DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[Anonymous]

This:

[Anonymous]

DC statehood is not happening. Thanks a lot Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood is not happening. Thanks a lot Obama.

Seems pointless unless Dems will also expand SCOTUS to make it constitutional.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood is not happening. Thanks a lot Obama.

Seems pointless unless Dems will also expand SCOTUS to make it constitutional.

And then next R in the white house will expand it again. Is that a game you really want to play?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC statehood is not happening. Thanks a lot Obama.

Seems pointless unless Dems will also expand SCOTUS to make it constitutional.

And then next R in the white house will expand it again. Is that a game you really want to play?

The justification to expand it so there is one justice for each circuit is sound. Anything beyond that is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

Ah, got it, well then it's morally and ethically ok for dictator types to do with our citizens as they wish while we don't have a vote in congress. When all 700k of us move, then the problem will be solved.

You said "there" so clearly not a DC citizen. Of course you don't care and post asinine comments like the above.

I think a more fair solution is that if DC representatives don't get a vote in congress, then DC citizens should have the right to vote in every state election.

Now that is fair as it gives us representation in choosing who makes decisions for us.

[Anonymous]

I’m a DC Citizen. Very much against statehood. However, I have no problem with repealing all federal taxes for its citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a DC Citizen. Very much against statehood. However, I have no problem with repealing all federal taxes for its citizens.

then republicans would vote there and democrats can’t allow that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that requires you to keep living here.

Doesn't make it morally or ethically right based on the founding principles of our country.

I know, I know, you don't care.

It wouldn’t be right if people were forced to live in DC. That’s not the case. People choose to live there.

So under your logic, it’s ok to violate any manner of individual rights because people can just move. A state could legalize slavery and people who don’t like it could just move.

That is exactly their logic.

I promise you that most DC citizens would love to be free of the yoke of federal taxation without representation if they just were not taxed. Property values would skyrocket!

This thread is about the ethics of people DC residents didn't elect imposing their will on DC residents.

It's not the economy in this case, stoopid. Stay focused.