- This topic has 34 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
There’s no way in hell you can defend this one. US Code specifically states that a census will be taken every 10 years and will be controlled by the Commerce department. Like normal, rules mean nothing to him.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100da…us-white-house/
By the way, I tried REALLY hard to find a newsworthy source that wasn’t Fox but literally no other major news outlet is reporting this. Can’t imagine why CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, New York Times, and Washington Post would let such a change go completely unreported. I’d call it biased reporting but only Fox does that…
Btw, the census controls electoral college votes, congressional districts, federal aid money, welfare programs, etc. Pretty much everything is going to hinge on how Rahm Emanuel (the democrat’s Carl Rove) decides to make things.
I’ll say it again, if Bush had done this there would have been a media outcry.
I’m glad a democrat is in the white house. If I were American I probably would have voted for Obama. But honestly, the stuff he has been doing lately has been ridiculous.
lockEm said:
But honestly, the stuff he has been doing lately has been ridiculous.The problem is that those of us who said this stuff would happen were flamed and laughed at. Most of this crazy stuff was called months ago.
I’ve always hated the redrawing of districts. Seems unfair to me, just sayin. Also, nothing in that article says what he plans to actually do. Do you know? The census is rather ridiculous…maybe just maybe they’re trying to make it work better. What evidence is there that anything nefarious is happening?
Nebs said:
I’ve always hated the redrawing of districts. Seems unfair to me, just sayin. Also, nothing in that article says what he plans to actually do. Do you know? The census is rather ridiculous…maybe just maybe they’re trying to make it work better. What evidence is there that anything nefarious is happening?It’s been under the commerce department since the census was started and there is no evidence to support that it needed to be moved or that it would be improved if moved.
Would you trust Karl Rove with the duty of drawing district lines and awarding federal aid and wellfare for the next 10 years? No. By that same reasoning it shouldn’t be under Rahm Emanuel either.
It was being run complete independent from politics and political maneuvering and if moving it won’t actually make the system work better one can assume there’s another reason behind it. I mean he didn’t bypass Congress on this for nothing.
On a seperate note, since this goes completely against existing US Code, some have suggested that this move may be deemed unconstitutional. It would really suck if Obama’s actions were already being declared unconstitutional not one month into his term…
I just dont know if I can trust this post because its only 1 source and I cant find it any where else.
So, I am just gonna quote someone, so Obama made a few “changes” within our country which won’t be proven to be bad until some time passes, “changes” which he said he would make.
Also after two of his top cabinet nominees withdrew their bids on Tuesday because of their failure to pay back taxes, President Obama said, “This was a mistake. I screwed up.” That’s your mistake? I don’t know if you remember, but the last guy broke the world.
I’m kind of torn on this, I agree with bitey for the most part. Everyone knew he was going to make changes, and quickly. He stated this many times so no one should be surprised. Clinton made some changes quick, some panned out, others did not. I think this might need to be something to ride out. I hate the redrawing of districts, and I agree it is necessary every so often, but I think it should deal more with the flux of people in an area, then just every so many years. Some areas grow and decline at such a rapid rate that it’s tough to keep up with. At the same time it’s such a mundane job and done so terribly that you can’t really ask for more.
I can’t agree more with P that it should stay completely seperate from politics, it might be one of the few things not tainted by politics thus far. I’m not sure about unconstitutional, it’s not my place to rule on something like that and I don’t know the laws well enough to call that. But I do think there is some out of norm activity and for whatever reason we’ll find out soon I think.
It’s tough because I don’t think a lot of people are going to be affected by this. Yes the growing areas which will be restructured are going to feel the change. But if your not growing your district just gets bigger to accomodate the # of people needed/portioned. North Carolina is definitely one of the states that will be changed, but as per my Pennsylvania, not so much. Philly gets worked around everytime they restructure regardless, but philly is a mess anyway.
Bitey said:
the last guy broke the world.lol
and as far as this post goes. The another issue that was brought up at the end of the article was sampling. For those who don’t know what that is, its basically a mathematical calculation to help estimate the population of highly dense urban areas. Republicans are against sampling, primarily because it apparently goes against the constitution and that the constitution requires we count the “heads one by one” of every U.S. citizen. Democrats are in favor of sampling because it allows for better estimates of our population, based on the “samples” taken. The CB is known for its mistakes, miscalculating the actual population in the near millions. The majority of those not counted are from the lower class. They often miss count people living in high dense urban zones, something that sampling could help fix (democrats argue anyway). An example the fox news journalist gave in that article up there is of a miss count of Mormons who weren’t in Utah at the time of the census in 2000. I’m not sure why she attempts to use this as a case against sampling, because there was no sampling used in the 2000 census. All this article tells me was that the CB was going to be “supervised” in the white house. Even if it’s just going to be under supervision and then Obama implements some kind of real change like sampling in 2010 census, I personally don’t see anything wrong with that. This isn’t really something to get your panties all in a bunch.
Bitey said:
I don’t know if you remember, but the last guy broke the world.I hate to derail, but under Bush’s watch the Taliban was crippled, no succesful terrorist attacks took place on American soil or territories, Saddam Hussein was removed from power, the beginnings of democracy were brought to Afghanistan and Iraq, and thousands of Africans recieved supplies and first aide. Admitedly, Bush screwed a number of things up, but to say he broke the world is nonsense.
I hate people blaming Bush for *edited*ing everything up. It’s ridiculous. That being said, even if “the last guy broke the world,” it doesn’t make everything Obama does excusable just because it pales in comparison to the bad things the last president did.
.cb new_rayz said:
Even if it’s just going to be under supervision and then Obama implements some kind of real change like sampling in 2010 census, I personally don’t see anything wrong with that. This isn’t really something to get your panties all in a bunch.So you’d be ok with Karl Rove running the census?
MasterP said:
So you’d be ok with Karl Rove running the census?I wouldn’t be okay with him running the census because he is a Republican. Republicans don’t share my beliefs, which is why I don’t like them in office. I wouldn’t mind democrats running it because I’m a democrat. Surprise, Surprise. That’s all that really is. Regardless though, nothing is going to change about the census, unless they implement some kind of real change, like sampling, or redistricting, which again, I wouldn’t mind because it would be more beneficial in counting the urban population. I think republicans are just afraid that there are a lot more people in “ghetto america” which need help, but because they don’t fall in their spectrum of upper-middle to upper class citizenry they don’t give a rats *edited* about. What better way to ignore a spectrum of our population than to not count them in a census. At least with sampling they make up for miss counts with a close estimation
Karl Rove’s son goes to my university…you can look everyone up on our telephones in our rooms, but when you look up him, hes NOT listed…interesting…
.cb new_rayz said:
I wouldn’t be okay with him running the census because he is a Republican. Republicans don’t share my beliefs, which is why I don’t like them in office. I wouldn’t mind democrats running it because I’m a democrat. Surprise, Surprise. That’s all that really is.So, your justification for hypocracy is that you are honest about it?
Ephraim said:
So, your justification for hypocracy is that you are honest about it?I guess republicans don’t connect dots. I would be happy to have democrats run it. I wouldn’t be if a republican would. That isn’t hypocritical. Why? because the agenda of a democrat is more inline with my beliefs, while that of a republican is not. No *edited* I wouldn’t be okay with Karl Rove supervising the CB, just like you republicans aren’t okay with a democrat running things. I vote for people who I think will uphold my beliefs, and by voting for them, I put faith in their decisions. I didn’t vote for Bush or Karl Rove so I wouldn’t be okay with them doing anything.
and you totally avoided my point. You know, Sampling? Typical republican peddling over little things like scandals, name-calling, and “pseudo-hypocrisies”. The fact is any kind of real change made by a Karl Rove supervised CB would be far less beneficial to the accuracy of a Census. Sampling, would make the numbers a bit more accurate, seeing how the census is miscalculated in upwards of 4 to 6 million people. That’s 6 million people not accounted for, the majority falling under low-middle class status. The only people in favor for that kind policy change would be the democrats. Which is why if CB is to be supervised, I would be in favor for a Democrat to supervise it rather than a republican (who are against any sort of sampling). Now again, how is that hypocritical?
You are okay with a Democrat doing something, but if a Republican did the same thing you would not be okay with it. This, by definition, is hypocritical. I would not be okay with a member of either party doing such things. This is not hypocritical, as it applies the same standards to both parties.
Ephraim said:
You are okay with a Democrat doing something, but if a Republican did the same thing you would not be okay with it. This, by definition, is hypocritical. I would not be okay with a member of either party doing such things. This is not hypocritical, as it applies the same standards to both parties.Uhmmm…
The intentions behind a democrat doing something is going to be different than a Republican. I am okay with the democrats doing something, as so long as it goes with my beliefs. In this case, my belief is the CB could use some change, and because of that, I believe the best people to handle that change are democrats. BECAUSE they are FOR SAMPLING. I would NOT be okay with republicans doing something, because the majority of the time it goes AGAINST my beliefs. In this case, a republican would go against any kind of change like Sampling, which is against my belief that sampling would be more beneficial to the Census. Do you not understand that logic? Their is no hypocrisy involved, because I am indifferent to the regulation of the CB, so long as the people in charge have an agenda which is inline with my beliefs. I’m not simply saying I wouldn’t want a republican controlling, I’m saying I wouldn’t want a republican controlling, because I don’t agree with their agenda.
I don’t think I can explain it more clearly than I already have. My guess is you just don’t want to understand.
If you believe it is okay for the Constitution to be bent to give a Democrat more power, but it is not okay for the same thing to happen to a Republican, you are a hypocrite.
Ephraim said:
I don’t think I can explain it more clearly than I already have. My guess is you just don’t want to understand.If you believe it is okay for the Constitution to be bent to give a Democrat more power, but it is not okay for the same thing to happen to a Republican, you are a hypocrite.
maybe you should stop bending the definition of a hypocrite?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
-democrats in favor of sampling
-this is inline with my beliefs
-republicans against sampling
-this is against my beliefs
Therefore, I find it okay that a democrat is in charge, based on the fact that it is inline with my beliefs. By definition, I would only truly be a hypocrite if I found it okay for a republican to be in charge, because this would be contradicting to my belief in sampling, because republicans are clearly against it.
My belief on anything regarding the Census Bureau, is that so long as changes that are made are beneficial to the Census data collected. What I define as beneficial would pertain to anything that gives a more accurate reading. In this case, a more accurate reading would be the most scientific reading. Republicans claim that this is a political move, and it may appear to be so, but the simple fact is the Census Bureau has been spending billions and still make problematic mistakes. And the only party (of the two parties that we have) that had any sort of solution to the issue of “counting millions” are the democrats. Republican idea of “head by head counting” is just unrealistic in these modern times, no matter how “constitutionally sound” those ideas may appear to be. You call it bending, I call it reform, adapting, evolution, growth, change we *edited*ing need.
.cb new_rayz said:
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelingsExactly. You stated that you would not be in favor of Karl Rove gaining previously unheard-of control over the Census. Yet, you are okay with Rahm Emanuel gaining the same power. If this were a situation in which ideology were the main issue, then preferring one political party over another would be acceptable (think elections). However, the topic is the grasping of new power by politicians. The main question is whether or not it is ethically sound for a politician to gain a new power with no precedent. Political parties don’t even come into the equation. Your stated position was that it would not be okay for Karl Rove to get such power. As such, the same token must be given to Rahm Emanuel. Otherwise, you would be showing bias in favor of one political party in an issue where political parties are irrelevant.
New power for me, but not for thee.
Don’t be upset by my statement, as I said it is only a quote, from an SNL skit of all places, however I do find it interesting how many people agree. Sure Bush may have done his part, but he spread the responsibilities of the US too far and wide thus crippling our own country. We can’t be every bodies mommy and fix the worlds problems, especially if poor and rich people alike are not willing to give what they can to the country, and yes I do mean equal percentages. If we don’t do that there is no way our country can afford to help anyone but ourselves, I would love for our country to be the one that people turn to, problem is we have too many *edited* selfish people to do that.
Ephraim said:
Exactly. You stated that you would not be in favor of Karl Rove gaining previously unheard-of control over the Census. Yet, you are okay with Rahm Emanuel gaining the same power. If this were a situation in which ideology were the main issue, then preferring one political party over another would be acceptable (think elections). However, the topic is the grasping of new power by politicians. The main question is whether or not it is ethically sound for a politician to gain a new power with no precedent. Political parties don’t even come into the equation. Your stated position was that it would not be okay for Karl Rove to get such power. As such, the same token must be given to Rahm Emanuel. Otherwise, you would be showing bias in favor of one political party in an issue where political parties are irrelevant.New power for me, but not for thee.
I stand by what I said. I voted for the current people in charge. which is why I accept “changes” by them, and not by republicans. You are basically saying, that regardless of position, the only right answer is that neither a republican nor democrat should be messing with the CB. I disagree, I think if the Census Bureau is flawed, it should be monitored/changed/adjusted/supervised/watever. They clearly can’t make changes on their own, which is why they got complaints by senators, and which is why they are going to be in the white house now.
I have already gone past the main question of whether or not someone should be gaining this “unprecedented “power” and “monitoring” the CB. I fully realize the potential affect of having the CB in the White House. Again, I am fine with that. I would still be fine with move, even if a republican regime were in the white house. I wouldn’t then be complaining about the move itself. Because as you said, it makes me look like a Hypocrite. But like I said, I would be complaining about the adenda/change/reform/whatever put forth by that republican regime. The move itself does not matter. Nor does the person in charge. What matters to me is what that persons intentions are. And it just so happens that a democrats intentions are more inline with what I believe the right steps should be to change whatever it is that needs to be changed. Ethically I am okay with having Rahm Emanuel in there, because I believe in his intentions. I would be okay with Karl Rove gaining that power, IF I were a republican and shared his intentions. You know the big *edited* list of bull*edited* the republicans really want to do with this country. But thank god, I am not a republican, and thank god I saw the day when they didn’t their have hands on the wheel. I apologize for not being more clear in my previous posts, I was drinking and such, so yeah. lol Also political parties are relevant when it comes to the CB, because it determines party lines.
jsut to *edited* obama up, im gonna say that im a multimillionaire living in a *edited*ty apt in blacksburg va, with 18 dependents
should be some interesting graphics and charts to come from this
.cb new_rayz said:
I have already gone past the main question of whether or not someone should be gaining this “unprecedented “power” and “monitoring” the CB. I fully realize the potential affect of having the CB in the White House. Again, I am fine with that. I would still be fine with move, even if a republican regime were in the white house.Ah, so you mean that you have no problem with the concept of a President giving said powers to the Chief of Staff, regardless of political party. Okay, I thought you meant it would only be okay for a Democrat to get said powers. That’s where the confusion was. I think the White House should have no authority over the issue, but I admit you are not being a hypocrite.
Article said:
The decision to move the census into the White House was announced just days after Obama named New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican, to be his commerce secretary. Gregg has long opposed “sampling” by the census and has voted against funding increases for the bureau.Sabato said moving the census “in-house” will likely set up a situation where neither the Commerce Department nor the White House will know exactly what is going on in the Census Bureau. He said the process is “too critical to politics for both parties not to pay close attention.”
“I’ve always remembered what Joseph Stalin said: ‘Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.’ The same principle applies to the census. Since one or the other party will always be in power at the time of the census, it is vital that the out-of-power party at least be able to observe the process to make sure it isn’t being stacked in favor of the party in power. This will be difficult for the GOP since I suspect Democrats will control both houses of Congress for the entire Obama first term,” Sabato said.
new_rayz I have no idea where you’re getting this sampling spew from but the article posted only said the commerce secretary was OPPOSED to sampling. It did NOT say that sampling would be used, nor did it directly imply that.
If doing a house by house headcount can’t create an accurate or at least mostly-accurate count how the hell do you think randomizing and guessing will help? You can randomly sample and educatedly guess any result you want if you know how, and I imagine one of the Democrat’s chief strategist knows a thing or two about getting his party’s way through sketchy at best tactics.
But hey, if they use voter registration information to determine where people live I imagine pretty much every homeless and deadbeat in the country will now be on the books…
MasterP said:
new_rayz I have no idea where you’re getting this sampling spew from but the article posted only said the commerce secretary was OPPOSED to sampling. It did NOT say that sampling would be used, nor did it directly imply that.If doing a house by house headcount can’t create an accurate or at least mostly-accurate count how the hell do you think randomizing and guessing will help? You can randomly sample and educatedly guess any result you want if you know how, and I imagine one of the Democrat’s chief strategist knows a thing or two about getting his party’s way through sketchy at best tactics.
But hey, if they use voter registration information to determine where people live I imagine pretty much every homeless and deadbeat in the country will now be on the books…
yeah I see that now. I was drunk at the time when I first posted about sampling. I just looked back at my history log to see how or why I focused so much on that. Past all the porn, I found that I had apparently read related articles about topics which were issues brought up. I guess sampling caught my drunken eye, and I just ran with it, because Ephraim called me a hypocrite lol. But yeah, so that is how that happened. I still agree with what I wrote drunk tho. And the idea of door by door head count is ridiculous. Not only is it insufficient, but it costs us billions. Sampling is used in countless other areas of CB and the government, including issuing out the dough. Unfortunately, their are mixed feelings for it, some think its unconstitutional and some think its still too inaccurate.
referring to what’s in bold:
Homeless are still citizens. And so are deadbeats. Whats your point? I assume it’s that homeless and deadbeats all voted for Obama. And that is somehow bad or funny? Typical republican snobbishness.
.cb new_rayz said:
referring to what’s in bold:Homeless are still citizens. And so are deadbeats. Whats your point? I assume it’s that homeless and deadbeats all voted for Obama. And that is somehow bad or funny? Typical republican snobbishness.
My point was that they are the ones most pointed too when looking for problems with the current system as they aren’t on the “grid”. Since a good number of them are registered voters and have a registered address accurate to within which park bench they sleep on, the existing system should be getting more accurate, not less.
A bit of sarcasm to lighten the mood. Felt like poking a jab as they are now indicting multiple waves of Acorn employees on voter fraud.
The VAST majority of people have a registered “home”. Minus those off the grid, and least likely to support the country in any meaningful way, a full account using existing data should be sufficient. There is no accurate way to take into account illegal immigrants and anyone else who refuses to live on the “grid”. Random sampling won’t help estimate that and taking educated guesses is just as inaccurate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.