The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Captain]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Indeed. And the Democrats pushed through the Second Amendment (with the rest of the Bill of Rights). Oh, the sweet irony!

I'm glad someone understands my sense of humor.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Captain
I'm glad someone understands my sense of humor.

Nice package.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Captain
I'm glad someone understands my sense of humor.

One summer, working construction, I got hit with a board. I avoided boards the rest of the summer, but that doesn't mean I didn't realize it was a board. It just meant I didn't like getting hit with a board.

and balt is your kindred spirit in humor? you'll be everyone's favorite sock in no time, yes sir!

[Captain]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nice package.

Kind of you to notice.

Have you ever wondered why more Superheroes don't seem properly and obviously endowed?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One summer, working construction, I got hit with a board. I avoided boards the rest of the summer, but that doesn't mean I didn't realize it was a board. It just meant I didn't like getting hit with a board.

and balt is your kindred spirit in humor? you'll be everyone's favorite sock in no time, yes sir!

If you were working construction and avoided boards, I'm guessing you weren't everyone's favorite by the time you went back to school. Did you hang out in the trailer all day long, or just wander off the site and catch ball games?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Nice package.

Not real. It's a flight suit.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Not real. It's a flight suit.

You can't prove this.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The problem is that provides no guidance. Inevitably counties are different sizes. So you need to break up counties. How then to do that? Expand west, east, north, or south? Any choice will have ramifications. Do you make the choice on the smallest amount of area you need to increase the population to the one person/one vote size, or do you go for the area that will increase the partisan balance, or do you go for the area that will amplify the partisan balance?

When counties are too small you bunch them together. When they are too big then you divide them up by city. But you try and follow the lines as much as possible. Then you go by geography. Obviously there are always subjective calls, and some flipping of a coin. And these calls will have partisan ramification. That is unavoidable. But you want to reduce the amount decisions based on partisanship as much as possible.

When the judges do it they don't even look at how many Dems are where or Repubs are where. They use other criterea. Therefore the partisans calls are minimized.

The point is that having retired judges do it is much better than having the politicians do it. When the politicians do it the only thing they care about is protecting their seats.

When judges do it the voters benefit. When the legislature does it people get screwed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
If you were working construction and avoided boards, I'm guessing you weren't everyone's favorite by the time you went back to school. Did you hang out in the trailer all day long, or just wander off the site and catch ball games?

I should have said moving boards. I waited till they were tacked down then I would move in. Think of your interaction with black people and you'll get the idea.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
When counties are too small you bunch them together. When they are too big then you divide them up by city. But you try and follow the lines as much as possible. Then you go by geography. Obviously there are always subjective calls, and some flipping of a coin. And these calls will have partisan ramification. That is unavoidable. But you want to reduce the amount decisions based on partisanship as much as possible.

When the judges do it they don't even look at how many Dems are where or Repubs are where. They use other criterea. Therefore the partisans calls are minimized.

The point is that having retired judges do it is much better than having the politicians do it. When the politicians do it the only thing they care about is protecting their seats.

When judges do it the voters benefit. When the legislature does it people get screwed.

Judges drew the maps in Texas in 2001. Their basis: the maps drawn in 1991 by Democrats. Judges try to preserve the status quo as much as possible.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
When judges do it the voters benefit. When the legislature does it people get screwed.

It sounds like a great story, but it's not refuting the study I linked to. Drawing boundaries may be bad, and may create problems, but one problem it appears not to be the principle source of is increased polarization.

But let's assume we can come up with geographical boundaries that work on the one person/one vote princple. Where does that leave you? With equally competitive elections? More competitive elections? Less competitive elections? Unless it's the middle of those three, what precisely is the benefit other than some overarching "rationality"?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon)

Nixon also imposed wage and price controls. RINO!

Nowadays they wouldn't let him into the meetings.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
So if Ahnold denies Tookie's clemency request and he's put to death tonight, what are the odds of random violence/riots in LA this week? Less, do your bookies have the numbers on that one? TIA.

Looks like this isn't going to be an academic question.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nixon also imposed wage and price controls. RINO!

Nowadays they wouldn't let him into the meetings.

S_A_M

He also proposed at one point offering a smallish, but by no means insignificant, "national wage" to all people in place of any assistance programs.

Grover Norquist would shoot him for such heresy today.

I think Nixon was right, and those trying to starve the beast today are fucking up in their approach. We shouldn't be figuring out ways to fuck the needy out of all social safety nets... We should be figuring out how to give money directly to them, and fire the "government class" which profits from administration of such programs.

Help the poor - kill a bureaucrat. There's no reason killing the govt should be synonymous with screwing over the poor. The message from the GOP should be "We intend to help people who need help, and we intend to do get the money to do so by dismantling the byzantine govt systems that steal from the poor by redistributing 90% of every dollar into their own swollen benefits packages."

I'd be much happier to pay a "National Wage" to a bureaucrat for doing nothing than pay him generous benefits for pretending to be productive all year and wasting trees.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Looks like this isn't going to be an academic question.

Well. I suppose this is the cue for each of the LA FBers to PM Spanky asking if he has any spare weaponry, such that Spanky could laugh and post said queries.