hey bull can you at least admit you didn't bother to read your own link?

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:23 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Then they should propose a *reasonable* solution for those 3 million people instead of using DC statehood as a race dog whistle.

seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

Just what are you trying to solve? And try to give a real answer and not spout off some bull****

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

White people preventing Blacks from getting representation would be one problem with DC's status as a colony.

Taxation without representation is another.

WE JUST HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT! How with a straight face say that there is no representation.

For the past two years
* 15 percent of the nation is black
* 8 percent of congress house is black
* 11 percent of the supreme court is black
* 100% of the presidents is black...

And I honestly don't care if those numbers go up or down... Clone Clearance Thomas and give him the empty seat on the court...

Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  hey bull can you at least admit you didn't bother to read your own link?

Sure... I've not steeped in the subject, never said that I was.

Can you admit that when you said three million people earlier you were woefully wrong?

This thread and several other started in the last two days might be condensed into a new mega-thread entitled:

HOW CAN DEMOCRATS RIG THE SYSTEM FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR UNLIKEABLE POLICES?

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:39 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Give Maryland back its' land. The District of Columbia becomes the Capitol, White House, the Mall, the monuments, Arlington Cemetery, etc. with the only residents being the President and his/her family. Maryland already had 2 Senators and would probably gain a Congressional seat in the next census.

But the Democrats just wasn't 2 new Senators so DC as a state will always remain an issue. It would be nice if they would just be honest about it.

But of course the African Americans don't get to be a majority anywhere. 40+million people without a voice (no Tim Scott does NOT represent any more than 2 or 3 percent of Black people) of their own.

LOL. DC qualifes or make Wyoming a territory.

Nor do Asians, nor do Jews, nor do Hispanics (but it's coming), nor do Swedes (maybe Minnesota)... sheesh what is it with racial politics and set asides with you..

Don't whine when people go to the streets when their votes don't count and they can't get a seat at the table even when they have 40 million people. The Senate is a massive gerrymander aimed at minorities.

Actually Asians ARE a majority in one state...And surprise, that state sends more Asians than other states to Congress (it is Hawaii). Hispanics are the majority in a couple of states, and that is starting to be reflected in their represenation.

Then Why The F didn't "King Master Blaster" Obama propose it when He was King of the Hill ? Deflect, Deflect, Deflect ! That's all You Liberals do, You guys offer Nothing. Just Take.

(11-10-2016 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...51st-state

Quote:Voters in the District of Columbia passed a measure on Tuesday in favor of petitioning Congress to become a state in the union.

79 percent of voters cast votes in favor of the ballot measure, which splits the district into a residential state with a small federal district in the middle of it for government buildings and monuments, as we have reported.

The newly approved measure had four parts:

- agree that the District should be admitted to the Union as the State of New Columbia
- approve of a Constitution of the State of New Columbia to be adopted by the Council
- approve the State of New Columbia's boundaries
- agree that the State of New Columbia shall guarantee an elected representative form of government.

What do you think, any chance in hell of happening?

I say no. It would be an automatic two Dem senators, and Reps won't allow that into their rigged system.

No, and it should not. In no way should a city be given the power of a state in our government. Let them vote in Virginia or Maryland senate elections and maybe give them *1* representative in congress.

The federal government's power has expanded. I don't see any need for a district anymore. Give DC back to Maryland. We already gave the southern part back to Virginia a couple hundred years ago.

If we really need a district, just cut it off about K Street and 3rd and 395 and make that area a National Park as well and prevent any new residential development. There's very little now. Give the rest and Watergate south of K as well to Maryland. Make a deal with Maryland to fund their mass transit since the federal government is the biggest employer. (but if you keep part, you have to amend the constitution so that the thousand or so people who live there don't get 3 electoral votes).

Took a quick look. The census tracts in the area bound by K and 3rd and 395 have about 32,000 people. But the census tracts don't exactly follow those lines so I suspect at least half of those live (probably much more than half) outside that boundary. The tracts are 56, 108, 62.02, 58, 59, 82, 66, 65, 105 and 102.
Going west to east and then south and then back west
56-6,756
108-6,408
62.02-33
58-2,830
59-2,998
82-2,918
66-1,909
65-2,531
105-3,410
102-2,324

(11-10-2016 01:30 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  hey bull can you at least admit you didn't bother to read your own link?

Sure... I've not steeped in the subject, never said that I was.

Can you admit that when you said three million people earlier you were woefully wrong?

I got DC mixed up with Puerto Rico

(11-10-2016 01:31 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  This thread and several other started in the last two days might be condensed into a new mega-thread entitled:

HOW CAN DEMOCRATS RIG THE SYSTEM FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR UNLIKEABLE POLICES?

We got more votes than DJT. Who is doing the rigging?

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 12:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  seriously. what is inherently wrong with DC statehood? solving it via statehood as a concept is by far the most reasonable, straight forward, and simplest way to do it.

Just what are you trying to solve? And try to give a real answer and not spout off some bull****

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

White people preventing Blacks from getting representation would be one problem with DC's status as a colony.

Taxation without representation is another.

WE JUST HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT! How with a straight face say that there is no representation.

For the past two years
* 15 percent of the nation is black
* 8 percent of congress house is black
* 11 percent of the supreme court is black
* 100% of the presidents is black...

And I honestly don't care if those numbers go up or down... Clone Clearance Thomas and give him the empty seat on the court...

Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

(11-10-2016 01:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:31 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  This thread and several other started in the last two days might be condensed into a new mega-thread entitled:

HOW CAN DEMOCRATS RIG THE SYSTEM FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT CHANGING THEIR UNLIKEABLE POLICES?

We got more votes than DJT. Who is doing the rigging?

That's not how we elect Presidents in this Federation. Too bad huh?

Republicans must be super smart, building a time machine and going back to the Constitutional Convention. Then getting them to "rig the system" with that evil Electoral College BS. Damn evil Republicans! Must have made a mind control device too!

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Just what are you trying to solve? And try to give a real answer and not spout off some bull****

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

White people preventing Blacks from getting representation would be one problem with DC's status as a colony.

Taxation without representation is another.

WE JUST HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT! How with a straight face say that there is no representation.

For the past two years
* 15 percent of the nation is black
* 8 percent of congress house is black
* 11 percent of the supreme court is black
* 100% of the presidents is black...

And I honestly don't care if those numbers go up or down... Clone Clearance Thomas and give him the empty seat on the court...

Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people.

I know tommy... We need gay white liberals to tell us who's black enough to "represent black people"

Do you even understand just how ******* insulting it is that you pander by lumping all black people into a single basket?

Quote:The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with.

How many members of the congressional black caucaus are not "black enough for you"? Was Obama not "black enough" for you?

What is the bar being set by the gay white man nowadays for "black enough"

Inquiring minds want to know..

Quote:And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

What was it Harry Reid said that one time..

"Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's very different than saying every nominee receives a vote."

Or maybe it was Schumer back in 2007

We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court”

Wow what's wrong with Tim Scott?

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  White people preventing Blacks from getting representation would be one problem with DC's status as a colony.

Taxation without representation is another.

WE JUST HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT! How with a straight face say that there is no representation.

For the past two years
* 15 percent of the nation is black
* 8 percent of congress house is black
* 11 percent of the supreme court is black
* 100% of the presidents is black...

And I honestly don't care if those numbers go up or down... Clone Clearance Thomas and give him the empty seat on the court...

Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

(11-10-2016 01:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Wow what's wrong with Tim Scott?

He is the choice of WHITE people to reprent Black people.

How would you like it Blacks were a majority and they voted for Nancy Pelosi and then said..see, she's white. There's your voice.

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:15 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  WE JUST HAD A BLACK PRESIDENT! How with a straight face say that there is no representation.

For the past two years
* 15 percent of the nation is black
* 8 percent of congress house is black
* 11 percent of the supreme court is black
* 100% of the presidents is black...

And I honestly don't care if those numbers go up or down... Clone Clearance Thomas and give him the empty seat on the court...

Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

(11-10-2016 01:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Wow what's wrong with Tim Scott?

He is the choice of WHITE people to reprent Black people.

How would you like it Blacks were a majority and they voted for Nancy Pelosi and then said..see, she's white. There's your voice.

Notice he didn't actually have any gripe there about tim scott...

Hey Tom my wife is a minority, can I PM you during the next election so you can tell us who is "enough" to represent her?

(11-10-2016 01:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:38 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:34 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, Clarence Thomas doesn't represent Black people. The point is to give that Black person a reasonable ability to elect someone they agree with. And yes, that person is probably going to be liberal and someone who ain't having any more of your white privilege.

And if our last President wasn't Black, he'd be able to nominate a Supreme Court nominee. Only the Black President gets 3/5ths of a second term.

So Your saying a Black Liberal is the only Black person that can rep All Black People ? Your out there !

No I think that Black people shouldn't be PREVENTED from electing someone that they agree with. Having a bunch of white people tell Blacks that Tim Scott or Dr Stabby represents them is risible.

Should Asians? Jews? Native Americans? Indians?

Asians have at least one state. Native Americans should, but won't get one. Jews and South Asians? At some point the numbers get really small. I'd say if you have more than 40 million, you should have at least 2 senators that your community gets the most likely path to pick.

ALL ABOARRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDD

The Crazy Train!

(11-10-2016 01:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-10-2016 01:37 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Wow what's wrong with Tim Scott?

He is the choice of WHITE people to reprent Black people.

How would you like it Blacks were a majority and they voted for Nancy Pelosi and then said..see, she's white. There's your voice.

If black folks really wanted to have a black majority state where they could have 2 senators and all the representatives they could handle; they would pick a southern state and move enough people in to become the majority in that state.

But............they don't care THAT MUCH to do so. I think most black folks realize that home, family, and getting along with your neighbors no matter your political differences has more benefit than moving to another state so black folks can make all the calls. Most DON'T want a racially divided American and most realize it would be bad for everyone.

Tom - you are unhinged. Your posts in this thread are utter nonsense. Those 40 million that you keep touting are represented just the same as everyone else is.