Options

Save DC

124678

Posts

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I want to see nstf and DeShadowC debate each other on finances.

    It won't happen, because the two of them are just going to keep ignoring that their arguments are completely contradictory.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    yeah... most of the residents are not wealthy enough to move.

    No, only about 19 percent live below the poverty line according to the most recent survey. About as bad as Mississippi.

    Still a disgrace but there you have it. Not even close to most.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    States are not corporations. They do not undertake risky endeavors in order to have future profits. They under take stable endeavors so as to provide for their residents here and now.

    This is completely untrue. States regularly spend short term money to gain long term profit.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    yeah... most of the residents are not wealthy enough to move.

    No, only about 19 percent live below the poverty line according to the most recent survey. About as bad as Mississippi.

    Still a disgrace but there you have it. Not even close to most.

    That doesn't mean that the rest can afford to move. that is not how the poverty line is defined

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    States are not corporations. They do not undertake risky endeavors in order to have future profits. They under take stable endeavors so as to provide for their residents here and now.

    This is completely untrue. States regularly spend short term money to gain long term profit.

    yes, but not to this degree.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I want to see nstf and DeShadowC debate each other on finances.

    It won't happen, because the two of them are just going to keep ignoring that their arguments are completely contradictory.

    Short term verses long term plus I've already stated how my ideas would fix the problems that nstf has come up with. These same solutions aren't feasible in a statehood situation. So both of us can be correct.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    I want to see nstf and DeShadowC debate each other on finances.

    It won't happen, because the two of them are just going to keep ignoring that their arguments are completely contradictory.

    DC keeps shoving it's poor residents into MD. If you could shove the population of SE and NE into PG county (which is slowly happening) and pull more people from MOCO and NOVA into it (which is slowly happening) it might do alright down the road. At which point I'm sure either state would take it, and then it wouldn't depend on the fed to keep from drowning. It's just not possible as it is now.

    nstf on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    yes, but not to this degree.

    Yes and shortsightedness of the government is what has caused the current economic problems. We're talking in impossible hypotheticals though. I'm trying to give a more feasible solution.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    KronusKronus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    States are not corporations. They do not undertake risky endeavors in order to have future profits. They under take stable endeavors so as to provide for their residents here and now.

    This is completely untrue. States regularly spend short term money to gain long term profit.

    This would be an unprecedented endeavor, they would have to have a really good incentive to take DC other than "yeah it will probably help you guys out down the line." What are the long term gains, specifically?

    Kronus on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    yes, but not to this degree.

    Yes and shortsightedness of the government is what has caused the current economic problems.

    You have already made your complete lack of economic understanding clear, but I still couldn't pass up this line.

    seriously, what you just said means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Kronus wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    States are not corporations. They do not undertake risky endeavors in order to have future profits. They under take stable endeavors so as to provide for their residents here and now.

    This is completely untrue. States regularly spend short term money to gain long term profit.

    This would be an unprecedented endeavor, they would have to have a really good incentive to take DC other than "yeah it will probably help you guys out down the line." What are the long term gains, specifically?

    More money and political clout. The only two gains that matter at that level.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    yeah... most of the residents are not wealthy enough to move.

    No, only about 19 percent live below the poverty line according to the most recent survey. About as bad as Mississippi.

    Still a disgrace but there you have it. Not even close to most.

    That doesn't mean that the rest can afford to move. that is not how the poverty line is defined

    It's more than enough to move if you can find a job that pays about the same.

    That's the tricky, time consuming part of it all. I know it's brutal and hard and most people just deal with it.

    I'll ask you again though Evander, because it is fun to talk with you: Do you really think it would get any better if DC was a state?

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    yes, but not to this degree.

    Yes and shortsightedness of the government is what has caused the current economic problems.

    You have already made your complete lack of economic understanding clear, but I still couldn't pass up this line.

    seriously, what you just said means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

    You don't think cashing checks and ignoring the obvious growing bubble while the government choose to enjoy short term gains instead of preparing and regulating, caused the current economic meltdown?

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    If the residents of NYC want it, I have no issue.


    All bullshitting aside, this is really the crux of our disagreement right here.

    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.
    Which is fine, but it's not that way for everyone. Most of the arguments that could be made against your very narrowly (and uselessly, thank you) framed question of why DC shouldn't be a state, have already been rejected by you before they could ever have been made.

    Really? that's why you say that it can't happen, because it hasn't before?

    Spoit on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Wasn't the land ceded by Maryland and Virginia for the explicit purpose of creating a federal district? Would that mean that if the land was no longer a federal district, that the control reverts to Maryland and Virginia, as they didn't cede the land for any other purpose than the federal district, or is it entirely up to the federal government what happens now as the current owners?

    I imagine it would depend on how the acts that ceded the land were written (and how they are interpreted today), but I have no idea.

    Space Coyote on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think ceding the residential areas to Maryland and making the Capitol-Memorials-White House area (is all of that referred as National Mall?) basically Washington D.C. as a special area doesn't sound bad to me.

    On the other hand, I don't see why it just can't be a (city-)state either. Geographic size doesn't really matter in my opinion. Plus it's closer to like, Rhode Island in size then Rhode Island is to Texas.

    Also, this is unrelated by why the hell does the Maryland/Virginia/West Wirginia/Delaware area have so many wierdly shaped states?

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    PolloDiabloPolloDiablo Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It's like Europe. The East coast got carved up as much as possible by competing claims. Out west people deliberately paid attention to where they were drawing lines.

    PolloDiablo on
  • Options
    Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Also, this is unrelated by why the hell does the Maryland/Virginia/West Wirginia/Delaware area have so many wierdly shaped states?

    They often follow rivers and watersheds (as was the style at the time), that being natural formations are not nicely geometric.

    @PolloDiablo: Actually out west they decided 3 degrees up and 5 across was a cool shape (the average of the east coast states/pennslyvannia) and just wacked it down everywhere they could.

    Dis' on
  • Options
    Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I know this will never happen, but I think it would be a good idea to abolish all states and the senate. DC can then turn their "shadow rep" into a real representative.

    Pi-r8 on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It was more like the US had anexed everything between the Missisipi and the Pacific during the Mexican/American war. They owned the land, but people (white people) didn't really live there. The area was so huge that they subdivided it to make administration easier. Without care for the actual geography of the place. They just took a ruler and drew a line.

    Thats why the US has places like the Four Corners.

    The East coast had people and the borders where drawn acording to their wishes and the geography.

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm not sure if the state/senate system fully makes sense anyway. Why does Wyoming get the same amount of Senators as California? I mean, the upper house seems more important, but even though California has more then sixty times the population, Wyoming has just as much influence there.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It's because the US was initially designed as a Republic rather than a modern bureaucratic federal democracy, which is what it is today despite some leftover bitching about it.

    States used to be fairly autonomous, with the Federal Government only supposed to be handling general welfare and collective defense issues.

    Which isn't to say state governments aren't still heavy-duty actors on the domestic scene, just that the Senate was designed in the days when they were intended to be essentially sub-nations within the supranational institution that was the United States.

    A more realistic, optimized system would be the upper house based on actual geographic/economic regions of the country, not the largely arbitrary state boundaries. Something like (for example), Mid-Atlantic, New England, Midwest, Mountain West, Great Plains, Northwest, California/Nevada/Hawaii, Southwest, South, Texas.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    yeah... most of the residents are not wealthy enough to move.

    No, only about 19 percent live below the poverty line according to the most recent survey. About as bad as Mississippi.

    Still a disgrace but there you have it. Not even close to most.

    That doesn't mean that the rest can afford to move. that is not how the poverty line is defined

    It's more than enough to move if you can find a job that pays about the same.

    That's the tricky, time consuming part of it all. I know it's brutal and hard and most people just deal with it.

    I'll ask you again though Evander, because it is fun to talk with you: Do you really think it would get any better if DC was a state?

    Do I think WHAT would get better?

    The purpose of making DC a state isn't social welfare, it is legal representation. I DO think that would get better as a state. DC's other ills wouldn't be fixed one way of the other without some kind of other projects.

    Evander on
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm not sure if the state/senate system fully makes sense anyway. Why does Wyoming get the same amount of Senators as California? I mean, the upper house seems more important, but even though California has more then sixty times the population, Wyoming has just as much influence there.

    That's basically the point of the Senate. All states are represented equally, so the large population states can't run completely roughshod over the interests of the small population states.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    And here I thought that no taxation without representation meant something.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    yes, but not to this degree.

    Yes and shortsightedness of the government is what has caused the current economic problems.

    You have already made your complete lack of economic understanding clear, but I still couldn't pass up this line.

    seriously, what you just said means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

    You don't think cashing checks and ignoring the obvious growing bubble while the government choose to enjoy short term gains instead of preparing and regulating, caused the current economic meltdown?

    I think that saying "shortsightedness caused this economic problem" is the most meaningless phrase possible. It can mean two exactly opposite things, because shortsightedness is basically what causes EVER problem.

    The current crisis was NOT the fault of the government, at least not the one you are blaming. It was the fault of past governments, MANY years ago, that created a less regulated ecosystem where the issues that did arrise could arrise. When it comes to why the government didn't step in, it has more to do with not wanting to ruin our "highest ever minority homeownership levels" then it has to do with cashing any checks. Things were good all around, and no one wanted to come out as being against things being good all around.

    And they weren't ignoring the issue so much as listening to the wrong experts. That's the problem with everyone thinking that economics is easy stuff that anyone can figure out.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    And here I thought that no taxation without representation meant something.

    Only if they are white.

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    The purpose of making DC a state isn't social welfare, it is legal representation. I DO think that would get better as a state. DC's other ills wouldn't be fixed one way of the other without some kind of other projects.

    What DC is now, a federal district run by congress, funded largely by congress, with a court system that is completely federal it can not be made into a state. It is not possible.

    In order to make it a state, you'd have to amend the constitution and stop all of the issues above. At which point fuck DC. Congress can stop keeping it out of the red year after year. It's public school system can finally bottom out, we can stop shoveling money into the poor wards, and those with cash (that only recently started moving back in) can move back out to NOVA and MOCO and we can just let the people there rot. Nobody wants those people, and nobody wants that city, everybody hates it, and people are sick of funding it.

    MD and VA would probably love that. The few people worth having can be gobbled up as the flee the city, DC can go to shit again and MD can shove the people that moved into PG county back into DC when DC's value falls through the ground. Getting them out of MD's school system and removing their current problem.

    So even if you managed to change DC's workings completely so it could be made a state, you've got to deal with that mess.

    Then what are you going to do about the local economy, it's based off federal jobs and the top earners already don't live in DC proper. There isn't a way to fix this, and if you drain the few people contributing to the tax pool this is going to get worse.

    There are good reasons why DC can't be made a sate as it is, and good reasons why if you turned it into one it would make Detroit look like a well run nice place.

    Until that is fixed "argh taxation" is a side argument. If representation is your goal it's going to have to involve Maryland. Maryland doesn't want that because if they fully absorb DC as it is now it will take years to unfuck. Furthermore they don't want the vast majority of DC's citizens and their problems, that's part of the reason PG county is such a mess today. And nobody wants the local politics of those areas, and their crooked ward reps and that mess being integrated into their political arena.

    nstf on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DC actually contains two cities, Washington and Georgetown. There were other cities formerly within the district on the Virginia side.

    And sorry, but, "it is not a state so it can't be a state" is actually an even worse argument than my fake Columbia one.
    DC used to contain several cities, including Washington, Georgetown and Alexandria.

    However, that's no longer the case. All of the separate governments and jurisdictions were combined some decades ago. Georgetown is just a neighborhood within the District of Columbia now. Actually, calling it Washington, D.C. is kind of an anachronism. It's really just the District of Columbia.

    And on the point of why DC doesn't have the qualities to be a state- it is too small, population and geography-wise. In terms of population, I know there is one smaller state and several around the same time. Howevever, those are mostly historical anachronisms that were made states in a time when their tiny populations weren't as much of an issue. If we were drawing the state boundaries from scratch, Wyoming, Vermont and other such people-free states would most likely be merged into neighboring states. I doubt we would let them into the union as their own states.

    In terms of geography, if you made DC a state it would be the only wholly urban state in the union. All of the other states are mini-countries in their own right (not so mini in the case of California, Texas, New York etc.) They're made up of urban, rural and suburban areas. Their economies are made up of different sectors, such as agriculture, manufacturing and service industries.

    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    The only way DC could become a state would be as part of a general re-organization of the boundaries of the existing states. You'd split NYC from upstate NY, split California and Texas into maybe 3 states each, merge Rhode Island and Vermont into their neighbors and so on. But that's never going to happen.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.

    As for Georgetown having been absorbed in to Washington, yes, that's true, but without any sort of signposts or landmarks to point it out to you, there are a few other non-DC cities that one could drive in to, and not realize that they had left DC. Maybe Bethesda and Alexandria should be made a part of DC as well...

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.

    As for Georgetown having been absorbed in to Washington, yes, that's true, but without any sort of signposts or landmarks to point it out to you, there are a few other non-DC cities that one could drive in to, and not realize that they had left DC. Maybe Bethesda and Alexandria should be made a part of DC as well...

    o_O

    Wait what?


    Bethesda was never part of DC.

    And the areas in VA that were part of DC are not going back into it. Half the reason those places are worth so much and desired is that they aren't technically DC and thus free from it's douchbaggery. And you know when you left DC into VA because you cross a bridge, there is a river here.

    nstf on
  • Options
    wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?

    The best I've seen in here is an argument that statehood would cause fiscal problems, with a state unable to support itself, which I'm not sure I buy, but I guess could be possible.

    You are correct, though, that no one has come forward with any reasons not to give DC some kind of special "other" status, that leaves them as is, except for the addition of congressional representation.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.

    As for Georgetown having been absorbed in to Washington, yes, that's true, but without any sort of signposts or landmarks to point it out to you, there are a few other non-DC cities that one could drive in to, and not realize that they had left DC. Maybe Bethesda and Alexandria should be made a part of DC as well...

    o_O

    Wait what?


    Bethesda was never part of DC.

    And the areas in VA that were part of DC are not going back into it. Half the reason those places are worth so much and desired is that they aren't technically DC and thus free from it's douchbaggery. And you know when you left DC into VA because you cross a bridge, there is a river here.

    Again, if you actually read posts, they make more sense.

    Forgetting actual borders, the DC sprawl spreads way out. If this is being listed as a negative for statehood, what does it say about all of the other states either sharing in thes sprawl, or with their own unique sprawl?

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Despite all of the explanations and excuses I've read in this thread, I still haven't seen an actual good reason for denying DC residents real congressional representation. What overwhelming state interest is served by disenfranchising them?

    Federal districts don't get congress people. You'd have to turn DC into a state. Which means amending congress powers to control it out of the constitution, letting congress removing it's funding of the district and bankrupting it thus turning it into a massive ghetto and undoing all the progress that's been made, and removing the court system out of it.

    So yeah, you can do it that way. Hell it won't hurt me, I've got enough cash to afford the nice areas in MD VA, and I won't be effected by it. And there is a lot to be said for not propping up NE SE and that cluster fuck of a school system and just letting the entire thing hit bottom.

    If you want to do that, go ahead. But I don't think the less well off people of DC will be happy when the federal tit dries up (and DC begging for money to congress is getting real old and is always obnoxious, I'm sure they will be glad to finally be done with it). We can change the name to New Detroit, and finally spend all the congressional money on the fully federally owned areas and stop propping up the areas that aren't worth much and pissing money down the drain on the schools... which will happen.

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Federal districts don't get congress people.

    Again, "DC doesn't have representation" isn't the same as "DC shouldn't have representation"

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    DC, on the other hand, would be a state with no agricultural or industrial portions of its economy. DC is a place where the only industry is government and where the majority of jobs are in government or in the service industry around government. That would make it a very unique state, and not in a good way.

    Why not in a good way? The industry of Government supports not only DC, but also much of the surrounding areas that aren't DC.

    As for Georgetown having been absorbed in to Washington, yes, that's true, but without any sort of signposts or landmarks to point it out to you, there are a few other non-DC cities that one could drive in to, and not realize that they had left DC. Maybe Bethesda and Alexandria should be made a part of DC as well...

    o_O

    Wait what?


    Bethesda was never part of DC.

    And the areas in VA that were part of DC are not going back into it. Half the reason those places are worth so much and desired is that they aren't technically DC and thus free from it's douchbaggery. And you know when you left DC into VA because you cross a bridge, there is a river here.

    Again, if you actually read posts, they make more sense.

    Forgetting actual borders, the DC sprawl spreads way out. If this is being listed as a negative for statehood, what does it say about all of the other states either sharing in thes sprawl, or with their own unique sprawl?

    That "sprawl" is part of other states. And the main reason to live there is that it's not DC. What you are proposing is ripping the most affluent areas out of MD and VA and thrusting them into Washington DC. That will never happen.

    nstf on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Federal districts don't get congress people.

    Again, "DC doesn't have representation" isn't the same as "DC shouldn't have representation"

    Let Maryland represent them.

    nstf on
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Let me represent you.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    Let me represent you.

    No reason they can't vote in MD's senatorial elections like they used to be able to.

    nstf on
Sign In or Register to comment.