Ashcroft approves Bushevik Texas Coup: info released Fri Night

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031220/pl_nm/politics_texas_dc

What a surprise! Why, I'd have been at least as surprised if Molotov had approved Stalin's actions in the Ukraine or Himmler had given the OK to Albert Speer's industrialization plans.

More and more this nation, once so proud and free, resembles the aforementioned states but at this moment more closely resembles Marcos' Phillipines than a Free Nation, which Amerika is not technically, though our lives remain sort of free at thebottom for a little while longer, until the Busheviks finish reducing the checks and balances of the Old American Republic to rubble.

Just a taste, mind you, of living in a place where the institutions designed to protect you are now used to crush you.

Just a taste, we really aren't cloes to the daily life of the Soviet citizenry, but can it fail to eventually happen, given all the precursors including the naked seizure of the government by the Imperial Family?

We'll see, perhaps this new hybrid Tyranny coming into being will be marginally better for the "little people" in Amerika, but somehow it seems that it will naturally seek it's own level in the end, as bad in it's own way (but differing in the details) as the Nazis or Soviets or Imperial Rome.

And Ashcroft has taken another step to wipe his ass with the Constitution he despises.

The fix is in like a Soviet Toilet Paper Production report.

"Republicans argue they deserve congressional districts that better represent their party's dominance among Texas voters. They hold all statewide elected offices and control both houses of the Legislature."

Are these a-holes the most selfish one-party rulers you ever saw?

I thought checks and balances were the heart of American Democracy. How can they claim to be patriotic when they spit on that? They're just weak little wusses who can't share the candy with anyone.

:puke:

So the makeup of the Congressional delegation shouldn't resemble, on a statewide basis, the ethnic and party affiliation demographics of the state? I looked at the redistricting map and it's no more gerrymandered than the last one. The only real difference this time around is that it is gerrymandered by Repubs this time instead of the Democrats and Tom deLay didn't want to wait around till the next census.

That last wrinkle is a first, I understand, but offends no law, but only custom.

I guess I'd be more upset except that I've been around when my sister was involved in redistricting out here in California a couple of times. Redistricting is a brazen exercise of pure political might. There is rarely any compromise or consideration of the feelings and rights of those who don't happen to be possessed of the might at that moment. Those with the might use it and those without howl about how unfair it is. They without the might at that moment rarely have the grace to reflect on the fact that in they did the same damned thing when they had the chance. :eyes:

...but you don't so I will educate you.

1. The districts in question (all currently represented by white, male Democrats) are (with one exception) in heavily Republican areas. That means these Republican-leaning people are actually VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS to represent them in Congress. So, with this redistricting plan, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE is subverted.

2. Austin is now part of 4 Congressional Districts. FOUR. MIDLAND has ONE DISTRICT. Gee, who used to live in Midland? :eyes: So, it is to be assumed from this that Midland is more important than THE CAPITAL OF THE STATE. Right.

3. The REPUBLICANS are the party that would not allow redistricting to pass the legislature in 2001. There was a bill all ready to go, supported by both parties (and written by a Republican). However the more strident conservatives blocked it, and moved the whole process to the courts. When they didn't like the results they changed the rules in the middle of the game. Typical.

I was born and raised in Texas... I know as well that an uncle of mine lived in Karnes County and voted in a district that was for years connected to Laredo for over a hundred miles via following a highway upcountry to Karnes from Laredo. Funny how that part of the district was no wider than the highway till it got to Karnes. His Congressman's office was well over 150 miles away. His Congressman wouldn't return calls.

Were you here throughout the 2001 and 2003 sessions?

Years ago. I'm kept in close touch by my ex-Mother-in-Law, my retired high school chemistry teacher, a Fort Worth architect that I used to teach at the University of Texas as Arlington with and until about six months ago recently a schoolmate who became an executive VP at a big software firm in Michigan.

I think I'd like to leave Texas at this point. If the lawsuit fails, I will have my Congressman taken from me. A guy I voted for, and support whole-heartedly. Let's just say I'm not real happy about that prospect.

I may have to move, either here in town, or out of state.

Thank God!

From what I've been told, they let the case go to court and didn't bother appealing because they knew they would have the legislature this year? They planned all along to do this in 2003.

This is in contrast to in '91 when the GOP was appealing the state Senate redistricting and went so far as to covertly consult with the GOP judge that was deciding the case.

"That last wrinkle is a first, I understand, but offends no law, but only custom."

the other minor detail you are over looking that they are doing this during a very divise time in our nations history AND in a very authoritarian way that is in keeping with the PNAC destructive and unilateral ways of doing things which is completely opposite to the spirit of our two party republic.

well, that gives me some pause anyways :hi:

peace

...the other minor detail you are over looking that they are doing this during a very divise time in our nations history

Yeah, I guess having the Repubs kicking six kinds of shit out of us in elections since 1996 would count as "a very divisive time in our nation's history".

1) This redistricting takes place not after the census, but at a time never before attempted mid-decade.

2) Further, this redistricting, as has been stated by DeLay and the bunch, when they occasionally let slip, that this is designed to remove every white democrat from Texas, leaving the Texas Democratic Congessional Delegation with a Brown Face.

Now you can't tell me that any redistricting map that has the aim of doing that meets Voting Rights Act criteria.

No, it is NOT the brazen exercise of pure political might that is bothersome, but (once again) the Bushevik penchant to shamelessly flout law and tradition. Their criminal thefts have become more bold, and often performed right out in the open, know that Corporate TV Pravda will not expose them or call them on it.

And custom, the tacit agreement to behave by the rules, broken so frequently by the Busheviks, from having the Emperor wear a military uniform (breaking a 225-year custom which used to seperate us from Third World Dictatorships which we are a lot less seperate from now) to the rules for passing a bill by vote (Medicare) and utterly shutting out the party out of power to levels never parcticed.

These customs, as much as the shattered and weakened Constitution and Bill of Rights, mean so very much to the basic belief in our institutions, and once shattered can never be mended.

So it is a combination of lawlessness and ethics-less-ness that te Busheviks are wielding, with no less the goal than the institution of One-Party Rule, which has been the Busahevik goals ever since they were performing the crimes of Watergate.

Crimes they now replicate shamelessly in broad daylight, knowing the checks and balances are mostly decayed beyond repair.

I say that you are missing the big picture, assuming that the Old American Republic is still strong and healthy, still respected by the Rulers of Amerika.

But it's not, and that changes things entirely. Would that it was as you say, just another episode in political gamesmanship.

But if you believe that after all that has happened since the Bloodless Coup of 2000 (just where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court decides elections? show it to me), then you are dangerously misled.

1) This redistricting takes place not after the census, but at a time never before attempted mid-decade.

As I said, it offends no law that I know of, only custom. I'm really rather amazed that they Repubs haven't overturned all sorts of other customs in the House and Senate that Democrats use to keep them at bay.

2) Further, this redistricting, as has been stated by DeLay and the bunch, when they occasionally let slip, that this is designed to remove every white democrat from Texas, leaving the Texas Democratic Congessional Delegation with a Brown Face.

LOL! Yup, that's the Faustian bargain that Republicans offer minorities that white Democrats like to think of as safe votes... more minority seats than the Democrats will give you if you'll go along with our redistricting plan. Saw that tried out here in California a time or two. They're good at it and it's tempting bait for ambitous would-be "brown", to use your happy turn of phrase, Congressmen.

Who is speaking of Faustain bargains with minorities?

Only you, but then, one can see that you are coming at this from an anmgle of sneering contempt.

Oh, that's QUITE "fair and balanced".

No Faustian bargain here, just a methodology designed to force white Democrats out of the party, painting it with a Brown Face and saying, "See, look at the composition of the Democratic Party? How can they represent your interests?"

Read this,

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/090403F.shtml

Though I am absolutely certain you'll be unmoved by it. I get the feeling your outlook is, shall we say, calcified in a way that only someone exposed to decades of propaganda would be?


How is it that I could get that feeling? Impossible you say?

No, only "fair and balanced".
But that's just a guess, you see. Just a wild, crazy guess, Mr. Fair and Balanced.

It is a Faustian bargain... for minority Democrats... It's one that the Repubs have been using with considerable success for quite some time now. You can be upset about it and attack me personally, but doing that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Playing pretend and going all huffy every time somebody mentions something unpleasant isn't going to get Congress back, never mind the White House.

Perhaps you, for failing to recognize it. And the Busheviks are NOT putting this "faustian bargain" down, quite the contrary. No more minority seats will be gained, just all the white Democratic seats lost.

So from the very beginning your premise is flawed.

One might argue that the Busheviks have entered a new level of shamlessness given that they no longer offer bargains, they just act as if they have no fear of being challeneged or investigated or stopped.

Which of course has lead many to ask, "What do they know that we don't?"

Perhaps this, among other things:

http://www.hannibal.net/stories/070402/new_0704020030.shtml

Or this:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

But I understand why you would look to conventional explanations. They are very comforting, as is denial and sticking your head in the sand.

Hey, you said this... I sure as heck didn't...

...leaving the Texas Democratic Congessional Delegation with a Brown Face.

Is there something wrong with the concept of "brown" Congressmen from Texas?

I mentioned the old Repub trick of redistricting while preserving or expanding minority representation while clobbering "white" Democratic districts and you went ballistic like it's somehow all my fault. You think that this is something new that deLay is pulling here? Get a grip fella, we're coming up on Christmas here! :)

(for some strange coincidence, a Bushevik strategy has been to smarmily turn "political correctness" into an Imperial Servant...attacking Democrats as being "anti-minority" or "anti-Cathlic" for opposing Republicans policies for wholly nonracial reasons...but I have no doubt it is an innocent coincidence)

No, there's nothing wrong with minority congresspeople. However, what I do object to is the purposeful deletion of white Congresspeople in order to further racial divisions.

It is the Busheviks who are doing that.

And yes, I think that DeLay is pulling something new here. By definition, the violation of "custom" you so glibly dismiss is something "new".

So, right there, I have proved you wrong. I do think DeLay is pulling something new because he is.

When you add the power of marketing and information correlation in which a Party can almost hand-pick a Congression District with pinpoint accuracy...that is new. And the use of one new thing in conjuction with performing the other new thing consitututes, IMHO, the "managed democracy of Comrade Putin".

So, you can deny, shift arguments, ignore it, as I'm sure you will, when I call you on it. (just a reminder...I think DeLay is doing something new because redistricting has never been performed in mid-decade...that, then is the definition of "new" is that it hasn't been done before).

So, by the strict definition and the not so strict, DeLay is doing something new.

But I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

(for some strange coincidence, a Bushevik strategy has been to smarmily turn "political correctness" into an Imperial Servant...attacking Democrats as being "anti-minority" or "anti-Cathlic" for opposing Republicans policies for wholly nonracial reasons...but I have no doubt it is an innocent coincidence)

The strategy predates the Bush administration. There has never been anything coincidential about it. It's been very deliberate and it's had remarkable success. The Repubs know very well that if they can hive off even part of the Hispanic and/or Black vote from the Democratic Party core that the Democrats are dead meat.

I'm still waiting to see a workable counter to the strategy.

When you add the power of marketing and information correlation in which a Party can almost hand-pick a Congression District with pinpoint accuracy...that is new.

No it isn't. It's been around for years and both parties have made very liberal use of the techniques.

http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/ucgis/UTopic_redistrict.html

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=m35eacqgrg7qxhuq9evl&referrer=parent&backto=issue,103,154;journal,183,1408;linkingpublicationresults,id:105633,1

http://www.ithaca.edu/students/sbrandm1/journalismfinal3.htm

Do you deny the "sciences" of advertising and marketing are continually improving, taking an old procedure and advancing it to new levels of effectiveness?

And of course, redistricting in mid-decade is new. But I notice you ignored that. As you ignored my contention (bolstered with the Busheviks' own words) of redistricting as methodology to create a racially polarized congessional delegation comprised of White Busheviks and Black or Hispanic Democrats as a way to further increase racial polarization in the future.

I understand. Those inconvenient facts don't fit into a Fair and Balanced Worldview.

The only difference between now and then is that the Repubs have kept on diligently applying proven techniques like the minority redistricting ploy every chance they get. Before 1994 the Democrats had the Congress and the White House. Now they have neither and the bloody Repubs are within a short shout of having a supermajority in Congress.

Wingeing about "fairness" doesn't win elections. Politics never has been "fair". It's about gaining, keeping and exercising power, mercifully for the past century, by largely non-violent means.

It scares me silly to see the place appearing to be getting as polarized and uncompromising as the US was in the runup to the Civil War. I've been in a couple of civil wars. They're very hard on both your health and your nerves.

United We Stand...just like 1861.

I remember thinking as you do...it wasn't so long ago.

The idea of "politics" only works as long as both sides play within the rules. Yes, I know rules are stretched and envelopes are pushed, but so long as each side has a shared fundamental respect for the core principles, "politcs" prevails and is non-violent.

But when one side, in dramatic contrats to the other, stops believeing in those core principles, then "politics" fails. So do Republics.

It happened in Rome. It happened in Germany. It is happening here, IMHO.

Not that the Democrats are so pure, but that the virulence of the Busheviks outstrips petty Democratic corruptions by far, and treads into that Zone of Distaste for the Core Principles of America. Now that the Busheviks have repeatedly acted on them.

The problem is: no, politics isn't fair...that I can live with. When politics begins to be as rigged as a Soviet State Toilet Paper Production Report, then I and millions of others have a problem.

I'm sorry you can't see that long-term picture. Had you lived in the Roman Republic, perhaps you'd have said, "I don't see what the problem is with Julius crossing the Rubicon with his army. Generals have always jockeyed for position by shuffling troops."

Had I lived then, I would have said to you, "Yes, Geenerals have always shuffled troops to maximum benefit, but have NEVER crossed the Rubicon in long-standing traditional respect for civilian power."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Finally, when the political game, no matter the system, is so thoroughly rigged to edit out a majority of vocies, then oter alternatives become more palatable.

Sad but true in Imperial Amerika or any nation gradually transitioning from democratic Liberty to Imperial Tyranny.

I am not as glib as you and find it difficult to dance with words.

But you sure sound like a troll to me.

What the rePukes are doing is wrong, and you seem to have no trouble with it.

Also, anyone that pats themselves on the back as much as you (been through several wars, taught at a school, blah, blah) Sounds like a braggart to me.
I don't trust braggarts.

So your arguments sound high falutin, but you sound sorta scoundrel-ish to me.

And I do agree with you.

But I was trying to adhere to the new "civility codes".

But it needed to be said, and I believe you are correct. There are other indicators, as well.

well for his hybrid version.

what shall we call ours?

INSECURE RETHUGLIC :shrug:

peace

totalitarian neoCONs :shrug:

peace

for Putin's Russia given that he basically took the Bushevik playbook word-for-word but is pursuing it more aggressively since his nation doesn't have a 225-year tradition of checks and balances and relatively free elections...so he can.

Such terms could just as easily be applied to Imperial Amerika.

ours certainly needs to sound warm-and-fuzzy or that just wouldn't 'sell'

doesn't matter what the reality is as long as it is described to consumers as necessary and desirable ;->

:hi:

peace