The race card...you be the judge

This is why she keeps getting reelected:

U.S. Census data put Representative Jackson-Lee's record in the context of the people who she represents. Texas District 18 is 99.85 percent urban, 62.02 percent non-white, and has a population that is 35.61 percent Latino and 20.41 percent foreign-born. 9.75 percent of adults working in Rep. Jackson-Lee's district commute using public transportation, on a bike or on foot. 4.67 percent of adults aged 25 and older in Jackson-Lee's district have a Master's, PhD or Professional Degree. (Here's the link: http://thatsmycongress.com/house/rep...eeTX18111.html)

Her district is so gerrymandered that there is a huge, Hispanic populated, hole in the middle of it. (Here’s the link to the map: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/p...W=750&imgH=452)

Her’s isn’t the only gerrymandered district designed to predict race and party of the winning candidate. I live in District 7. (http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printab...t/TX07_110.PDF) It looks contiguous, but it really isn’t. It goes on a diagonal through the city and picks up all the affluent, white neighborhoods in Houston. PC and race relations at its finest. It’s institutionalized classism and racism. It sickens me. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

i wish for a constitutional amendment that congressional districts be as square as possible within each state starting in the upper northeast corner of a state and proceeding from there until the requisite population is included. i haven't considered if that would work or how to define the northeastmost corner of, say, a state like Texas or even how you would continue with the following districts, but well, maybe you get the drift. just remove power from the elected and the pc judges i guess is my feeling.

Indeed! This does explain much about Ol’ Doofus. Author Eric Hoffer once wrote, in True Believer, about the allure of Communism and how it “holds a following not by its doctrine and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of an [their] individual existence.” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So that's why i am like i am. Good to know.

By the way, is that the same Eric Hoffer who also said:

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"?

Or

""The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto"?

That Eric Hoffer?

So that's why i am like i am. Good to know.

By the way, is that the same Eric Hoffer who also said:

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength"?

Or

""The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto"?

That Eric Hoffer? Originally Posted by Doove

Yes. As you can see, he has summed you up pretty nicely.

I love to read biased questions. Let's see, you offer the following options:

Are Americans Who Oppose Obama Racists?
Definitely Not !
Yes, Definitetly !
A Small Minority Might Be !
No, But Those Who Play The Race Card Might Be !

Choices A, B, and D are all absolutes. When talking about any decent sized group of people the choices claiming 100% "are" or 100% "are not" is almost always false. Yes, I am sure there is at least 1 person in the group of critical people IS racist, and am sure at least 1 is NOT. Even that, the "best" among four bad options, doesn't conceed that even one racist person exist. How utterly open minded of you.

So, the ONLY option you provide is "A small minority might be". Wow, THAT isn't biasing the poll, is it?

Where is "Many are", "A vast majority are", or even the more neutral "Some are"?

But then you aren't really interested in honest discussion, are you? Don't worry, the options you put in the poll will drown out any backpeddling you make now.

By the way, I fee exactly the same about those who used to put up an identical "poll" about GWB.

Just come out and display your hate--don't bother disguising it.

You are free to do your own poll with as many choices as you want.....

But somehow I think you are a more happy fella just bitching.....

I love to read biased questions. Let's see, you offer the following options:

Are Americans Who Oppose Obama Racists?
Definitely Not !
Yes, Definitetly !
A Small Minority Might Be !
No, But Those Who Play The Race Card Might Be !

Choices A, B, and D are all absolutes. When talking about any decent sized group of people the choices claiming 100% "are" or 100% "are not" is almost always false. Yes, I am sure there is at least 1 person in the group of critical people IS racist, and am sure at least 1 is NOT. Even that, the "best" among four bad options, doesn't conceed that even one racist person exist. How utterly open minded of you.

So, the ONLY option you provide is "A small minority might be". Wow, THAT isn't biasing the poll, is it?

Where is "Many are", "A vast majority are", or even the more neutral "Some are"?

But then you aren't really interested in honest discussion, are you? Don't worry, the options you put in the poll will drown out any backpeddling you make now.

By the way, I fee exactly the same about those who used to put up an identical "poll" about GWB.

Just come out and display your hate--don't bother disguising it. Originally Posted by Old-T

You are free to do your own poll with as many choices as you want.....

But somehow I think you are a more happy fella just bitching..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Not sure if he was bitching or just giving you some bias polling facts that you seemed to know nothing of....


Here's one "Whirlaway, yes or no only, Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Whirlaway beats his wife?

Whirlaway beats his wife? Originally Posted by simpleton

I thought he beat your wife?........

@ Munchmasterman case in point:



per this exchange Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Of course you don't post the version with my responses to your bullshit. Run away without challenge. Go forth and be link free....as usual.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman
Good response. Stupid yet cowardly. And so on point. How so? It’s a statement of fact used to offset the bias of the poster to whom it was addressed. It’s amusing to see you—“who professes to be so fair and impartial”—squirm in the light of the truth.
Sorry for misunderstanding. My response was for marshall’s award winning comment.
I try to be fair and impartial. I admit it when I’m wrong. No squirming here. 3 traits we don’t share.

Conspiracy theories? Hidden socialist agendas? Trying to run America into the ground? These are opinions not facts.
Cock sucking bastards who continually use libotard, dimocrats, rethugs, wingnuts or refuse to spell the President’s name properly; occasionally for emphasis or if pissed off is one thing, ongoing disrespect is another. In my opinion, of course. You missed a few that your brethren often employ: Tea-bagger, Luddite, xenophobe, Bible Thumper, reactionary, jackboot, fascist, gun-nut, Bircher, Redneck, right-wing militia, and the tried and true favorite from the left: “racist”.Guess in your haste to bitch you didn’t notice I listed a repub term, a democ term, a conser term, and a liberal term. Pretty fucking fair and balanced. Then you went on to cry about all the bad names you get called. While failing to list a single term the other side is called by your brethren. And the elephant in the room? The fact that the ongoing disrespect to the President wasn’t touched on. And as I’m sure you have guessed by now, you are the cock sucking bastard I was referring to.

For three years now, everyone who has dared to disagree with or challenge the current administration on anything has been called a “racist”.Nothing I can say will change any of your basic core beliefs. I’ll just say you are full of shit and leave it at that.

In many posts, I’ve said there are enough real issues with the present administration that things like the number of golf games or verbal slips don’t mean shit. You have yet to chastise your brethren for doing exactly the same thing.Wrong. You need to look harder. I’ll post some examples tomorrow. I know you won’t post any examples of you chastising yours. Not only because none exist but because you hold me to higher standards than yourself. That’s OK. I do too.

I’m a fiscally conservative [and yet you support the fiscal policies of the current administration?????]Look how you react to a different point of view. The only fiscal policy I have stated support for is tax hikes and spending cuts both being included. I called you on your incorrect statement that you claimed the President only wanted tax hikes. You have not shown a link or admitted you were wrong. Can you show any examples of being asked for a link to prove something and you then provided it? I can show several examples of my requests you have ignored.and socially

To sum up, you do everything you bitch about me doing. I don’t do everything you bitch about me doing.

I try to be fair and impartial. I’m willing to admit it when I wrong and to correct my error. You aren’t, you aren’t and you don’t.