’)Washington D.C. may get a good step forward from its current state of taxation without representation.
Supporters of D.C. voting rights believe that they are on the verge of their biggest victory in at least 30 years as the Senate prepares to take up a bill this week creating a full House seat for the District.
Two years ago, a similar measure failed to clear a key procedural hurdle in that chamber by three votes. Democrats picked up at least seven Senate seats in the elections last fall, boosting the current bill’s chance of passage. They also expanded their majority in the House, where the bill is expected to be approved as early as next month.
The Constitution is clear: representatives MUST represent a state. I refer you to Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
There are two possible solutions to this: make DC a state in and of itself (absurd on its face), or give it to Maryland or Virginia. (Maryland is more logical.)
To just give the District a seat in the House (either by depriving a state of its representative, or creating a new seat out of whole cloth) is simply not Constitutional.
No wonder so many Democrats support it.
J.
Jay Tea: The Constitution is clear: representatives MUST represent a state.
Yeah! Long past time we disenfranchised all those citizens living in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia!
Noted Democrats Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are the cosponsors of the bill in the Senate.
The Constitution calls them “states.” In fact, Sean, three of them are mentioned by name in the Article I quoted. That they call themselves “commonwealths” is not relevant — in the eyes of the federal government, they are among the “Several States.”
And yes, Oliver, so many Democrats support it. Congratulations, you proved that not only Democrats support it. Pity that isn’t what I argued.
Man, is that the best you got? Semantics and petty partisan bickering?
J.
Jay, its not partisan to think that the residents of the capital of the country should receive some representation.
Taxation???? Bahaa Ha ha!
How many in the district actually pay taxes???
joaquin: How many in the district actually pay taxes???
So what’s your point? Is there some threshold number of taxpayers that has to be reached before they are allowed a voice in how those taxes are spent?
1,000 people paying taxes not enough to warrant a voice in government?
10,000 people not enough?
Would 100,000 be sufficient to meet the criteria needed for representation?
In 1999 the district had 210,000 individual tax returns filed. (www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/count.pdf) Is that enough?
Jay Tea: The Constitution is clear: representatives MUST represent a state.
Jay Tea: That they call themselves “commonwealths” is not relevant — in the eyes of the federal government, they are among the “Several States.”
Jay Tea: Man, is that the best you got? Semantics and petty partisan bickering?
Ah, I see. A state doesn’t actually have to be a “State”, it just has to be seen as one in the eyes of the federal government. So a Commonwealth can be considered a state. But a District can’t.
Not that it’s just a case of semantics, because you certainly wouldn’t argue those.
It’s not going to withstand constitutional scrutiny. If DC wants true representation, then let it become part of a state.
Of course, nobody wants that train wreck of a city, not even ‘progressive’ Maryland.
Jay Caruso: “It’s not going to withstand constitutional scrutiny. If DC wants true representation, then let it become part of a state.”
Why not make it a state on its own? It does have a larger population that Wyoming.
joaquin said: “Taxation???? Bahaa Ha ha!
How many in the district actually pay taxes???”
Including payroll taxes, sales taxes, taxes on gas, etc., probably close to all of them.
Of course, nobody wants that train wreck of a city, not even ‘progressive’ Maryland.
Yes, because Maryland doesn’t have one large city with tons of problems to deal with already?
Spin, Spin, Spin–They’re American citizens who don’t have a voice in Congress. Is that okay with you?
Jay Tea is probably mostly right. The District is clearly not a state and the Commonwealths clearly are states. It is possible for the all of the residentially zoned property in the District to be put into a new state, as there is no minimum constitutional size for a state nor a minimum population.
The Constitution requires a District no larger than 100 square miles, smaller is fine. I think it would have to have both the President’s and the Congress’ place of business, and perhaps the Supreme Court as well. No constitutional amendment would be required, just a series of acts of Congress. I would prefer Maryland to accept retrocession; it would probably be better for all involved, DC’s social problems aside. DC is incredibly wealthy in its NW quadrant. I would take Anacostia to get Massachusetts Avenue and Tenleytown.
Of course, a Constitutional amendment could change any and all of the above.
Why not make it a state on its own? It does have a larger population that Wyoming.
The only downside I can see to this is that redesigning the flag would be a pain. Another solution is to amend the constitution to make Washington D.C. specifically have a representative. Whichever’s easier.
“The only downside I can see to this is that redesigning the flag would be a pain.”
One word… Dakota.
Or Carolina.
Or Virginia.
“Another solution is to amend the constitution to make Washington D.C. specifically have a representative. Whichever’s easier.”
One Senator, one congressional representative, and two EC votes.
Done.
Oliver said: Jay, its not partisan to think that the residents of the capital of the country should receive some representation.
Gee, once again, Oliver, I never said that. I pointed out two ways that DC residents could get representation. Personally, I favor ceding it to Maryland — it makes the most geographic sense.
Strowbridge blatted in sheer utter ignorance: One Senator, one congressional representative, and two EC votes.
For one, DC already has three EC votes. Recall the race to 270 last November? That’s because the EC has 538 members. 535 from the 50 states, 3 from DC. and nothing like violating the “Representatives apportioned by population rule and the “two Senators” principle. Also, it would throw off the balance of power in both Houses, as historically constructed.
The House has historically had an odd number of members, to prevent ties. The Senate has always had an even number of members, making the Vice-President’s power to break ties actually meaningful. Adding one to each House will reverse that.
Population alone don’t qualify DC for statehood. The political logistics alone would be a nightmare. The Mayor of DC and the Governor of DC would essentially have the exact same powers over the exact same area. Toss in a County structure (I’m presuming the State would have one county), and it’s ludicrous. And I think that presuming the creation of a county level is a safe one — DC is heavily Democratic, and Democrats are in love with expanding government. The temptation to create a whole new strata of bureaucracy, no matter how redundant, would be overwhelming.
Give DC to Maryland. Toss in some hefty federal funding to Maryland to sweeten the pot. Here’s a thought: federal property is tax-exempt. Set up a special payment that simulates a property tax, but controlled by Congress to avoid Constitutional issues with the Supremacy clause.
If Maryland is still resistant, then talk to Virginia. But Maryland should be delighted. It’s a Democratic stronghold, and look at all those new Democrats they’ll have to swell their ranks! Hell, if it’s done before the next Census, it might even win them another Representative. And if not, it can be Gerrymandered and split up to reinforce at least two existing House districts as reliably Democratic.
No statehood for DC. Abolish DC entirely, make it Washington, MD.
J.
“Strowbridge blatted in sheer utter ignorance: One Senator, one congressional representative, and two EC votes.”
J.G.Thayer: “For one, DC already has three EC votes.”
Right, and under my play they would only have two.
It’s called compromise. Look it up.
“and nothing like violating the ‘Representatives apportioned by population’ ruke…”
Umm…. One representative would be inline with the ‘Representatives apportioned by population’ rule.
‘…and the ‘two Senators’ principle.”
Rules are going to have to change, no matter what.
“Also, it would throw off the balance of power in both Houses, as historically constructed.”
“The House has historically had an odd number of members, to prevent ties. The Senate has always had an even number of members, making the Vice-President’s power to break ties actually meaningful. Adding one to each House will reverse that.”
So fucking what? There can still be ties, because not everyone casts a vote every time. (By the way, congress has not always been odd.) And since it apparently takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, there will never be another tie again. (That was facetious. Sort of.)
“The Mayor of DC and the Governor of DC would essentially have the exact same powers over the exact same area.”
If that’s true, there should only be one or the other. Problem solved.
“And I think that presuming the creation of a county level is a safe one — DC is heavily Democratic, and Democrats are in love with expanding government.”
And I think it is safe to say if the situation was reversed and DC was heavily Republican you would be fighting for DC statehood.
And if you don’t get what I’m trying to get across… you are being a partisan dick inventing problems that don’t exist to prevent anyone from fixing the problems that do exist.
“No statehood for DC. Abolish DC entirely, make it Washington, MD.”
You talk about historical significance of odd / even for the legislative branch, but you ignore the reason D.C. isn’t in any state.
Why is that?
You talk about historical significance of odd / even for the legislative branch, but you ignore the reason D.C. isn’t in any state.
That’s because the reasoning for the odd/even is still relevant, but the separation of DC isn’t. Maryland’s possession of the national capitol will not grant it any untoward influence over the federal government. In the early days of the nation, with only 13 states (some of which called themselves “commonwealths), it was a valid concern. We’ve outgrown that.
And just how dense are you to think that once DC becomes a state, with full sovereignty, it won’t immediately set up a state government that parallels the other states? It’ll be couched as a necessity, but in short order the mayor will be matched by a governor, the city council by a legislature (probably bicameral), and the turf wars will be the stuff of legend.
Personally, I find the thought tremendously entertaining. The resultant blue-on-blue fighting will be the finest show on earth. But the long-term consequences of that move would be far more than we ought to pay.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Personally, I find the thought tremendously entertaining.”
I have a few serious questions for you…
Why the fuck did you bother responding to my post? You ignored half of it, why bother with the rest?
Why should bother responding to your ‘tard fantasies?
“That’s because the reasoning for the odd/even is still relevant…”
Except it wasn’t always odd, and you can still have tied in the Senate because not everyone votes on all bills.
I said this already. If you are going to pretend I didn’t, just don’t bother answering.
Shorter Jt: I’m against this because liberals are for it.
…and nothing like violating the “Representatives apportioned by population rule …
Jay Tea, tell that to Orin Hatch.
Or do you not know why he’s sponsoring the bill?
Doesn’t DC have a non-voting House representative?
Taxation???? Bahaa Ha ha!
How many in the district actually pay taxes???
No representation without taxation!
The patriots of your modern Republican party, ladies and gents.
Jay Tea, I don’t think your arguments for (i.e. predicting the likelihood of) DC’s statehood enacting multiple layers of government are sound. No law requires any state to establish subdivisions. While historically DC included a city of Washington and counties out in the rural outskirts, back when DC had farms, I don’t see it happening here.
In many of the less populous counties in the less populous states, pretty much the only function of a county is to provide a county courthouse within a tolerable rural radius. DC is in 2009 extremely urban and just as it does not need multiple court locations, it won’t need counties. No law requires a state to have a “governor” or to call its chief executive “governor” (or, as I read it, even to have a chief executive or an “executive branch” so long as the state government is a “republican form of government.”) But they could call the office “Governor Mayor” just as San Francisco is the City and County of San Francisco.
Every Maryland Republican operative would oppose retrocession, though perhaps more weakly if Marion Barry ever leaves office for good.
And the flag issue is a non-issue; beautiful, symmetrical flag designs going out to, I think, 57 states already exist.
I see lots of light-weight arguments against giving the District representation in Congress (It’s not called a “state”, Oh noes it will have a governor and mayor! But but an odd numbered Congress is traditional!) that really don’t hold up to much rational scrutiny and none of which begins to outweight the fact that over half a million citizens are denied a voice in government.
Do any of the various J’s who argue against recognizing the district actually advocate continuing to deny representation to citizens?
The citizens in question are predominantly black and reliably Democratic. What do you think?
QiaB: The citizens in question are predominantly black and reliably Democratic. What do you think?
Pretty much what you think, I suspect. Although I’m not sure the black plays as large a role in their thinking as the Dem.
But I’d still like to see a declarative statement from any of them. Either “I’m fine with them not having representation” or “Yes, they should be represented.” Cause so far it all seems to be a bunch of excuses as to why it shouldn’t be done or why doing it would be (whimper) too hard.
I’m not sure the black plays as large a role in their thinking as the Dem.
You think their answers would be the same if we were talking about white folks? You’re a generous fellow, Mr. Martin.
As noted, Oliver, DC is largely black and strongly Democratic. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Why do you presume that it would be bad for Maryland? Why do you hate black Democrats?
Strowbridge, I was getting ready for work. I ignored the totally pointless ones, and addressed the ones that almost had marginal value.
The balance of power argument in Congress I used is not an absolute rule, but it’s the general rule. Your way would disrupt it.
You said that “there should only be one or the other.” I agree. But Congress doesn’t get to dictate how states govern themselves — there’s that pesky 10th Amendment. If the state of Columbia wants to run itself right into the ground, there’s nothing anyone can do about it until they collapse on their own and beg for help (see: California).
And I think it is safe to say if the situation was reversed and DC was heavily Republican you would be fighting for DC statehood.
No, it’s safe to say that you’re an utter fuckhead. The heavily Democratic nature of DC, especially considering the grotesque corruption and tolerance for corruption shown, simply means that the points I made will be even worse. They would be almost as bad were DC heavily Republican — and I would oppose it just as forcefully.
And I’m not trying to “prevent anyone from fixing the problems that do exist.” I’m trying to fix the problems in a way that won’t make the situation even worse.
My suggestion is the simplest one, requiring the least work and follows traditional political logic: it doesn’t require a Constitutional amemdment, and it respects existing geographic and political boundaries. Yours would require at least one Constitutional amendment.
Do you even KNOW what is involved in amending the US Constitution? Or how many times it has been amended since the Constitution was ratified?
J.
I think DC deserves its own statehood and representation because its a unique area with its own history that doesn’t work to just get smushed into MD or DC.
Funny, Oliver, that wasn’t your first reaction — it was more like “ooh, cooties, keep it away from us!”
But let’s take what you say now. “Unique” is a meaningless word. Every area is “unique.” The same with “its own history.” And it wouldn’t just be “smushed” into MD or VA (I presume you meant “VA” there) — its re-assimilation into Maryland would complete a logical geographic division. The separation now is about as logical as that of Michigan’s upper peninsula.
And, as noted, politically DC and Maryland would be a good fit. With enough federal subsidies and incentives to the state, taking over DC could even be profitable for Maryland.
Or, alternately, as some have proposed, simply cut the District down to purely the Federal buildings, and turn over the residential areas only to Maryland.
Lots of people live outside the District, but work there. You’re one of them. It’s no big deal.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I was getting ready for work. I ignored the totally pointless ones, and addressed the ones that almost had marginal value.”
Two points…
1.) Wow, you are a fucking liar.
2.) If you don’t have time to respond to it all, don’t respond at all. I can’t wait for you to get off work.
Again, one congressional representative would be inline with proportional representation. After all, Wyoming has fewer people and one representative.
Again, rules will have to be changed, and the two Senators per State might be one of them.
Again, you are claiming there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn’t fix the problems that exist now. This is fallacious.
Again, the House of Representatives hasn’t always been odd in the past, therefore it can be even now.
The V.P. casting the tie-breaking vote happens once every few years (2008 and 2003 were the last two times) so it is not an important power.
And again, there’s a reason why D.C. was created in the first place, so no one state would control the nation’s capital.
Me: “And I think it is safe to say if the situation was reversed and DC was heavily Republican you would be fighting for DC statehood.”
J.G.Thayer: “No, it’s safe to say that you’re an utter fuckhead.”
And you are a racist asshole.
You are attacking D.C. for being heavily Democratic saying it is corrupt. (On a side note, Florida is the most corrupt state in the nation, and it’s a solid swing state (at least it was).) And then you are using your bias to claim there WILL BE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.
“My suggestion is the simplest one…”
Which goes against the very reason D.C. was created in the first place.
You claim making D.C. a state on its own would create too many problems, but you refuse to accept the possibility that there is a reason why it isn’t part of a state.
The state legislation would control D.C. It would therefore have a lot more power than any other state legislation in the country.
“Do you even KNOW what is involved in amending the US Constitution?”
Yes.
“Or how many times it has been amended since the Constitution was ratified?”
Yes. Three of them happened in the 1960s alone, so it is not impossible.
But that doesn’t matter, because you shouldn’t be afraid of hard work to make sure the best solution is in place.
And the simplest solution is rarely the best solution when the problem is a complex one like this.
Again, you are claiming there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn’t fix the problems that exist now. This is fallacious.
No, I am saying that before one tries to fix a problem, one should be sure that the “cure” isn’t worse than the disease. And DC statehood would cause more problems than it would fix.
I addressed the reasons why DC was excluded from a state, and how that should no longer be a concern. Did you miss it, or choose to ignore it?
Corruption? Their frakking mayor was busted smoking crack on camera, and they re-elected him! He’s still an elected official!
Hmm… it seems that, to you, every topic is an excuse for you to drop the R-bomb. Sounds like you might have the “racist” obsession, not me…
J.
Me: “Again, you are claiming there will be problems in the future, therefore we shouldn’t fix the problems that exist now. This is fallacious.”
Jay Tea says: “No…”
Late for work, again?
Why else would you skip all of my other points? Hmmm?
“I am saying that before one tries to fix a problem, one should be sure that the “cure” isn’t worse than the disease. And DC statehood would cause more problems than it would fix.”
And you are lying. You have no ability to predict the future like that, so you can’t claim there will be problems.
And considering how fucking stupid you are, the fact that you think there will be problems is strong evidence that there won’t be.
“I addressed the reasons why DC was excluded from a state, and how that should no longer be a concern. Did you miss it, or choose to ignore it?”
No, you claimed it wouldn’t be a problem anymore. You never showed why. You opinions is of no value, and neither are you.
“Corruption? Their frakking mayor was busted smoking crack on camera, and they re-elected him! He’s still an elected official!”
And yet Florida is still more corrupt. Wow.
Besides, I don’t see how smoking crack equals corruption. Corruption is a special charge, and being a drug addict doesn’t make you corrupt.
“Hmm… it seems that, to you, every topic is an excuse for you to drop the R-bomb. Sounds like you might have the ‘racist’ obsession, not me…”
I’m not the one who supports the party of The Southern Strategy.
I’m not the one who supports the party of anti-immigration.
If you don’t like being called racist, don’t act like one.
Now, are you going to get back to the rest of my points? Or are you going to prove you are liar, again.
Me: “Now, are you going to get back to the rest of my points? Or are you going to prove you are liar, again.”
I guess J.G.Thayer is a liar.
No shock there.
This got bumped off the main page; I MovedOn. But later today, probably this evening, I’ll show precisely where I did answer you — and show how you are even more of a gibbering idiot than previously believed possible.
One quick one: I am NOT “anti-immigrant.” I have repeatedly called for INCREASED immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigrant. I usually couple my calls for increased immigration quotas and streamlined processes with stronger enforcement of existing laws.
Good lord, is there a more partisan dipshit anywhere in the world?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “One quick one: I am NOT ‘anti-immigrant.’ I have repeatedly called for INCREASED immigration. I am anti-ILLEGAL immigrant.”
Here’s the problem, the party you support is “anti-immigrant.”
When they had the Spanish language debate, there were plenty of supporters who freaked out. That has nothing to do with immigration policy. Nor does Billo and others talking about ‘immigrants changing the demographics and destroying the while Christian power base.’ That’s 100% racism, and it is the new Southern Strategy.
And yes, I use that term a lot, but it is relevant when talking about racism. If I brought it up during budget talks, then it would be strange. … Then again, Reagan did use the myth of the Welfare Queen as a political tool, and that too was part of the Southern Strategy.
How the hell did we get here?
Let’s see… Oliver says there’s a bill to grant some representation to DC.
I point out that it’s unconstitutional, spell out two ways to achieve the same result within the Constitution, say which I think is better, and say why.
Strowbridge starts off by arguing that statehood should be defined by population, and population alone. He expands on that by suggesting that we instead consolidate other states to keep things in balance. Then he concocts yet another harebrained scheme that is, once again, unconstitutional — but says we can just amend the Constitution to permit it.
Quaker then introduces the racial and political argument, couched as if someone else was making it.
Strowbridge seizes upon that and goes straight into his default mode: “ZOMG RACIST! SOUTHERN STRATEGY FTW!”
To play your game for just a moment (and I already feel dirty), YOU support the party that tells legal would-be immigrants to shut the fuck up and suck it up when line-jumpers get preferential treatment, that pisses all over those who follow the rules in good faith and don’t overstay visas or illegally cross borders or come here by fraudulent means. Vijay and Ahmed and Nyota are idiots for filing out the forms and paying the fees and crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ to come to the US legally and aboveboard; the Democrats are eager to let all those who do violate the laws and grant them some kind of amnesty or clemency and cut to the head of the line.
SCREW THAT.
…and just what the fuck does immigration policy or your “Southern Strategy” have to do with statehood for DC, outside of your fixated, diseased little mind?
To the vast majority of people, diddly over squat.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge starts off by arguing that statehood should be defined by population, and population alone.”
Nope. You are a fucking liar or a moron. Which is it?
“Strowbridge seizes upon that and goes straight into his default mode:”
Another lie.
“To play your game for just a moment (and I already feel dirty), YOU support the party that tells legal would-be immigrants to shut the fuck up and suck it up when line-jumpers get preferential treatment,”
Another lie. As I pointed out above, attacking the Spanish-language debate has nothing to do with illegal immigration and everything to do with racism. With the GOP base, it isn’t “illegal” immigration that’s the problem, but immigration. One of the few times the base turned on Bush was when he tried to make it easier for immigrants to come to the United States.
Face it, that’s pure racism right there. And it’s the new Southern Strategy.
“…and just what the fuck does immigration policy or your “Southern Strategy” have to do with statehood for DC, outside of your fixated, diseased little mind?”
Nothing.
But I felt like returning your insult and I chose one that is appropriate, if a little off topic.
Strowbridge, your line of thought is amazing. I’m thinking that “Strowbridge’s thinking” is an oxymoron.
I said I support increasing immigration and reducing numbers, but coupled with increased enforcement.
Apparently I’m not allowed to hold that opinion. As far as I can understand Strowbridge (the best I can do without a lobotomy and a case of rabies), it goes like this:
1) Strowbridge has decided that the “Republican base” is violently racist and xenophobic and opposed to any kind of immigration.
2) Strowbridge has decided, based on his own delusions, that I am not only a member of the “Republican base” (that would be news to both my state and the national GOP), but I am charged with defending the positions he ascribes them to.
3) Therefore, when I deny holding the beliefs that Strowbridge has assigned to the group he has assigned to me, I must be lying. And a racist. And a xenophobe. And I probably have cooties, to boot.
Hey, Strowbridge: Go screw. Neither party holds the position on immigration that I do. The Democrats’, though, is more likely to cause harm to the nation, so I oppose them on that issue. I’m not agreeing with the Republicans, I’m just reducing it to a simple binary equation — I have to side with one or the other. The Republicans’ stated position (NOT the frothy rhetoric you seem to thrive on) and proposed plans are closer to mine, so I back them on that issue.
On other issues, like creationism and a lot of religious issues, I oppose them.
I’m trying to remember the last time you took a positive stance — where you agreed with something, and didn’t just mindlessly attack. And I’m drawing a blank.
You’re not just a Johnny One-Note. You’re a one-trick pony.
Or is that somehow “racist,” too?
J.
J.G.Thayer: “I said I support increasing immigration and reducing numbers, but coupled with increased enforcement.
Apparently I’m not allowed to hold that opinion.”
Fucking liar.
I’m not saying you can’t hold that position.
I’m saying the GOP doesn’t hold that position.
Got it?
“You’re not just a Johnny One-Note. You’re a one-trick pony.”
And you’ve got two tricks up your sleeves: Lies and Stupidity.
Jesus Christ, you are such a fucking ‘tard that I have trouble believing it’s not an intentional debating technique.
“Hey, Strowbridge: Go screw. Neither party holds the position on immigration that I do. The Democrats’, though, is more likely to cause harm to the nation, so I oppose them on that issue.”
I bet you don’t even know what the Democratic position on immigration is.
“I said I support increasing immigration and reducing numbers, but coupled with increased enforcement.
Apparently I’m not allowed to hold that opinion.”
Fucking liar.
I’m not saying you can’t hold that position.
I’m saying the GOP doesn’t hold that position.
Got it?
Not in the least.
Again, I state my position. Apparently I’m allowed to have that position, but I’m still a liar because it doesn’t align perfectly with the Republican position.
Even though I’m not saying that it’s the Republican position.
Or even the position of the Republican position.
Or even the position of a majority of Republicans.
And even though I’m not a Republican.
The last Democratic position on immigration I saw included a way for the line-jumpers to buy themselves amnesty and allowed to get residency or citizenship pretty much immediately, well ahead of those who would be currently in the process of obeying the law when the new policy would take effect. That position managed to get some Republican support, including Bush and McCain, as I recall, but I still chose to say “screw that” and not support it.
Here’s a clue, Strowbridge: I never granted you the authority to define my positions, my beliefs. So take your “fucking liar” and shove it up your ass.
Sideways.
After wrapping it in tinfoil.
J.
Me: “Got it?”
J.G.Thayer: “Not in the least.”
That’s your problem, not mine.
“Again, I state my position. Apparently I’m allowed to have that position…”
You are a fucking liar.
Can you even recognize the truth anymore?
“…but I’m still a liar because…”
You lied. I never said you couldn’t have your position on immigration. I said your position on immigration wasn’t the same as the GOPs.
“Here’s a clue, Strowbridge: I never granted you the authority to define my positions, my beliefs. So take your “fucking liar” and shove it up your ass.”
Here’s a clue, Thayer: You are a fucking retard.
Call up your mom, tell her she raised a racist, lying, idiot. Then pull a Hunter S. Thompson.
This debate has devolved into this…
Me: The GOP stance on immigration is XXXXX.
J.G.Thayer: My stance on immigration is YYYYY.
Me: Your stance on immigration is not the same as the GOPs.
J.G.Thayer: How dare you tell me what my stance on immigration is!
Me: I didn’t, you liar.
J.G.Thayer: How dare you say I’m lying about my stance on immigration!
Me: Get killed.
Jesus Christ, Thayer. How can you be this stupid? Were you parents related? Was you mom a heavy drinker while she was pregnant with you? Did she drop you on your head as a kid? Was your teething ring made out of lead?
Explain it to me.
Not too bad, Strowbridge. Only about 85% off from reality.
You kind of skipped the part where you tried to hold me accountable for the GOP immigration position — and, note, that it’s not the official, stated, couched in legislation GOP position, but your own fantasy one, very shakily supported by a few extremists.
I briefly considered going on the counterattack, taking something you’ve endorsed and assailing you over that, but I couldn’t find a single time you’ve advocated anything. You have exactly one mode: attack. You wait for others to take positions and make statements, and then you go until full bowel-venting fury, throwing your shit all over the place.
Such an easy way. Such a lazy way. Such a dishonest way.
It’s a custom-made strategy for scumbags like you.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Not too bad, Strowbridge. Only about 85% off from reality.”
You kind of skipped the part where you tried to hold me accountable for the GOP immigration position…”
That never happened.
So you are either lying or stupid. Which is it?