Reply to DC is violating federal law by overpaying landlords tens of millions of dollars

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "DC is violating federal law by overpaying landlords tens of millions of dollars"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]You say that there were posts defending the voucher program on there. Show us. We will wait. We will be waiting a long time because there weren’t any.[/quote]

I'm not going to post everything from a 25 page thread, but here are people engaging in the debate about vouchers and attacking the criticism of them:

[quote=Anonymous] Silly PP, the racists in this thread are engaged in "what-about-ism" on vouchers. Anything that can be loosely associated with a voucher program can and will be weaponized by the NIMBYs of Ward 3 to keep it as lilly white as possible. [/quote]

[quote=Anonymous]Let’s see what we can do with this logic . . .

1. Protected bike lanes are built on CT Ave, as was previously decided many moons ago by DDOT

2. Families living along CT Ave have an safe alternative to using their vehicles to run errands in the neighborhood and around NW DC

3. Deandre Pettus is not reliant on his car for running errands etc.

4. Deandre doesn’t suffer the frustration of being immobilized due to a flat car battery and so never gets angry that morning.

5. Deandre Pettus doesn’t beat his son to death.

You might find the assumptions underlying this hypothetical chain of events to be ridiculous, but those assumptions are no less so than your own.

Just like you don’t see bicycle safety advocates exploiting the deaths of these two children to call out the NIMBYs for blocking the CT Ave bike lane, you should similarly exhibit a modicum of decency and refrain from trying to make stupid arguments about how the tragic deaths of these two children were caused by DC residents using housing vouchers to move to Upper NW. [/quote]

[quote=Anonymous] You - and/or your ilk - have been demanding for pages that Frumin put a pause on the use of housing vouchers in Ward 3. Those demands are apparently serious.

Since you apparently can’t figure it out for yourself, I’ll have to spell it out for you. No one is making a serious argument that the deaths of the children were due to a lack of bike lanes. That would be ridiculous.

What they are showing is that the logic of tying these deaths to the voucher program is just as ridiculous and just as offensive.

I trust that you now understand how sick it is to exploit these deaths for pet causes. [/quote]

[quote=Anonymous] If the dad could have gotten around on bike lanes or bus lanes, he wouldn't have needed a car, and the kid would be alive.  [/quote]

Literally none of those posts (or the dozens of other comments like them) are about the kids, at all. If you don't want to debate things there, fine. Don't debate. But engaging debate over several pages where you're arguing against criticism of the vouchers, and then saying that the other side shouldn't respond out of respect for the dead kids, is truly amazing.

[quote=Anonymous]That thread was locked because you couldn’t stop exploiting the deaths of these two children for cheap political gain.

You were directed to this thread, which was the appropriate place to discuss the voucher issue, yet you kept posting to the thread about the dead children.[/quote]

It's truly fascinating how you feel that bringing up dead children as a way to attack your neighbors (repeatedly, dozens of times) is perfectly legitimate, but people saying they don't want to have the city house child murderers in their building is a disgrace.

It's also fascinating that you think people who are concerned about the city putting child murders next to them need to move to a thread to discussion how the city is overpaying landlords, or how you think you're the arbiter of what is allowed and isn't allowed to get discussed.[/quote]

I’m not sure whether your apparent obliviousness is a product of a lack of perceptiveness or simple disingenuousness. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s the former and will be try to be nice.

The posts that you’ve quoted were responding to attempts to link these two children’s deaths to the voucher program. Such claims were logically ridiculous - given the facts of the cases - and morally bankrupt. Those making the claims were cynically seeking to exploit the two children’s deaths for their own political ends and were - deliberately or not - deflecting attention from the failings that were actually contributing factors.

It’s a shame that these comments were not quickly flagged and removed. But as long as they were they stood, they had to be exposed for the nonsense that they were. Which is what the posts you have quoted were doing. They were never, as you apparently asserted, defending the voucher program. Rather they demonstrated that the voucher program was essentially irrelevant to the twin tragedies and chastised those who - deliberately or otherwise - sought to diminish the accountability of the two agencies that failed those two children.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics