Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I haven't seen ANY news on this, where is it reported?

No surprise there. The mainstream news has become Obama's corpse of press secretaries. The link I'm about to post will probably make your skin crawl, but nevertheless, the story is accurate. <link>.

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

[randolph]

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Isn't Fox news mainstream?

Nah, even left wing bloggers and talk radio hosts are seated in front of Fox News at the Whitehouse press conferences now.

Originally Posted by randolph

This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

They are one group that is affected, and because of that they raised the issue. That doesn't change the fact that this has huge repercussions for future elections does it?

Originally Posted by randolph

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

And Obama's campaign copied Rove's strategy to get into the Whitehouse. Fine. That's a campaign strategy. That's not the same as using the power of the executive branch to define political boundaries is it?

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

[randolph]

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!

LMAO
It's an expression. And the pig I was referring to is the ISSUE of moving the Census to the Whitehouse.

Edited to add:
BTW, nice dodge. I almost forgot you still haven't answered my statement/question:

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

This is bigger than gerrymandering. This would have the power of the executive office (i.e. a full branch out of the US's 3 branches) behind it, and a majority of congress. Let's say this happened 3-4 years ago, when the Republicans had the Whitehouse and Congress. Would you be ok with the Whitehouse having control of voting districts under those circumstances?

Let's go a step further...

Originally Posted by FoxNews

the White House chief of staff can't be expected to handle the census in a neutral manner. Emanuel ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 election, and he was instrumental in getting Democrats elected into the majority.

This Emanuel guy is the Carl Rove of the democratic party. Would you be ok with Carl Rove overseeing the Census?

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't think you're going to be able to put lipstick on this pig and keep a straight face. Would you answer the statement and question I asked you from above?

Originally Posted by randolph

If you are calling Obama a pig then I am through with you!

Randolph, take it easy. Don't read too much into the words, instead read between the lines. Tracy wasn't calling Obama a pig per se -- she was playfully and wittily using a line that came about during the Presidential campaign, which started when Sarah Palin made an infamous joke during her nomination convention speech, which is now part of pop culture, that compared Hockey Moms to pit bulls with lip stick...

...Which, shortly afterwards, Obama tried to mock during an appearance, but he stupidly mangled the words (later claiming he misspoke and was mentally exhausted from being on the campaign trail) where HE created a momentary political and media firestorm as many people felt HE had actually called Palin a pig.

Besides, purely on it's surface, you can take her words on face value for what they actually mean. Namely, you can't put lipstick on this Census pig and dress it up and pass it off for something it's not. The bottom line remains, as I explained in my post as well, that what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is to clearly circumvent particular government agencies to ultimately manipulate Census data, which in turn will affect Congressional redistricting. Any way you try to slice it, THAT'S what they're up to and everyone sees it for what it is. Hence her "lipstick on a pig" analogy is dead on target.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Isn't Fox news mainstream?
This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!

Quote from Wordpress.com
"Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

In 2000, Utah, which has three congressmen, was extremely close to landing a fourth House seat based on U.S. Census numbers, but the nation's most conservative state fell short by a few hundred votes because the Census Bureau wouldn't count Mormon missionaries from Utah serving temporarily overseas.

The GOP took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Utah leaders had hoped the 2010 census would rectify the problem, but now worry that they will lose again if the census is managed by partisans."

Well good ole Karl Rove went all out to manipulate elections and Repubs cheered him along.

Well, wait a minute, Randolph -- now you're running circles around your OWN argument.

First of all, you said (quote): "This tudu seems to involve Utah getting another congressman by counting their missionaries that are out of state!" So to begin, I'd ask: what the hell is wrong with that? While it sounds like a great sound bite at first -- I mean, my gosh! Counting people who aren't really there! What a dirty Republican trick! -- the issue is where were the missionaries? And even more to the point, the REAL question is: how long will they be gone for? Look, last time I checked, we have this thing called "absentee ballots." We recognize that someone who isn't home at the time of an election...in his actual voting district...should STILL maintain his full citizenship rights and they deserve to have their vote counted.

So if a Mormom missionary has taken on a 6-month assignment to preach in Africa or Ugakawakawakaland or wherever the heck he is, the POINT is that his legal residence is STILL in Utah and that's WHERE he'll be coming home to because that's where he freakin' lives. So NOT counting him is equally ridiculous. It's like saying right now "Let's take a 100% fair count of ALL Hollywood residents, to find out once and for all who ACTUALLY lives there" -- but just because I was visiting friends in Vegas this weekend and wasn't around, I shouldn't be added to the tally. As if a simple 2-day weekend trip away completely NEGATES my place of residence where I ACTUALLY do live the other 363 days of the year. That's just ludicrous.

The whole POINT of the national census is NOT to take a friggin' guess at who may or may not be living in an area, to just toss a dart at the wall and randomly pick any ol' number. The POINT of the Census has always been to know just how many people live in different areas, to get as EXACTING a count as possible. And when I say an "exacting count", I mean literally just that. An actual head count -- yes, even taking into account those people who weren't at home that day because they were on a trip. Because the bottom line is THEY'RE COMING BACK! BECAUSE THEY FUCKING LIVE THERE!

In fact, this is one instance where I'll be blunt and truly partisan: Obama and the Democrats are full of fucking SHIT on this Census issue. Trying to move it into the White House and under its direct control and away from the Commerce Department (where it has historically been) is clearly a move to pull another bullshit Acorn voting fraud stunt, a less than obvious ploy to ultimately manipulate the data to realign districts to their political favor.

For Heaven's sake, look at what you wrote above. Again, I quote: "Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door."

Gee, that's rather IRONIC, isn't it? After all, who could POSSIBLY debate that an actual physical head count isn't more accurate than trying to do an "mathematical estimate"? For fuck's sake, you're even using the word "estimate" which -- by pure definition -- acknowledges that it's NOT an accurate number. That it's a "best guess" number!

Not to mention, there's also the utter CROCK to this. I love that when it comes to the Census and counting heads and determining Congressional voting districts that the Democrats are in favor of "estimates" and "mathematical models" -- yet this is the same party that when it came to the infamous Florida recount wanted every hanging chad counted thrice over or even now in the still disupted Minnesota Senatorial election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman are arguing (again) that every single ballot must be found or uncovered at all costs to ACCURATELY determine who won.

Gee, funny how that Left wing hypocrisy works.
Things are only worth ACTUALLY counting so long as it will seal a Democratic win.
Otherwise, what the hell -- let's just take a guess and go with that.

[randolph]

The missionary issue was settled by the SUPREME COURT!

Obama is not taking over the census, the White House wants to review the operation of the census department. There is very little news out there on this issue. As usual Fox News picked this up and made a big deal out of it. If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Obama is not taking over the census.
There is very little news out there on this issue.
As usual Fox News picked this up and made a big deal out of it.
If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage.

TOO...MANY...MOCKING...ANSWERS...FLOODING...INTO HEAD!
BRAIN OVERLOAD! CAN'T...PICK...JUST...ONE!!!

Obama isn't trying to do anything wrong.
"If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage."
>snicker< (wiping tears from my eyes)
Thanks for the best laugh I got all day with THAT one, Randolph!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

TOO...MANY...MOCKING...ANSWERS...FLOODING...INTO HEAD!
BRAIN OVERLOAD! CAN'T...PICK...JUST...ONE!!!

Obama isn't trying to do anything wrong.
"If it was a big deal there would be some good coverage."
>snicker< (wiping tears from my eyes)
Thanks for the best laugh I got all day with THAT one, Randolph!

Well I guess it is good to know that some people find our present situation humorous. Isn't laughter the best medicine? It's just hard for me to laugh when thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well I guess it is good to know that some people find our present situation humorous.
Isn't laughter the best medicine?
It's just hard for me to laugh when thousands of people are losing their jobs and homes.

Randolph, I COMPLETELY sympathize with the plight of people in need right now -- trust me, I know MORE than enough people facing some pretty dire situations right now. I live and work in Los Angeles/Hollywood and people are losing their jobs left and right do to the poor economy overall, which in turn is likewise shutting down productions (and other things) left and right in this town. Not to mention (and most people have forgotten this due to the national crisis) but out here -- even in the midst of this madness -- the Screen Actors Guild never did come to a new contract agreement and they're STILL threatening to go on strike and shut things down in this town 100%. And if that happens...coupled with the national crisis...you might as well kiss Los Angeles good-bye for years to come. This place will officially become a ghost town.

Hell, even as it is, you should kiss California all but good-bye. As of today, California is facing a $32 BILLION deficit with the stimulus plan possibly sending around $10 billion in bail out aid to the state. Which means we'd still be a whopping $22 Billion in the hole -- hence today's latest news that as of Friday Arnold will be laying off 20,000 state workers. Not to mention the state also has told the taxpayers they're NOT getting any tax refunds this year -- we're all getting fucking "IOU's" in the mail since the state is completely bust.

Of course this also leads to another political wildfire -- namely that in the midst of this, the LA TIMES just issued a news report tallying the cost of illegal immigrants here at $5 billion a year, while other studies show it running as high as $10 Billion. So at a time when the state is $32 Billion in the hole -- and nearly a THIRD of that loss is due to illegal aliens living here and draining public services dry -- this state is quickly becoming an economic, political, and societal powder keg.

Or as someone said on TV today (I forget who, but I caught the comment in passing and thought it was dead-on): "They say that as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. Well, if that's the case, WE'RE ALL SCREWED."

Anyway, the reason I made my humorous comment before was due to your one-two punch statement that IF Obama was doing anything wrong, it would get plenty of coverage. PUH-LEEZE. As the election showed, the media is SO in Obama's pocket and SO determined to back him and even protect him that you're right -- it isn't funny. In fact, it's sad. It's a sad day for democracy and honest journalism when we've reached that point.

An example off the top of my head: Chris Matthews on MSNBC going from being a firebrand and saying it was his job was to "relentlessly find the truth and ask hard questions of the Bush Administration" to him declaring on air that listening to Obama speak "sends a shiver up my leg" and that he now feels (and I quote): "It's my job now to make sure Obama succeeds." Excuse me? TO MAKE SURE he succeeds? Gee, I thought his job as a fucking journalist was to report the news, not SHAPE it.

So going back to your post and my reply, the notion of these clowns in the media reporting ANYTHING bad that Obama does is all but inconceivable at this point...