy relationship between the Republican Party and big business.
The only arena in which the GOP has a leg up on the Dems is in national defense. Luckily for the GOP, Bin Laden has made national defense a very high priority. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 260
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:13 am: | |
so people in power are then entitled to change all the rules so they can have even MORE power, and take away the representation elected by the voting minority?! if so, this IS a banana republic. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 314
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
The purpose of districting is to better represent minority opinions, not given a solid block to the majority. Otherwise you could simply go by a simple majority in all cases, and districts wouldn't matter.
If (hypothetically) 51% of the voters are Republicans, and 49% are Democrats, districts are supposed to let the representation reflect that. Otherwise, this would lead (as the ruling party always wants) to a misrepresentation of the voters' desires.
Typically, redistricting is done in Texas every 10 years. What's the justification for doing it sooner, other than a power grab?
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:17 am: | |
cjc, perhaps you would be happier living in Texas, where a statement like, "Dems lost there, have lost elsewhere and are losing the debate. A cowardly evacuation and obstruction are their only recourse since they can't win in the arena of ideas. Since their policies can't carry elections, this is what they're left with." may in fact be almost true.
Here in the northeast, here in Maplewood, it's utter nonsense. |
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 263
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 11:50 am: | |
Tom, I beg to differ. Here in maplewood maybe but not the entire northeast. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 29
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:04 pm: | |
1-2 many -- the cliche that Big Biz is only in the pocket of Republicans is hooey and you know it, I hope. Business plays both sides of the fence. how else do you get to Democracts relying on soft money to fund their campaigns -- something they can't get to now (which stifles the First Amendment, but hey....that's an antiquated law -- that free speech stuff).
Changing rules is OK so long as it's done legally. You just don't like it cuz the Dems can't run the show like they did - in the very same way -- in Congress for 40 years until 1994. It is to grab power....that they legitimately won. Why do you think the districts are as they are now? Because Democrats wanted to ensure a viable Repub minority? Please!!
As far as the NE and Maplewood, that's the one part of the country I know of where if someone says "there's no difference between Repubs and Dems" that it is actually true. It's hopeless here until there's a meltdown of the sorts we're witnessing in CA. When will that happen? When all people here feel the pain....not just the evil, white, republican Big Business types we must constantly be on guard for (nod to 1-2many). |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 261
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:15 pm: | |
the districts are as they are now because they were drawn that way after the Census, as required. According to moveon.org:
A three judge federal panel was forced to draw the plan. Neither Governor Rick Perry or then Attorney General John Cornyn, both Republicans, objected to the plan, which was reviewed and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
DeLay's gerrymandering plan will carve up communities around Texas in order to further his unambiguous goal: "I'm the majority leader, and we want more seats." (Rep. DeLay quoted in the New York Times, July 1, 2003)
they are grabbing power that they legitimately won?? not quite - they never won the power to change all the rules. they didn't legitimately win the power they are now trying to forcibly take.
(not replying to Big Biz comments as they don't seem relevant to this issue.) |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:21 pm: | |
cjc,
I assume the redistricting comments were addressed to me. If so, then you didn't really read my post. I'm not a democrat looking to bash republicans. All Party politicians are a step below used car salesmen in my book.
When the dems were in power, they tried whenever possible to redistrict to their advantage (notice I said ruling party). But they didn't try to change the rules. And in the past, I don't recall republicans trying to change the rules like this.
You might want to read this for more info about what the democrats are claiming.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
Robert Little
Citizen
Username: Boblittle
Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
It used to be that voters picked politicians; now politicians pick voters. Redistricting needs to be taken away from elected officials and placed in neutral panels. Iowa has done this and has much more competitive elections and their congressional delegation closely reflects the state year to year.
Ideally, each district should reflect the statewide balance of voters. Any change in views on the part of voters would immediately be given effect in their representation. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 30
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 4:05 pm: | |
1-2many and woodstock:
The TX democrats redrew districts in a non-Census year as lately as 1997 to accommodate themselves (one democract loudly complaining on this very point now took advantage of this to have a new house conveniently completed in a 'new' section of his redrawn district). Martin Frost redrew districts in a master stroke of genius (and partisanship) after a census in 1991 to stem the rising republican tide. The 2/3 majority can be nullified in a Special Session -- one the governor has been called and the Dems have been fleeing. No rules being bent here, unless you're a republican, I guess.
56% of the state voted for a republican congressman, all 29 statewide offices are republican, and they've voted for a republican presidential nominee since 1980, but the Dems control the delegation to the US House 17-15.
This plan would more accurately reflect the voting of the TX population.
|
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 7:07 pm: | |
cjc-
where do you get your trash from?
here's an accurate summary of the *court-drawn* districts in 1997, talk radio liar:
http://www.ncec.org/redistricting/state.phtml?stateselect=TX
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 32
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 9:42 am: | |
Hello:
I stand corrected. The Democrats did not -- themselves -- redistrict in 1997. The court did.
I simply make the case that things are not "unfair" when districts are redrawn in a non-census year, as some posters claim.
While fairness is a silly concept in politics -- Sowell's "Cosmic Justice" makes that point well -- I go on to say that TX districting would more 'fairly' represent the population there if the republicans could get the spineless democrats to end their tactics.
Nice "liar" shot too, push-puppy. By the way, are you short? |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 80
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 9:57 am: | |
cjc-
the results in 1997 were the culmination of lawsuits filed after the timely 1991 redistricting, lawsuits which ultimately navigated a republican governor's veto power, a republican texas state supreme court, a republican fifth circuit court of appeals, and a republican supreme court. the "democrats" were essentially powerless throughout the process. in fact, the republicans endorsed most fot he lawsuits because more minority congresspersons means more republicans are elected given the urban-rural voting splits.
every word of your post is untrue. the democrats have never attempted to redistrict between decennials. never. the powers-that-be would not have permitted it. it's a "texas" thing. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 81
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 10:02 am: | |
cjc-
the results in 1997 were the culmination of lawsuits filed after the timely 1991 redistricting, lawsuits and attendign legislative battles which ultimately navigated a republican governor's veto power, a republican texas state supreme court, a republican fifth circuit court of appeals, and a republican supreme court. the "democrats" were essentially powerless throughout the process. in fact, the republicans endorsed most fot he lawsuits because more minority congresspersons means more republicans are elected given the urban-rural voting splits.
the democrats have never attempted to redistrict between decennials. never. the powers-that-be would not have permitted it. it's a "texas" thing. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 34
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 11:07 am: | |
I would think that those on the left who decry courts determining electoral outcomes would prefer one done by the actual TX legislature -- something representative of the people. Since the legislature didn't complete it's job and the courts finished the job and we know it doesn't represent 'fairly' the TX voting patterns, let's let the legislature take another crack at it.
I don't get your point about minority congressmen meaning more republicans, though. As for minorities, I believe that only 3 blacks are serving in statewide office, and they're republicans. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 2:06 pm: | |
It looks like the rule of law is set to prevail in the Ten Commandments case. I think it goes to show that the majority of Americans, whether conservative or liberal, are pretty sensible when put to the test. However, since the news media likes to report on extreme viewpoints, you might think otherwise. |
Elmwoodian
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 282
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 5:39 pm: | |
This one is a "no win".
When you get a bunch of whimpering bible-bangers chaining themselves to a statue there is no way for a good outcome. This will (if it hasn’t already) become an issue that every self-proclaimed Christian victim claims their own.
Think about Pat Robertson calling to his minions to “pray for (ac-hem) a change on the Supreme Court”… oops, he already did that, wishing death to some Justices so Roe v. Wade could get overturned by a even more radical bench of Justices.
Ashcrost should weigh in on this, I for one would LOVE to hear his opinion, but of course we won’t, since we already know the outcome of any answer he gives. For that matter, I’d pay to hear Bush’s thoughts on the statue and it’s placement too.
I’m sure that this situation will be handled poorly by ALL the parties involved, I’m sure that at least one person will be charged with some crime, I’m sure the idea that Christianity is “America’s religion” will be bantered around (so this is all OK, right?) and I’m sure that the 1st amendment will prevail, maybe bruised and battered but intact.
Our forefathers may have been religious men and even pious Christian men, but they took the good measure of ensuring that no one religion would ever become the “official” religion or that it would effect the secular courts systems. Remember, the primary reason the Pilgrims came here in the first place was so that they could practice whatever religion they wanted to without the consent or mandate of the state or crown (in this case England).
The absolute separation between Church and State is paramount to the success of this great American experiment. Otherwise we are on are way to becoming a theocracy like so many of the counties the current administration have on their “hit lists”.
I apologize in advance if my ranting has caused any readers discomfort, and no harm is intended in the penning of my opinions. I’m just exercising my rights and loving every minute of it.
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2012
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 25, 2003 - 8:23 pm: | |
Don't apologize, I think you got it right.
Interestingly enough, I think that the truly religious can join with the non-religious to agree that Judge Moore's attempt to use a publicly-funded building to tout his own version of religion, to the exclusion of others, is just anti-American. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 264
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 10:11 am: | |
so what's Moore's grandstanding REALLY all about? what's he after? he knows where this path leads - as a judge, he knows good and well he has to respect the judicial system or risk losing his position. clearly he knows what he's risking - what's unclear is what he's risking it for. sure, sure, he says it's to protect the presence of God as the foundation of our law or some such bull-dookie, but I suspect there's something more here that he's gunning for, some other post for which this notoriety for piousness is well-suited. where's he REALLY headed? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
1-2,
he's headed for martyrdom |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 91
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 5:34 pm: | |
he's going to run for governor of alabama. |
OK, it's Straw Man
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 993
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 7:36 pm: | |
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page