DC statehood: Things that make my blood boil:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc statehood will never happen.

If you don't like it you're free to move out of DC.

You. Still. Didn't. Answer. The. Question.

What stupid question?

The real question is why do you live in DC in the first place if you knew the voting issue and the fact that it is not a state before moving there. You chose it, now lay in the bed you made.and quit winning about it.

DC becomes a state, so who becomes mayor and governor, and who trumps who in running your city-state? What a colossally stupid idea that will add more govt on top of an already dysfunctional city govt. It'll be funny the day the governor overrides the DC mayor on crime issues that are out of hand. What a cluster it'd make.

The proposed legislation addresses all this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

Just move if you don't like it and stop complaining about it. You literally need to move about 10 minutes away if voting matters so much to you. You chose where to live and knew what the deal was. Quit whining about it.

Man, I answered her pages ago and she is still whining? It's not like OP has to climb over some wall to freedom like the East Germans had to do to get to West Germany. Just rent another studio apartment in Bethesda rather than on Wisconsin Ave.

[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.

The founding principles of our country? Like the documents where the founders expressly decreed that DC would be a federal district and not a state?

This has been debated since its inception. Our founding fathers also felt that government should be modified to suit the needs of the people with changing times. See Declaration of Independence text. See Constitutional amendments. See history of legislature modifications to try to "fix" the issue ever since. Our founders also lived in a time of other wrongs, you know that right? Or should we go back to slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. etc. etc.?

With 700k US citizens residing in DC, I, and many others, feel that a modification is needed. Perhaps you disagree, but the winds of time do eventually push towards justice. We'll get to a better solution eventually.

So, you’re saying the considered the question and made a decision opposite to what you want, but that somehow supports your position?

Equating DC's status as a federal district to the past wrongs of slavery and a lack of universal suffrage is offensive.

Our government actually debated to what extent depriving DC residents of congressional representation equated a deprivation of rights as in slavery or as in the previous monarchy rule they had escaped, but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

Just move if you don't like it and stop complaining about it. You literally need to move about 10 minutes away if voting matters so much to you. You chose where to live and knew what the deal was. Quit whining about it.

Man, I answered her pages ago and she is still whining? It's not like OP has to climb over some wall to freedom like the East Germans had to do to get to West Germany. Just rent another studio apartment in Bethesda rather than on Wisconsin Ave.

You're all here whining about the whining. So in effect, still whining.

Thanks, can't afford that, I'll stay in Ward 8 where nary a congress person can be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Answer directly:

Is it an injustice when state representatives not elected by DC residents try to change local DC laws against the will of the US citizens who reside in DC?

Is it morally or ethically appropriate?

Btw I don't care if we agree or disagree on a solution. I only care if you think it is morally or ethically right. Please don't deflect with random "whataboutism" commentary on federal taxes or what Democrats might try to do in other situations, right or wrong. That is not what this is about.

It is not an injustice. You agreed to accept this arrangement as a condition of your residency in the District of Columbia.

It is morally and ethically appropriate for those representatives to carry out their responsibility to governor residents of the District of Columbia

We moved from the District of Columbia because we did not wish to live under conditions that we could not change. These conditions created an ineffective governance of people who embrace a carpetbagging mentality of allowing outsiders to govern their daily existence.

There are three ways to change your situation. Leaving is not one you wish to do. Obtaining statehood is not one that you can do. Complaining on DCUM is available and you have done that.

Out of all the responses on this thread, this one hits the mark for me. Moved to MD in 2000 from Foggy Bottom as I got older an realized the importance of my vote.

[Anonymous]

Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

Give MD its land back and then you can vote. No real good historical arguments for taking MD's land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

Give MD its land back and then you can vote. No real good historical arguments for taking MD's land.

So you support retrocession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

The constitution was meant to be amended to changing times. Controversial then and still controversial today means the solution was not sufficient.

Our government was meant to serve the people, not dominate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

Now now, don't forget that people are also making the "if you don't like it, move" argument. Always a discussion stopper, that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

Now now, don't forget that people are also making the "if you don't like it, move" argument. Always a discussion stopper, that one.

Is that what you say to 10 year olds in Ohio too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

Now now, don't forget that people are also making the "if you don't like it, move" argument. Always a discussion stopper, that one.

Because you seem not to understand that "if you don't like it, advocate for change" is a viable option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thus far, nobody has given any good reason for DC to remain without representation on the final passage of legislation in congress.

The only thing argued thus far is that the founding fathers designed it this way, which is not good enough an argument, especially in light of the real historical context there (was not a unanimous decision, was immediately protested, was a controversial decision at the time with debate about concern for disenfranchising district residents, was not certain at the time that congress would remain in DC so might be a temporary situation, and on and on)

I've not seen anything else other than "stop whining." and it doesn't matter because it's a lesser injustice than other injustices. "You don't have it as bad as others have had it"

In conclusion, the opposition really doesn't have any good reason other than being cranky hate change types.

So, if a decision is controversial, not unanimous and protested at the time, that means it is not binding and valid? Not sure you have traced through the implications of that thought...

''

You still haven't provided any good reason against DC statehood (which as proposed, shrinks the size of DC to the federal area and establishes the vast residential areas of DC as a new state).

The only comments are that it's how was done was and stop whining. You seem to be vehemently against it or you'd move on to another forum.

Now now, don't forget that people are also making the "if you don't like it, move" argument. Always a discussion stopper, that one.

Because you seem not to understand that "if you don't like it, advocate for change" is a viable option.

Ha, I am the PP you are responding to and apparently my sarcasm fell totally flat and I need to work on my phrasing. To be clear I am firmly in the "if you don't like it, advocate for change" camp, I was trying (and clearly failing) to make fun of the people opposed to DC statehood by dismissing their "if you don't like it, leave" argument