Petreausgate

[Coito ergo sum]

I already explained what I thought was "possible" and what has been talked about in the press. And, I have no idea whether any of that is true or false.

No idea if what you've posted is true or total bullshit, eh? Well done.

Of course not.

If we limited discussion to only those things we have personal knowledge as to the truth, then we'd not discuss many issues. Just because there isn't enough information regarding a particular issue to reach a definite and firm conviction as to the truth of an assertion or not doesn't mean there is something wrong with posting about it.

However, I will be very glad if you will voluntarily agree to limit your postings to only those things you know for certain to be true. That way, you'd hardly ever post here.

And, apparently Mr. Broadwell has some other ideas as well.

Of course he does. It can't just be that his daughter is a whore...it must be a conspiracy!!

LOL. There you go again. Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy." Other options are available, like opportunistic politics.

Your constant harangue that this is GlenBeckish nonsense is exactly that. There's no other reason for you to keep going on and on about it.

See, this is what is absolutely hilarious here. You start a thread by "just asking questions"

It wasn't that kind of thread. This thread was started with an OP that indicated it was a discussion of Petreausgate, and it identified two ends of the spectrum of possibilities that have been discussed in the media -- i.e. from "nothing to see here" to "some kind of smokescreen." No implication was made that either of those, or anything in between, was "true" or "false." There was no implication that Mr. Broadwell's smokescreen comment was true. My OP bears zero resemblance to GlenBeckish nonsense like "I'm not saying they're part of a Communist conspiracy to steal your children...I'm just asking the question."

that includes suggestions of a gov't conspiracy (a "smokescreen" for....something) even though you have absolutely no idea if it's true or made up bullshit. I laughingly point out, "Hey, you're doing the exact same thing as Glen Beck on this issue", and to you that's evidence that I "don't want this talked about".

I'll leave the interpretation of you idiotic posts to anyone following this thread who cares.

[Coito ergo sum]

So Petraeus is testifying today. Guess we can file that whole, "This was a smokescreen so he wouldn't have to testify before Congress" thing in the "bullshit" folder.

Yes, if it was an attempt to prevent his testimony altogether, then it failed.

You need to stop being so knee-jerk. Just because an allegation made in the media is opened up for discussion on a thread, along with other issues, doesn't mean it is being advanced as credible or certainly true. It takes a level of emotional maturity to do that, though, rather than just go bat shit.

[Gerald McGrew]

If we limited discussion to only those things we have personal knowledge as to the truth, then we'd not discuss many issues. Just because there isn't enough information regarding a particular issue to reach a definite and firm conviction as to the truth of an assertion or not doesn't mean there is something wrong with posting about it.

However, I will be very glad if you will voluntarily agree to limit your postings to only those things you know for certain to be true. That way, you'd hardly ever post here.

Ah yes, the conservative trait of black/white thinking on full display. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270723.shtml No possibility of any sort of middle ground, e.g. scenarios we have some good evidence for.

Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy." Other options are available, like opportunistic politics.

????? You specifically cited her dad as someone other than yourself suggesting that this might be a smokescreen. Now, unless this was an accidental smokescreen, it was a deliberate, coordinated effort, aka a conspiracy.

It wasn't that kind of thread. This thread was started with an OP that indicated it was a discussion of Petreausgate, and it identified two ends of the spectrum of possibilities that have been discussed in the media -- i.e. from "nothing to see here" to "some kind of smokescreen." No implication was made that either of those, or anything in between, was "true" or "false." There was no implication that Mr. Broadwell's smokescreen comment was true. My OP bears zero resemblance to GlenBeckish nonsense like "I'm not saying they're part of a Communist conspiracy to steal your children...I'm just asking the question."

See, I actually listened to Glen Beck the night before, and you were mirroring him very closely...almost word-for-word at times. It was funny then, and it's still funny now, especially when you started stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum because the thread didn't follow your outline.

[Gerald McGrew]

You need to stop being so knee-jerk. Just because an allegation made in the media is opened up for discussion on a thread, along with other issues, doesn't mean it is being advanced as credible or certainly true. It takes a level of emotional maturity to do that, though, rather than just go bat shit.

Laughing at you = going bat shit?

Poor baby.

[Coito ergo sum]

The single thing that would do the most to improve our government and make it truly representative would be to get rid of gerrymandered US congressional districts, for both parties. As it is now, 85-90% of all incumbents are re-elected because of gerrymandering. That makes them totally immune to having to be responsive to their own constituents and lets them pander to special interests alone.

Concur 100%. Maybe 200%.
Democratic House candidates got more votes nationwide than Republican house candidates, yet, the GOP still has a solid majority in the House. The biggest reason for this by far (if not the sole reason worth looking at) is Gerrymandering.

Check out Ohio: It has 16 Congressional districts, and last Tuesday Ohio voters cast 2.5 million votes for Republican candidates and 2.3 million votes for Democratic candidates. But Ohio will have 4 Democratic Congressmen and 12 Republican Congressmen.

So, how the hell does that happen? Like this: (An explanation of Gerrymandering for beginners and/or non_Americans: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/P ... tml#item-5 )

Some states, such as California, have appointed nonpartisan commissions to draw up their congressional districts. Sounds like something which should be done nationally, IMO.

Some Gerrymandering was done in order to affirmatively help increase minority representation in Congress. i.e. - we have some weird districts that are designed to be heavily African American, so as to all but guarantee an Affrican American Congressman.

As for Ohio, the issue isn't Gerrymandering really -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... Ohio,_2012

Here is the 2012 Congressional District map of Ohio: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/r ... -House.pdf Nothing looks overtly "gerrymandered" -- as you know, that term is a portmanteau of the last name of Eldridge Gerry who was Governor Massachussetts when they overtly tried to redistrict the state in weird salamander-like looking districts to preserve antifederalist majority in the state way back in the early 19th century. The Ohio districts don't look all that odd.

This is a good example of a "gerrymandered" district. That is in North Carolina, but I highly doubt you'd object to it, because it is predominantly African-American, and was Gerrymandered in order to make sure an African American was elected.

This one in California snakes up the coast and is designed to proportionately segment voters of the Democratic Party --


Here is a Democrat district in California --


Here is one "Hispanic" district, split in two:


How the hell does this happen, indeed?

[Ian]

No no no... don't go assuming that I like gerrymandering when it happens to favor Democrats. That is completely unfair.

Take the state legislatures out of the process entirely I say, whether R or D. Give map-drawing to non-poartisan commissions in every state. Send out task force teams from the Census Bureau for all I care. But we've got to do something. Gerrymandering is a major root cause of the hyper-partisanship and gridlock plaguing Uncle Sam today.

[Coito ergo sum]

If we limited discussion to only those things we have personal knowledge as to the truth, then we'd not discuss many issues. Just because there isn't enough information regarding a particular issue to reach a definite and firm conviction as to the truth of an assertion or not doesn't mean there is something wrong with posting about it.

However, I will be very glad if you will voluntarily agree to limit your postings to only those things you know for certain to be true. That way, you'd hardly ever post here.

Ah yes, the conservative trait of black/white thinking on full display. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/270723.shtml No possibility of any sort of middle ground, e.g. scenarios we have some good evidence for.

Actually, what I exhibited was exactly the opposite of "black and white" thinking. It's why I opened up the discussion to the extremes and all possibilities in between.

[

Doesn't have to be a "conspiracy." Other options are available, like opportunistic politics.

????? You specifically cited her dad as someone other than yourself suggesting that this might be a smokescreen. Now, unless this was an accidental smokescreen, it was a deliberate, coordinated effort, aka a conspiracy.

Now you have just provided a perfect example of black and white, either-or thinking.

The primary definition of "conspiracy" is "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." A smokescreen need not be unlawful or harmful. It may have been political opportunism to do something lawful, but perhaps improper or simply to try to achieve political ends.

It wasn't that kind of thread. This thread was started with an OP that indicated it was a discussion of Petreausgate, and it identified two ends of the spectrum of possibilities that have been discussed in the media -- i.e. from "nothing to see here" to "some kind of smokescreen." No implication was made that either of those, or anything in between, was "true" or "false." There was no implication that Mr. Broadwell's smokescreen comment was true. My OP bears zero resemblance to GlenBeckish nonsense like "I'm not saying they're part of a Communist conspiracy to steal your children...I'm just asking the question."

See, I actually listened to Glen Beck the night before, and you were mirroring him very closely...almost word-for-word at times. It was funny then, and it's still funny now, especially when you started stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum because the thread didn't follow your outline.

Considering I have not heard a word that Glen Beck has said for at least -- bare minimum - a year, I can't imagine where you got that nonsense from. But, please, link to the worst offending post of mine that "mirrored" Glen Beck. Please -- let's see which one.

The only person who has stamped their feet and thrown a tantrum is you, because an issue you didn't like seeing discussed was included. You're now just squirming and prevaricating.

[Coito ergo sum]

No no no... don't go assuming that I like gerrymandering when it happens to favor Democrats. That is completely unfair.

I didn't. However, you did choose Ohio, and I found it odd that the offender that you chose as emblematic of the problem contained no salamander like districts. You asked "how the hell does this happen?" And, I googled to find the vote tallies and take a look at the districts, and it seems pretty clear how it happened. In the various districts that voted a republican in, the elections were fairly close, and in a few districts in Ohio they are overwhelmingly democrat. It doesn't seem at all nefarious.

Take the state legislatures out of the process entirely I say, whether R or D. Give map-drawing to non-poartisan commissions in every state.

I am not convinced you can have a nonpartisan commission. The partisans are the ones who appoint the so-called nonpartisans to the nonpartisan commissions. Each side tries to pack the nonpartisan commission with folks sympathetic to their views.

Send out task force teams from the Census Bureau for all I care. But we've got to do something. Gerrymandering is a major root cause of the hyper-partisanship and gridlock plaguing Uncle Sam today.

The difficulty arises, however, in that districts are, essentially, arbitrary, and there is no more reason to prefer a square to a circule to a rhombus to a star of David shaped district, is there? Should we follow the river? Should we follow the mountain ridge? Should we just take a map of the US and superimpose a grid? (can't do that, actually, because there would districts with zero or just a few people in it, and some with millions).

What criteria would the Census bureau, for example, use in dividing up the states into districts?

[Gerald McGrew]

All right CES, I'm bored of this. But I will point out that once again, you seem to have some very real reading comprehension problems.

The primary definition of "conspiracy" is "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." A smokescreen need not be unlawful or harmful. It may have been political opportunism to do something lawful, but perhaps improper or simply to try to achieve political ends.

"Improper to achieve political ends" =/= "harmful"? That's what you're going to hang your hat on here? Sad.

Considering I have not heard a word that Glen Beck has said for at least -- bare minimum - a year, I can't imagine where you got that nonsense from.

I...just...fucking...told...you. I listened to Beck the night before. God damn but you don't pay attention.

The only person who has stamped their feet and thrown a tantrum is you, because an issue you didn't like seeing discussed was included.

Just like arguing with creationists. Even though you can't show a single place where I said or even insinuated that this issue shouldn't be discussed, you're sticking to your version of reality where I did.

"You evolutionists just don't want to answer to God!"

Can you show where I've said anything of the sort?

"No, but I know...I just know in my heart...that's what you really think!"

[amused]

There are several groups working on alternate ways to draw the maps. The one I like best is to factor in the geography and then let a computer model the district so that the length of the perimeter is the shortest possible distance. If things were uniformly distributed, you would end up with a honeycomb layout. It could be modeled several ways, the determining factor would be picking the location of the center points.

I think it's safe now to ignore skin color as a reason to create districts. I have far more in common with my black and hispanic neighbors than I do with people of my color that are miles away, and so do my neighbors.

[Coito ergo sum]

All right CES, I'm bored of this. But I will point out that once again, you seem to have some very real reading comprehension problems.

There you go again.

The primary definition of "conspiracy" is "A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." A smokescreen need not be unlawful or harmful. It may have been political opportunism to do something lawful, but perhaps improper or simply to try to achieve political ends.

"Improper to achieve political ends" =/= "harmful"? That's what you're going to hang your hat on here? Sad.

Whether it's considered "harmful" depends on whose ox is being gored.

It isn't necessarily harmful to be achieving political ends.

There are many possibilities, and it's not just the either-or false choice that you raised.

A smokescreen need not be a smokescreen to achieve something illegal or harmful, and yet it could be questionable, political, or just advantageous.

Considering I have not heard a word that Glen Beck has said for at least -- bare minimum - a year, I can't imagine where you got that nonsense from.

I...just...fucking...told...you. I listened to Beck the night before. God damn but you don't pay attention.

I couldn't get it from Beck, though, if I did not listen to him. Further, if you were listening to Glen Beck talk about what is being reported in various news sources, the fact that Beck is talking about it doesn't invalidate it.

I fucking showed you many times now where I got the information from - and they are mainstream sources. The fact that you were listening to Glen Beck and apparently heard him talking about something similar doesn't mean I've described something wrong.

The only person who has stamped their feet and thrown a tantrum is you, because an issue you didn't like seeing discussed was included.

Just like arguing with creationists. Even though you can't show a single place where I said or even insinuated that this issue shouldn't be discussed, you're sticking to your version of reality where I did.

I've already shown this. The only reason you'd keep harping on this being a Glen Beck conspiracy theory is to denigrate the fact that the issue is being discussed at all.

"You evolutionists just don't want to answer to God!"

Can you show where I've said anything of the sort?

Every post where you've accused me of mimicking Glen Beck.

"No, but I know...I just know in my heart...that's what you really think!"

Your problem is that you don't think.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

If I was testifying to Congress over my affair - I would take me cock out and explain that this has been going into a Vagina.

and if you don't all like it - then suck on it!

[Azathoth]

There are several groups working on alternate ways to draw the maps. The one I like best is to factor in the geography and then let a computer model the district so that the length of the perimeter is the shortest possible distance. If things were uniformly distributed, you would end up with a honeycomb layout. It could be modeled several ways, the determining factor would be picking the location of the center points.

I think it's safe now to ignore skin color as a reason to create districts. I have far more in common with my black and hispanic neighbors than I do with people of my color that are miles away, and so do my neighbors.

Going by area doesnt work. It needs to be normalised for population density otherwise you get 3 backwoods hicks and their goat having as much say as half a city.

[surreptitious57]

Take the state legislatures out of the process entirely I say, whether R or D. Give map drawing to non partisan commissions in every state. Send out task force teams from the Census Bureau for all I care. But we have got to do something Gerrymandering is a major root cause of the hyper-partisanship and gridlock plaguing Uncle Sam today

But who would have the legal authority to appoint these commissions ? That such as a President or leader of the House or Congress may vote against it to maintain the status quo, of their particular party. Therefore to be truly independent they could not be politically sanctioned now. It would have have to come from elsewhere - maybe the judiciary for example

[amused]

There are several groups working on alternate ways to draw the maps. The one I like best is to factor in the geography and then let a computer model the district so that the length of the perimeter is the shortest possible distance. If things were uniformly distributed, you would end up with a honeycomb layout. It could be modeled several ways, the determining factor would be picking the location of the center points.

I think it's safe now to ignore skin color as a reason to create districts. I have far more in common with my black and hispanic neighbors than I do with people of my color that are miles away, and so do my neighbors.

Going by area doesnt work. It needs to be normalised for population density otherwise you get 3 backwoods hicks and their goat having as much say as half a city.

Yes, I understand. The area encompassed would vary by population density so that all of the districts are roughly equal in terms of the number of people within each district. What would happen would be a lot of roughly hexagon shaped districts of varying size that nest next to each other.