View Poll Results: New states?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Welcome!

    23 74.19%
  • No. GET OFF MY LAWN.

    0 0%
  • Keep them as they are now.

    3 9.68%
  • Other (explain)

    5 16.13%
Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 156

Thread: New states?

  1. #141
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I agree with the FF's reasoning for creating a capitol that was not a state. It has nothing to do with it being "because that's what the Founding Fathers wanted" that you are trying to push. In case you hadn't noticed I have no problem bashing the FF's for the stupid crap that they did, or that I believe that they did. So seriously...try attacking the reasoning instead of trying to push out an idea that you think is the reason for agreeing with the FF's. You have yet to really address the reasoning.
    I already addressed every single reason that has been mentioned in this thread (except for your mystery rationale that you claim you already laid out, but won't tell what it is.) But I'll quickly recap for you:

    The argument about it being unfair for one state to reap the benefits of hosting the federal government doesn't hold water, because the benefits of doing so flow into DC regardless of whether or not it's a state. And because two ACTUAL states - Maryland and Virginia - also hold a substantial number of federal agencies. And because EVERY state is home to various military bases and/or national parks and/or other federal property.

    The argument that DC is too corrupt to be a state is also ridiculous. The DC government has had a couple scandals, but certainly far less than many actual states (New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Louisiana come to mind). And despite any corruption, the DC government is actually quite competent, which is more than can be said for many states.

    The argument that the federal government needs to control the seat of government also doesn't make sense. I think most DC residents don't give a damn if the feds want to retain control over the National Mall. No one lives there anyway except for the Obamas. But the rest of the District should be under the rule of the people who actually live in the District.

    Ah yes...use a communist based government to push the idea that an area dedicated to a democratic republic government and not living areas for general citizens is a bad idea. Good call.
    Please translate this into comprehensible English if you want a response.

    The only reason that Capitols are generally in a city is a hold over from days before such easy transportation that we have today. It wouldn't exactly make sense to build a capitol where it would take days or months to get decree's out to a cities population now would it? Not to mention it was also done for reasons of security. But in today's technological society there is no longer that reasoning.
    I think you underestimate the benefit of being able to schedule a meeting with someone face-to-face instead of faxing a document or using Skype. Or the benefit of being able to walk across the street to the next door agency, instead of making a phone call. I agree that it's more possible now to disperse SOME agencies throughout the country (and I'm not opposed to that happening), but it still makes sense for the bulk of them to be concentrated in close physical proximity.

    And I think the bolded part confuses the cause with the effect. In many cases, it's not that the capital happens to be located in a city...the city exists BECAUSE that's where the capital is. If the federal government was moved from DC to a cornfield in Kansas, there would be a city there in less than a year.

    Seriously, think about it for a minute. What would be the harm in having an area that was strictly for the government in today's society? Now what would be the benefits?
    OK, let's assume that we decided to follow Burma's example and mandated an area where only the government was allowed to go, and the riffraff was kept out. Well, where are all those congressmen going to stay when they're in this restricted area? I guess they'll need apartments...so we'll allow a few apartment managers in, so that the congressmen have a place to stay. Now what are those apartment managers going to eat? OK, I guess we'll allow McDonald's to set up shop in the restricted area too. Where are those McDonald's workers going to buy their daily living supplies? Fine, we'll let Wal-Mart in so that they have a place to shop. Who is going to build the Wal-Mart? We'll let some architects and construction workers in too. Who is going to attend to their medical needs? I guess we'll need some doctors and dentists. Etc, etc.

    And boom, you have a city.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-08-11 at 04:06 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #142
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: New states?

    Last thing we need is to add to the welfare rolls or Liberal voters and they go hand in hand in these locations.

  3. #143
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    Last thing we need is to add to the welfare rolls or Liberal voters and they go hand in hand in these locations.
    Classy. At least you're honest about your desire to impose dictatorship on anyone whom you disagree with politically. And I'm sure there's nothing at all racist about your comment that we don't want people to vote who "add to the welfare rolls." Why, nothing could be farther from your mind, right?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #144
    User CarlF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    07-31-11 @ 03:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    125

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by SPC View Post
    We might as well. Obama already seems to think we have 57 states.
    How's that?

  5. #145
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,867
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I already addressed every single reason that has been mentioned in this thread (except for your mystery rationale that you claim you already laid out, but won't tell what it is.) But I'll quickly recap for you:
    At that point I never said that I laid it out. I just stated that it had already been said in the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The argument about it being unfair for one state to reap the benefits of hosting the federal government doesn't hold water, because the benefits of doing so flow into DC regardless of whether or not it's a state. And because two ACTUAL states - Maryland and Virginia - also hold a substantial number of federal agencies. And because EVERY state is home to various military bases and/or national parks and/or other federal property.
    The benefits that flow into DC right now is there because the rest of the country decided that DC needed those benefits. However if there were sitting senators for DC then they would get more than other states. How would this happen you no doubt would ask? Simple. The state would have the authority to kick the government head quarters out of their state. That threat, or even implied thread, alone would gain favortism. While states are obligated under the Constitution to follow what the Federal government says there is nothing in the Constitution which gauruntee's the federal government land inside state borders. Indeed Utah is currently attempting to take back land inside its borders from the federal government. Which from what I have been hearing is likely to be upheld by the courts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The argument that DC is too corrupt to be a state is also ridiculous. The DC government has had a couple scandals, but certainly far less than many actual states (New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Louisiana come to mind). And despite any corruption, the DC government is actually quite competent, which is more than can be said for many states.
    DC has had more than just a "couple" of scandals. List of federal political scandals in the United States


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The argument that the federal government needs to control the seat of government also doesn't make sense. I think most DC residents don't give a damn if the feds want to retain control over the National Mall. No one lives there anyway except for the Obamas. But the rest of the District should be under the rule of the people who actually live in the District.
    How does it not make sense? The Federal government needs a place where they are free from state control. What you want to do is narrow the area in which the Federal government controls its seat. What if the Federal government needs more land to grow on? Will DC as a state willingly give up control of something that it has had use of for a long time? More than likely not. Because that then reduces them. So much land was set aside for DC so that the Federal government had a place to grow as needed.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Please translate this into comprehensible English if you want a response.
    You are trying to compare a dictatorship form of government with that of a democratic form of government. That is like comparing apples and pizza. What makes the two even more desparate is that in the US's case our government is limited...unlike most governments in the world. Even countries that are considered democratic now are not nearly as limited as that of the US government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think you underestimate the benefit of being able to schedule a meeting with someone face-to-face instead of faxing a document or using Skype. Or the benefit of being able to walk across the street to the next door agency, instead of making a phone call. I agree that it's more possible now to disperse SOME agencies throughout the country (and I'm not opposed to that happening), but it still makes sense for the bulk of them to be concentrated in close physical proximity.
    Schedules for face to face talks is still easily doable. People do this now even if the person that they are going to talk to is on the other side of the world.

    Also being able to walk across the street to the next door agency is also still doable as anyone working in DC will be doing just that...working next door to other agencies. And as you agree that we need agencies in close proximity to each other then what better way to do so than to get rid of all the personal homes/buisnesses that may be between two agencies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And I think the bolded part confuses the cause with the effect. In many cases, it's not that the capital happens to be located in a city...the city exists BECAUSE that's where the capital is. If the federal government was moved from DC to a cornfield in Kansas, there would be a city there in less than a year.
    Not if people were denied from moving into that area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    OK, let's assume that we decided to follow Burma's example and mandated an area where only the government was allowed to go, and the riffraff was kept out. Well, where are all those congressmen going to stay when they're in this restricted area? I guess they'll need apartments...so we'll allow a few apartment managers in, so that the congressmen have a place to stay. Now what are those apartment managers going to eat? OK, I guess we'll allow McDonald's to set up shop in the restricted area too. Where are those McDonald's workers going to buy their daily living supplies? Fine, we'll let Wal-Mart in so that they have a place to shop. Who is going to build the Wal-Mart? We'll let some architects and construction workers in too. Who is going to attend to their medical needs? I guess we'll need some doctors and dentists. Etc, etc.

    And boom, you have a city.
    Why does an apartment manager even need to be hired? Can rooms not be set aside for the specific purpose of sleeping and maybe a couple for entertainment (ie tv/movies, pool, whatever) Its not like the congressmen have to live there 24/7/365. And even if you do hire someone to take care of those apartments why do they have to live there to do so? Can't they commute to thier job just like everyone else? Assuming of course that a congressmen would even need to stay in DC overnight.

    As for food, Congress currently has a service that provides them with food. Cooks can be hired to work in kitchens to provide for food. Again, they can commute.

    No need for a wal-mart. Supplies can be carted in just like regular buisnesses carts them into thier store. IE buy the needed supplies and store them in appropriate areas.

    If anything needs built then the contractors can commute to the job site just like they do with any other job site.

    If medical assistance is needed there can be a hospital staff available...they can commute just like other hospital's staff does.

    See, thats the thing about the wonderful transporation methods we have available to us today. People can commute. DC after all only has 61 miles worth of landmass. You can drive across it in 1 hour easily. So at most people that regularly worked in DC would have to drive 2 hrs, just to get to work...only would take minuets to get to from one agency to another if everything was in close proximity. Hell, I live in an area where it is common to drive 3 hours to work every day (sometimes more depending on the work). Another advantage that commuters would have is that they would be able to get to work alot easier due to less traffic compared to what a city has.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #146
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,867
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Classy. At least you're honest about your desire to impose dictatorship on anyone whom you disagree with politically. And I'm sure there's nothing at all racist about your comment that we don't want people to vote who "add to the welfare rolls." Why, nothing could be farther from your mind, right?
    What does racism have to do with voting or "adding ot the welfare rolls"? I didn't realize that liberals were considered a race now?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #147
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Classy. At least you're honest about your desire to impose dictatorship on anyone whom you disagree with politically. And I'm sure there's nothing at all racist about your comment that we don't want people to vote who "add to the welfare rolls." Why, nothing could be farther from your mind, right?
    I see you Radical Liberals still make up things and think you're clever in your distortions and lies.

    We can't afford either more stupid Liberals or people on welfare.

    You Liberals think it's okay to take from workers and give to free loaders.

    How do you starve an
    Obama supporter or
    other Liberal?

    Hide their food stamps
    under their work shoes.
    Last edited by Councilman; 07-08-11 at 06:05 AM.

  8. #148
    User Nanten Janubi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    20 miles, straight up
    Last Seen
    07-12-11 @ 06:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    120

    Re: New states?

    Or just take away 600,000 people's right to vote.
    A history of knowledge will not make us clever for the next time, but wise forever.
    -Jacob Burckhardt.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I see you Radical Liberals still make up things and think you're clever in your distortions and lies.

    We can't afford either more stupid Liberals or people on welfare.

    You Liberals think it's okay to take from workers and give to free loaders.

    How do you starve an
    Obama supporter or
    other Liberal?

    Hide their food stamps
    under their work shoes.
    let us know when you're done baiting, k?

  10. #150
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: New states?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    The benefits that flow into DC right now is there because the rest of the country decided that DC needed those benefits. However if there were sitting senators for DC then they would get more than other states. How would this happen you no doubt would ask? Simple. The state would have the authority to kick the government head quarters out of their state. That threat, or even implied thread, alone would gain favortism.
    1. That would be a totally empty threat. No one would believe that DC would kick the federal government out, as it is dependent on those jobs for a substantial portion of its economy.
    2. Most of DC could become a state, while the actual federal district could simply be reduced to the National Mall, where the seat of the government is actually located. Then DC would have a democracy and they would still have no control over the federal goernment's operations. Problem solved.
    3. Actual states ALREADY do this. Maryland and Virginia have TONS of federal agencies.

    While states are obligated under the Constitution to follow what the Federal government says there is nothing in the Constitution which gauruntee's the federal government land inside state borders. Indeed Utah is currently attempting to take back land inside its borders from the federal government. Which from what I have been hearing is likely to be upheld by the courts.
    So limit the federal district to the National Mall instead of the entire city of Washington.

    DC has had more than just a "couple" of scandals. List of federal political scandals in the United States
    I was talking about the DC city government; it's had its share of scandals but a lot less than many states. You're blaming us for FEDERAL scandals? For the scandals of a Congress we played absolutely no role in electing?

    How does it not make sense? The Federal government needs a place where they are free from state control. What you want to do is narrow the area in which the Federal government controls its seat. What if the Federal government needs more land to grow on?
    Dude, have you ever been to DC? Have you ever set foot on the National Mall? There's plenty of open area where the government could expand if necessary. Although I'm not quite sure what expansion you think might be necessary...we already have a White House, a Capitol, and a Supreme Court Building on the National Mall. Were you planning on adding more branches to the government?

    Will DC as a state willingly give up control of something that it has had use of for a long time? More than likely not. Because that then reduces them.
    Will Oklahoma as a state willingly give up control of Fort Sill, which it has had use of for a long time? More than likely not, because that reduces them. Therefore Oklahoma shouldn't be a state.

    You are trying to compare a dictatorship form of government with that of a democratic form of government.
    Democratic for YOU, maybe. If you truly favored a democratic form of government we wouldn't even be having this discussion though.

    That is like comparing apples and pizza. What makes the two even more desparate is that in the US's case our government is limited...unlike most governments in the world. Even countries that are considered democratic now are not nearly as limited as that of the US government.
    I'm just pointing out that the only place in the world (that I am aware of) where average citizens aren't allowed into the capital is in Burma, and that was done specifically to make it easier to oppress the people. You can draw your own conclusions as to its application to the United States. And also don't overlook the flipside of that: There are 191 other countries, and none of them do what you're suggesting.

    Schedules for face to face talks is still easily doable. People do this now even if the person that they are going to talk to is on the other side of the world.

    Also being able to walk across the street to the next door agency is also still doable as anyone working in DC will be doing just that...working next door to other agencies. And as you agree that we need agencies in close proximity to each other then what better way to do so than to get rid of all the personal homes/buisnesses that may be between two agencies?

    Not if people were denied from moving into that area.

    Why does an apartment manager even need to be hired? Can rooms not be set aside for the specific purpose of sleeping and maybe a couple for entertainment (ie tv/movies, pool, whatever) Its not like the congressmen have to live there 24/7/365. And even if you do hire someone to take care of those apartments why do they have to live there to do so? Can't they commute to thier job just like everyone else? Assuming of course that a congressmen would even need to stay in DC overnight.

    As for food, Congress currently has a service that provides them with food. Cooks can be hired to work in kitchens to provide for food. Again, they can commute.

    No need for a wal-mart. Supplies can be carted in just like regular buisnesses carts them into thier store. IE buy the needed supplies and store them in appropriate areas.

    If anything needs built then the contractors can commute to the job site just like they do with any other job site.

    If medical assistance is needed there can be a hospital staff available...they can commute just like other hospital's staff does.

    See, thats the thing about the wonderful transporation methods we have available to us today. People can commute. DC after all only has 61 miles worth of landmass. You can drive across it in 1 hour easily. So at most people that regularly worked in DC would have to drive 2 hrs, just to get to work...only would take minuets to get to from one agency to another if everything was in close proximity. Hell, I live in an area where it is common to drive 3 hours to work every day (sometimes more depending on the work). Another advantage that commuters would have is that they would be able to get to work alot easier due to less traffic compared to what a city has.
    This plan is utterly unrealistic, and frankly I can't believe that anyone is seriously suggesting it. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to house the federal government, including all the various executive agencies, without having a city. It's just not going to happen; that isn't how an economy works. And your idea of having everyone "commute" in from Arlington or Bethesda or wherever serves no purpose whatsoever. It wouldn't "reduce" traffic, it would make it worse because it would push it out of the city center and into the suburbs. Anyway, why do you think the federal government needs anything nearly as big as the District of Columbia all to itself, especially if we adopted your plan and didn't let any other businesses operate in the area? Probably 99% of the land in DC (I'm estimating here) is used for something other than to house a federal building.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-08-11 at 11:50 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •