Maryland NAACP

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

If the governor is elected and part of his office is appointment, how is it democracy would be thwarted?

The same way that having Obama appoint the governors of Republicans states with Democrats would thwart democracy for those states.

you really enjoy being a retard dont you.

WELL PLAYED DUDE.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jhbball

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or put in a more rational way, people concerned with the interests of Baltimore, seeing a political process that might have an appointment thwart democracy, raise concerns.

If the governor is elected and part of his office is appointment, how is it democracy would be thwarted?

The same way that having Obama appoint the governors of Republicans states with Democrats would thwart democracy for those states.

you really enjoy being a retard dont you.

WELL PLAYED DUDE.

You're idiots.

Let's rcap:

The topic is, if I recall, a Republican governor appointing a Republican mayor for a very Democratic city, versus the city electing its own mayor.

The NAACP points out the problem of the city getting a mayor they don't want, because the city is largely black and the NAACP is concerned with issues affecting black people.

I made a post detailing the very basic issue involved in a three-tier democracy of federal, state, local, of hwo it's lesss Democratic for a higher tier official at odds with a local group to apppoint someone the local group doesn't like, than for the local group to elect who they want.

Idiots respond.

I then respond to their simplistic points with an analogy to illlustrate the problem, comparing a Republicann governor appointing a mayor for a Democratic city, with a Democratic President appointing a governor for a Republican state. The analogy makes the point, and more idiots respond. 'But that's not the law now!' Well - and I hate to use the word - duh. The analogy was to point out the issue with democracy, and whether or not it's the law has nothing to do with the analogy.

We have people who dojn't understand the idea of an analogy, and are obnoxious in exposing that fact.

Clearly, it's a waste of time to respond to the idiots - the point is made here about as clearly as it can be, and the idiots will will in all likelihood post more idiocy.

As my previous post said - the points have to be remade as the idiots remove them from their quoting for their simplistic responses - sometimes such an appointment might be needed. Saying that the apppointment is less Democratic is a factor against it, but there are other factors. FWIW, the Massachussets situation has a difference in being about a statewide official appointing another statewide official; it just happened to be a Republican official appointing a replcement for a Democrat in a Democratic state.

I've pointed out before repeatedly how the Massachussets Democrats were acting in a political manner. The 'is that wrong' question has issues that are byojnd the idiots - while I've discussed the topic previously, it's a waste of time to do so with the people who have been responding obnoxiously. In our political system, you can cherery pick things to attack easily, and 'score points', that are actually pretty pointless.

I'll use another analogy - we know how well that goes with these people.

Gerrymandering is done in most states as a political process. Its only real purpose is to maximize the federal representation of the party of the people doing the districts.

So, Democrats who control one state maximize their Democrats in congress,and Repubicans in another state maximize the Republicans.

You can cherry pick any tate and attack the Gerrymandering. LOOK AT THOSE BASTARD DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS in THAT ONE STATE!!

But while you can argue it's 'wrong', one state ending the practice mainly just puts that state at a disadvantage in Congress, while the other states keep doing it.

The 'solution' involved changing how all the states do it, which would need a federal constitutional amendment, or a voluntary agreement among state, both unlikeluy.

So, the cherry picking isn't too useful. What you can attack is when one party does something worse than others - like Texas' redistrcting in an unprecedented manner after the 2002 elections, because they gained power, when the 'rules' had been to only redistrict after the census. This took gerrymandering to a new level, and could be attacked for that reason. Of course, the people wanting to attack Massachussets here, probably not many of them Democrats, were very likely silent about the Texas redistricting.

I don't recall anyone from the right attacking the Texas actions. So, there's an element of hypocrisy when they want to scream about Massachussets.

I could repeat my position on Massachussets, but suffice it to say it was a political act - to keep a Democratic state represented by a Democrat, in both cases.

Opponents will see it as changing the rules to keep power; supporters will point out that it's the rules that were allowing Democracy to be violated, and ask, why is letting a Republican governor appoint someone the state would never elect, serving Democracy - and why is letting the state not get a vote on healthcare democratic? They'd argue that the rule changes both were in line with the people being represented.

On wrong, is it 'right' to let Democrats have Republican representation forced on them that votes against their wishes? Is it 'right' to deny them a vote on healthcare?

It's a debatable isse, but not with the idiots who have been posting, who are only obnoxious, not rational.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Rules were written one way and work until they no longer benefit a certain group. Then at that point, those rules must be changed.

Let the rules stand - voters then can kick out the appointed mayor or reelect him.

But to force a selection of someone based on race or because their political leaning must be an inconvenience is wrong. The voters have a process - called elections.
They can accept their choice or change. After all, they were the ones that elected the person in the first place that is causing the trouble - apparently, one can not trust the voters of Baltimore to make a proper selection.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Rules werre written one way and work until they no longer benifit a certain group. Then at that point, those rules must be changed.

Let the rules stand - voters then can kick out the appointed mayor or reelect him.

But to force a selection of someone based on race or becuase their political leaning must be an inconvience is wrong. The voters have a process - called elections.
They can accept their choice or change. After all, they were the ones that elected the person in the first place that is causing the trouble - apparently, one can not trust the voters of Baltimore to make a proper selection.

The one thing we agree on is that race is not the issue, not something to base this on.

It might be a *secondary* factor - democracy still struggles with the fact that minorities tend to prefer to see their own members in power, partly in reaction to the unfair treatment they typically receive and partly just the age old tendency to prefer 'your group' has more power - and that's awkward as the most powerful group celebrates the goal NOT giving any weight to race but faces minority groups who often give the very same weight.

But the rest of your comments are mushy fallacy. You spin breaking the very central issue of democracy, the right to choose who represents your views, as "inconvenience".

You also fallaciously argue 'they're the ones who elected the person causing the trouble' - what will it take for you to get the point I've made repeatedly why that's not the case?

Let's try an illutrative hypothetical example.

A state has 10,000,000 people. 1,000,000 are in a Democratic city and vote Democrat, and they did NOT vote for the governor. The other 9,000,000 are right-wing people who did.

You say the 1,000,000 people in the city who are having their mayor appointed voted for the guy who is causing the trouble, the governor. But clearly, they did not.

That was the point I made about our tiered democracy with federal, state and local tiers - you can get smaller groups who are not in agreement with larger ones.

That's why they normally get to elect their own mayor, and not have him appointed by tht governor, and why our system lets states elect their own leaders, not federally appoint.

What if the election of Bush meant every other official would be appointed and Republican, and the election of Obama meant every office would be filled with a Democratic appointee?

You can presumably see why that's less 'democratic' than the system we have.

The appointment of a Republican mayor by a Republican governor over a Democratic city is the same issue. It may happen for practical reasons, but when the governor and the city are especially at odds, the violation to democracy is large, and the people in the city will be more upset. The governor COULD appoint someone the city approves of and serve democracy, but his own political agenda and party pressure rarely allows for that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wall of text.Craig

Craig everyones seen this exchange and we know you have one POV and that's the party line. To YOU anything that benefits the Dems is right. You'd see a one party country and call it Democracy as long as it's the Dems. You take on yourself to excuse Kennedy trying to change the rules he helped create in an attempt to keep the Democratic party from loosing it's chokehold on MA where many offices have one candidate running and that's never a Republican. Shocking as it sounds it is the political machine not the popularity of the Dems which is the reason for this. Effectively a one horse town you decide that the rules shouldn't apply because you have an agenda you think so important you don't think they should apply. Indeed, I've argued with many a neocon who thought as you. The ends justify the means. You are the consummate Neocon and even they recognize it. It's embarrasing to see someone put themselves on the spit as you have.

The rules aren't there for your convience, only to apply to others. You haven't fully Ascended, Anubis.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Rules werre written one way and work until they no longer benifit a certain group. Then at that point, those rules must be changed.

Let the rules stand - voters then can kick out the appointed mayor or reelect him.

But to force a selection of someone based on race or becuase their political leaning must be an inconvience is wrong. The voters have a process - called elections.
They can accept their choice or change. After all, they were the ones that elected the person in the first place that is causing the trouble - apparently, one can not trust the voters of Baltimore to make a proper selection.

Let me add:

If the appointment process seems unfair, then have the law changed through the legislative process.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You haven't fully Ascended, Anubis.

:laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Wall of text.Craig

Craig everyones seen this exchange and we know you have one POV and that's the party line. To YOU anything that benefits the Dems is right. You'd see a one party country and call it Democracy as long as it's the Dems. You take on yourself to excuse Kennedy trying to change the rules he helped create in an attempt to keep the Democratic party from loosing it's chokehold on MA where many offices have one candidate running and that's never a Republican. Shocking as it sounds it is the political machine not the popularity of the Dems which is the reason for this. Effectively a one horse town you decide that the rules shouldn't apply because you have an agenda you think so important you don't think they should apply. Indeed, I've argued with many a neocon who thought as you. The ends justify the means. You are the consummate Neocon and even they recognize it. It's embarrasing to see someone put themselves on the spit as you have.

The rules aren't there for your convience, only to apply to others. You haven't fully Ascended, Anubis.

Liar and idiot, that not a wall of text for you? Don't worry, I only read part of your first sentence, too, to reach that conclsion. Harsher language reflecting your degraded posts.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The one thing we agree on is that race is not the issue, not something to base this on.

in your last post you said it was implicitly. let me quote for you:

You're idiots. Let's rcap: The topic is, if I recall, a Republican governor appointing a Republican mayor for a very Democratic city, versus the city electing its own mayor. The NAACP points out the problem of the city getting a mayor they don't want, because the city is largely black and the NAACP is concerned with issues affecting black people.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Do not back him intoa corner with his own words.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You're idiots.

Let's rcap:

The topic is, if I recall, a Republican governor appointing a Republican mayor for a very Democratic city, versus the city electing its own mayor.

The NAACP points out the problem of the city getting a mayor they don't want, because the city is largely black and the NAACP is concerned with issues affecting black people.

I made a post detailing the very basic issue involved in a three-tier democracy of federal, state, local, of hwo it's lesss Democratic for a higher tier official at odds with a local group to apppoint someone the local group doesn't like, than for the local group to elect who they want.

Idiots respond.

I then respond to their simplistic points with an analogy to illlustrate the problem, comparing a Republicann governor appointing a mayor for a Democratic city, with a Democratic President appointing a governor for a Republican state. The analogy makes the point, and more idiots respond. 'But that's not the law now!' Well - and I hate to use the word - duh. The analogy was to point out the issue with democracy, and whether or not it's the law has nothing to do with the analogy.

We have people who dojn't understand the idea of an analogy, and are obnoxious in exposing that fact.

Clearly, it's a waste of time to respond to the idiots - the point is made here about as clearly as it can be, and the idiots will will in all likelihood post more idiocy.

As my previous post said - the points have to be remade as the idiots remove them from their quoting for their simplistic responses - sometimes such an appointment might be needed. Saying that the apppointment is less Democratic is a factor against it, but there are other factors. FWIW, the Massachussets situation has a difference in being about a statewide official appointing another statewide official; it just happened to be a Republican official appointing a replcement for a Democrat in a Democratic state.

I've pointed out before repeatedly how the Massachussets Democrats were acting in a political manner. The 'is that wrong' question has issues that are byojnd the idiots - while I've discussed the topic previously, it's a waste of time to do so with the people who have been responding obnoxiously. In our political system, you can cherry pick things to attack easily, and 'score points', that are actually pretty pointless.

I'll use another analogy - we know how well that goes with these people.

Gerrymandering is done in most states as a political process. Its only real purpose is to maximize the federal representation of the party of the people doing the districts.

So, Democrats who control one state maximize their Democrats in congress,and Republicans in another state maximize the Republicans.

You can cherry pick any state and attack the Gerrymandering. LOOK AT THOSE BASTARD DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS in THAT ONE STATE!!

But while you can argue it's 'wrong', one state ending the practice mainly just puts that state at a disadvantage in Congress, while the other states keep doing it.

The 'solution' involved changing how all the states do it, which would need a federal constitutional amendment, or a voluntary agreement among state, both unlikeluy.

So, the cherry picking isn't too useful. What you can attack is when one party does something worse than others - like Texas' redistrcting in an unprecedented manner after the 2002 elections, because they gained power, when the 'rules' had been to only redistrict after the census. This took gerrymandering to a new level, and could be attacked for that reason. Of course, the people wanting to attack Massachussets here, probably not many of them Democrats, were very likely silent about the Texas redistricting.

I don't recall anyone from the right attacking the Texas actions. So, there's an element of hypocrisy when they want to scream about Massachussets.

I could repeat my position on Massachussets, but suffice it to say it was a political act - to keep a Democratic state represented by a Democrat, in both cases.

Opponents will see it as changing the rules to keep power; supporters will point out that it's the rules that were allowing Democracy to be violated, and ask, why is letting a Republican governor appoint someone the state would never elect, serving Democracy - and why is letting the state not get a vote on healthcare democratic? They'd argue that the rule changes both were in line with the people being represented.

On wrong, is it 'right' to let Democrats have Republican representation forced on them that votes against their wishes? Is it 'right' to deny them a vote on healthcare?

It's a debatable issue, but not with the idiots who have been posting, who are only obnoxious, not rational.

Dance baby dance!!! :laugh:

/popcorn

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Liar and idiot, that not a wall of text for you? Don't worry, I only read part of your first sentence, too, to reach that conclsion. Harsher language reflecting your degraded posts.

Thanks for cutting out the fluff.


Here's something from another religion, not the religion of Government.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.

1 Corinthians 3:19-20 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."

I like this one:

2 Corinthians 10:12 We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.

Now, my opinion is mine. I suppose I could be telling a lie in stating my opinion, however I'm not sure how that's possible unless I say what I don't believe. Since I say what I mean, I'm not lying. I also believe that if one checks what I say that I am correct in what I say, at least that's what I can ascertain.

As far as the charge of "idiot" I freely admit to that. Put it in your sig if you like, because my particular ego buttons aren't pushed by that sort of thing. One of the things I do believe is that the more I learn the less I know. I'll let others figure out what that means. I have simple beliefs. My definition of wrong doesn't depend on party. I don't look at what a Republican does, decry it, then justify it if a Dem does it, or vice versa.

I know I'm a fool, and so are many others. That leaves this being my final quote:

2 Corinthians 11:19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise!

Such is life.