(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.

Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.

Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

(11-14-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.

Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

(11-14-2016 05:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 04:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "Buying 50% of the homes (so as to 'control' 50% of the votes) would be a far better investment than having to 'buy' 2 congressmen every election."

So why don't they do it in Wyoming, now. It would be far, far, far cheaper than doing it in New Columbia.

Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.

Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

Why do you want all black Americans to live in one state so bad? "White America" elected a black president surely liberal paradise can elect black senators

Also you constantly complain about congressional gerrymandering, a lot of which is done to comply with the voters right act, yet you want to gerrymander the populations

If your true objective is to get DC citizens federal congressional representation them they should have no problem reuniting with Maryland

Tom has yet to address the segregation in his plan, or demonstrate how he would keep wealthy people from buying that power.

or how he'd keep Indians from wanting their own state, or Gays or Jews.


DC has representation in Congress because EVERY member in congress has a vested interest in seeing to it that the Nation's capitol has all the police and fire and roads and schools and airports and sewers that it could ever need... both in terms of quality and quantity, WITHOUT needing to rely on the taxes of the local population to fund much of it.

(11-14-2016 05:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not if you include the cost of all those other things. Roads and Airports and Water ans Sewers in Wyoming cost the local taxpayers a lot more than in DC cost the local taxpayers.

and not if you include all the other land you'd have to buy to keep people from moving in.

I suspect the cost of all the residential land in Wyoming DWARFS the cost of all the 'residential' land in DC.

Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

Why do you want all black Americans to live in one state so bad? "White America" elected a black president surely liberal paradise can elect black senators

Uh, but the point is that there's no real reason, other than racism to deny African Americans their own state. The state is already there, it just doesn't get to vote...

And we did create white states (via the homestead act). Lots of them. Those states get 2 senators. Some of them have fewer people than DC. How about this...

If you're worried about DC's size, take Prince George's County from Maryland and put it into New Columbia. DC would still be majority African American and would have a land mass bigger than just a city. PG would probably vote to go and Maryland would still be a Dem state, so Maryland probably wouldn't raise too much of a fuss.

Having white people decide which Black person represents Black people isn't the same as allowing Black people in a majority Black area the ability to decide what person of any color represents their views.

(11-14-2016 05:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Why should Blacks lose everything to be a majority in Wyoming. They'd need to leave careers homes assets etc.

Whites can keep all of their inherited wealth and culture to be the majority in 46 states. And there's a reason why Blacks aren't the majority in many states...BECAUSE OUR RACIST GOVERNMENT GAVE 99% OF THE LAND TO WHITE PEOPLE FOR FREE AND THEN GAVE THEM LOANS TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. Black people need not apply. If the government had offered 40 acre homesteads and Farm credit to African Americans to settle in North Dakota, Kansas, or Nebraska, there might be a Black majority there.

How about this...DC can remain a colony, but the Feds need to pay Black people reparations equal to the present value of all homestead land given out and financing provided to white people using racial barriers since the Civil War.

Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

Why do you want all black Americans to live in one state so bad? "White America" elected a black president surely liberal paradise can elect black senators

Uh, but the point is that there's no real reason, other than racism to deny African Americans their own state. The state is already there, it just doesn't get to vote...

And we did create white states (via the homestead act). Lots of them. Those states get 2 senators. Some of them have fewer people than DC. How about this...

If you're worried about DC's size, take Prince George's County from Maryland and put it into New Columbia. DC would still be majority African American and would have a land mass bigger than just a city. PG would probably vote to go and Maryland would still be a Dem state, so Maryland probably wouldn't raise too much of a fuss.

So it's racist to not want to segregate African Americans?

Its racist to want everyone to live together ?

(11-14-2016 05:58 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:34 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Or.... Make the land part of Maryland...

Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

Why do you want all black Americans to live in one state so bad? "White America" elected a black president surely liberal paradise can elect black senators

Uh, but the point is that there's no real reason, other than racism to deny African Americans their own state. The state is already there, it just doesn't get to vote...

And we did create white states (via the homestead act). Lots of them. Those states get 2 senators. Some of them have fewer people than DC. How about this...

If you're worried about DC's size, take Prince George's County from Maryland and put it into New Columbia. DC would still be majority African American and would have a land mass bigger than just a city. PG would probably vote to go and Maryland would still be a Dem state, so Maryland probably wouldn't raise too much of a fuss.

So it's racist to not want to segregate African Americans?

Its racist to want everyone to live together ?

In this case they DON"T live together. And the one place where Blacks are a majority...is where there's no vote allowed.

There's no gerrymandering needed. Just make DC the state of New Columbia (minus a few blocks around the Mall).

Tom , if his were to come true and the Black Man would have his very own state to call his own, do you think that state would support the Homosexual agenda?

(11-14-2016 05:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tom has yet to address the segregation in his plan, or demonstrate how he would keep wealthy people from buying that power.

or how he'd keep Indians from wanting their own state, or Gays or Jews.


DC has representation in Congress because EVERY member in congress has a vested interest in seeing to it that the Nation's capitol has all the police and fire and roads and schools and airports and sewers that it could ever need... both in terms of quality and quantity, WITHOUT needing to rely on the taxes of the local population to fund much of it.

NO.. DC has NEGATIVE representation in Congress. White Republicans tell DC what kind of health care they can spend locally earned tax revenues on, whether they can recognize Gay marriage etc. In direct opposition to the wishes of the elected representatives of the District.

(11-14-2016 06:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tom has yet to address the segregation in his plan, or demonstrate how he would keep wealthy people from buying that power.
or how he'd keep Indians from wanting their own state, or Gays or Jews.
DC has representation in Congress because EVERY member in congress has a vested interest in seeing to it that the Nation's capitol has all the police and fire and roads and schools and airports and sewers that it could ever need... both in terms of quality and quantity, WITHOUT needing to rely on the taxes of the local population to fund much of it.

NO.. DC has NEGATIVE representation in Congress. White Republicans tell DC what kind of health care they can spend locally earned tax revenues on, whether they can recognize Gay marriage etc. In direct opposition to the wishes of the elected representatives of the District.

But that was the specific intent of the founders.

(11-14-2016 06:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:58 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Not a majority Black state. Our government subsidized white majorities in many states. And maybe Maryland doesn't want DC.

Why do you want all black Americans to live in one state so bad? "White America" elected a black president surely liberal paradise can elect black senators

Uh, but the point is that there's no real reason, other than racism to deny African Americans their own state. The state is already there, it just doesn't get to vote...

And we did create white states (via the homestead act). Lots of them. Those states get 2 senators. Some of them have fewer people than DC. How about this...

If you're worried about DC's size, take Prince George's County from Maryland and put it into New Columbia. DC would still be majority African American and would have a land mass bigger than just a city. PG would probably vote to go and Maryland would still be a Dem state, so Maryland probably wouldn't raise too much of a fuss.

So it's racist to not want to segregate African Americans?

Its racist to want everyone to live together ?

In this case they DON"T live together. And the one place where Blacks are a majority...is where there's no vote allowed.

There's no gerrymandering needed. Just make DC the state of New Columbia (minus a few blocks around the Mall).

Blacks in DC don't want to live with white people?

(11-14-2016 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tom has yet to address the segregation in his plan, or demonstrate how he would keep wealthy people from buying that power.
or how he'd keep Indians from wanting their own state, or Gays or Jews.
DC has representation in Congress because EVERY member in congress has a vested interest in seeing to it that the Nation's capitol has all the police and fire and roads and schools and airports and sewers that it could ever need... both in terms of quality and quantity, WITHOUT needing to rely on the taxes of the local population to fund much of it.

NO.. DC has NEGATIVE representation in Congress. White Republicans tell DC what kind of health care they can spend locally earned tax revenues on, whether they can recognize Gay marriage etc. In direct opposition to the wishes of the elected representatives of the District.

But that was the specific intent of the founders.

So was slavery. But in this particular case, there is no constitutional amendment needed. Simply carve out a few blocks around the mall, make the rest a state.

Obviously, it will have to wait 4 years. Racist Trumpeteers can't even let a black man have dinner as a thank you for his military service....

LOL @ "progressives.

Always wanting to enact the failed policies of a madman who has been dead for over 133 years and wanting to bring back segregation.

(11-14-2016 05:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Uh, but the point is that there's no real reason, other than racism to deny African Americans their own state. The state is already there, it just doesn't get to vote...

Your repeated ignoring of the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.

DC was never a state, nor was it ever supposed to be a state. This was decided long before it was majority black. Black people moved here of their own free will, for their own reasons, fully understanding the ramifications of it.

the fact is that there is NO reason, other than racism, to give DC MORE representaiton in COngress than it already gets by virtue of being the 'home' of all of the Congressmen and the host city to foreign dignitaries.

I'm sure if DC were predominantly gay and you made the same argument, you'd think gays in their 'home' should be allowed to vote to halt water and sewer or police service to Jamica in protest of their stance on Gays. That's part of the reason why DC can never be a state... because it represents US to the rest of the world, and not merely that community. That's why it gets all the money and services that it does... and part of the reason many of those who live there chose to do so.

You can't have it both ways. Get an inordinate about of support from the rest of the country AND decide how everyone else's money should be spent.

(11-14-2016 06:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  NO.. DC has NEGATIVE representation in Congress. White Republicans tell DC what kind of health care they can spend locally earned tax revenues on, whether they can recognize Gay marriage etc. In direct opposition to the wishes of the elected representatives of the District.

That's the price of living in an area that never was a state, that enjoys benefits and amenities far beyond its ability to support. You're the only one forcing them to stay there.... so that they can continue to serve the white devil.

You STILL haven't addressed your segregation, or how you'd keep it black?

(11-14-2016 06:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 06:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-14-2016 05:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tom has yet to address the segregation in his plan, or demonstrate how he would keep wealthy people from buying that power.
or how he'd keep Indians from wanting their own state, or Gays or Jews.
DC has representation in Congress because EVERY member in congress has a vested interest in seeing to it that the Nation's capitol has all the police and fire and roads and schools and airports and sewers that it could ever need... both in terms of quality and quantity, WITHOUT needing to rely on the taxes of the local population to fund much of it.

NO.. DC has NEGATIVE representation in Congress. White Republicans tell DC what kind of health care they can spend locally earned tax revenues on, whether they can recognize Gay marriage etc. In direct opposition to the wishes of the elected representatives of the District.

But that was the specific intent of the founders.

So was slavery. But in this particular case, there is no constitutional amendment needed. Simply carve out a few blocks around the mall, make the rest a state.

Obviously, it will have to wait 4 years. Racist Trumpeteers can't even let a black man have dinner as a thank you for his military service....

Simply carve out a few blocks around the mall, make the rest part of Maryland again.

(11-14-2016 06:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So was slavery.

No, it wasn't.