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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I guess J.G.Thayer is a liar.

No shock there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You think their answers would be the same if we were talking about white folks? You’re a generous fellow, Mr. Martin.

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.