Several Affirmative Action office holders need to have race cards shoved up their black holes.

headkicker_girl wrote:

incompetent and stupid political electees and appointees.

redundant?

Last edited by Emmeran (2008-07-10 16:16:24)

The comment section is golden.

fnord wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

1.  It's not affirmative action if they are elected

When districts are gerrymandered to ensure minorities are elected, these officials are Affirmative Action office holders.  Gerrymandering for this purpose is common when legislators redistrict after a census or in many cases has occurred because of a court order.  You are astute enough to know that district boundaries are drawn for political reasons that have nothing to do with the natural interests of the governed.

I hardly see how a specific group having a say in the political process is affirmative action...or should we have the Strom Thurmonds of the world representing the interests of African Americans or Hispanics?

fnord wrote:

I remember a controversy over a district in Florida when I lived there.  It snaked across several counties and took in rural and urban areas that were negro majority.  These enclaves were connected by very narrow uninhabited corridors that in some cases were no wider than a city block.  This district was drawn by court order and had no rational reason to exist other than to get the negro judge’s rocks off.  Districts are drawn for partisan reasons that include ensuring the reelection of current office holders and to score political brownie points.

People who want their interests properly represented should present credible candidates that have crossover appeal to those outside their group.  If they are unable to do this, they deserve what they get.  Why should Whites have to be represented by racial arsonists like Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton?

eh??? are you fucking stoned?

Gerrymandering ain't about race, it's about money, power and political dominance.  But mostly about power...  ...and blowjobs.

Fnord -- there were many minorities in the districts represented by David Duke, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.  Districts were usually drawn to make sure that the minority districts were split up so they'd have no shot of having representation of their own.  If they are American citizens, they have the right to have their interests represented, whether you or I like it or not.  As Emmeran said, it's about political power, first and foremost.

fnord wrote:

I remember a controversy over a district in Florida when I lived there.  It snaked across several counties and took in rural and urban areas that were negro majority.  These enclaves were connected by very narrow uninhabited corridors that in some cases were no wider than a city block.  This district was drawn by court order and had no rational reason to exist other than to get the negro judge’s rocks off.  Districts are drawn for partisan reasons that include ensuring the reelection of current office holders and to score political brownie points.

I remember that, or at least a similar case in another Southern state. The district bore absolutely no relevance to the geography of the area and when the courts struck it down, I believe their reasoning was gerrymandering is still unconstitutional no matter how well-intended the purpose.

Mmmm... blowjobs.

Price is an asshat. He has been on the city council forever. This is far from the most outragous thing he's done.

I think that "gerrymandering" should be a bizzare sex term, like Santorum. Now, high-streeters, to what should it apply? I posit that you should call fantazising about game show hosts, "Gerrymandering".

FAIL:

'Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/gerrymanders.gif on this server.'

phreddy wrote:

It's beyond my meager abilities.

But not mine. Image fixed/relocated. Please to enjoy.