Comments on: The UN sticks up for DC. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/ Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:36:49 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Alphonse http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-697908 Alphonse Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:32:34 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-697908 #204: <em>So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution.</em> Um, even if this was what "the left" wanted (which it isn't), the U.N. can't rewrite the Constitution. This is a dumb comment. Why don't you explain your reasons for opposing an amendment granting the citizens of Washington, D.C., representation in Congress, rather than sliming "the left" with bogus statements such as this? #204: So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution.

Um, even if this was what “the left” wanted (which it isn’t), the U.N. can’t rewrite the Constitution. This is a dumb comment.

Why don’t you explain your reasons for opposing an amendment granting the citizens of Washington, D.C., representation in Congress, rather than sliming “the left” with bogus statements such as this?

]]> By: Gregor Samsa http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-697475 Gregor Samsa Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:05:19 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-697475 <i>So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution. Comment by OLDPUPPYMAX — July 30, 2006 @ 3:32 pm</i> I don't think anybody wants to rewrite the constitution, but merely amend it to allow the residents of DC to have a voting member of Congress -you know, taxation without representation and all... Keep in mind that a) amending the constitution is not a revolutionary concept and that b) residents of DC have gained voting rights over the years (which originally they didn't have). So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution.
Comment by OLDPUPPYMAX — July 30, 2006 @ 3:32 pm

I don’t think anybody wants to rewrite the constitution, but merely amend it to allow the residents of DC to have a voting member of Congress -you know, taxation without representation and all…

Keep in mind that a) amending the constitution is not a revolutionary concept and that b) residents of DC have gained voting rights over the years (which originally they didn’t have).

]]> By: Brian Coughlan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-697283 Brian Coughlan Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:56:58 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-697283 <em>So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution. Gee, what a surprise.</em> Not at all, simply pointing out that like Charity, Democracy begins at home:-) So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution. Gee, what a surprise.

Not at all, simply pointing out that like Charity, Democracy begins at home:-)

]]> By: OLDPUPPYMAX http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-697131 OLDPUPPYMAX Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:32:12 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-697131 So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution. Gee, what a surprise. And leftists wonder why they can't be trusted with a congressional majority or get a whack job like Kerry into the White House. Yep, sure is a mystery. So the left wants the United Nations to rewrite the Constitution. Gee, what a surprise. And leftists wonder why they can’t be trusted with a congressional majority or get a whack job like Kerry into the White House. Yep, sure is a mystery.

]]> By: Jay Randal http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-696746 Jay Randal Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:39:14 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696746 Post 202 Lev > why did Byrd vote for Alito to become a Supreme Court justice? ( I rest my case, that doing so was foolish, or Byrd has become senile!) Post 202 Lev > why did Byrd vote for Alito to become a Supreme Court justice? ( I rest my case, that doing so was foolish, or Byrd has become senile!)

]]> By: Lev http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-5/#comment-696734 Lev Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:33:03 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696734 Byrd a fool? Read his book LOSING AMERICA. And read the Senate speeches at the end denouncing the government grab for power in the Patriot Act and in the rush to war in Iraq. They are blistering. The man knows his history and knows autocracy when he sees it. Byrd was almost completely sidelined after 9/11--you almost never saw the MSM report on his denunciations of what the administration was creating. If he's a fool, we need more of them in Congress to protect what's left of our democracy. Byrd a fool? Read his book LOSING AMERICA. And read the Senate speeches at the end denouncing the government grab for power in the Patriot Act and in the rush to war in Iraq. They are blistering. The man knows his history and knows autocracy when he sees it. Byrd was almost completely sidelined after 9/11–you almost never saw the MSM report on his denunciations of what the administration was creating. If he’s a fool, we need more of them in Congress to protect what’s left of our democracy.

]]> By: katy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696653 katy Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:52:50 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696653 <em>I don’t even know who I was talking about now:-) Apologies if you got dinged by accident. Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 30, 2006 @ 5:16 am</em> fyi - it was Jim, now Alphonse, who got dinged... not to be confused with COMMENT BY JIM... hence - Alphonse... we're all good now! :-) I don’t even know who I was talking about now:-) Apologies if you got dinged by accident.
Comment by Brian Coughlan — July 30, 2006 @ 5:16 am

fyi – it was Jim, now Alphonse, who got dinged…
not to be confused with COMMENT BY JIM…
hence – Alphonse… we’re all good now! :-)

]]> By: james http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696526 james Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:54:02 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696526 FYI folks, the issue and the difference between DC and Puerto Rico, is that Puerto Rico does not have to pay federal taxes - whereas as a district resident I've already paid thousands this year. If we had no federal taxes, or even lessened taxes we might be having a different argument, but I can assure you that right now it is quite literally taxation without representation -- that's not a smarmy catch phrase. Furthermore, my local taxes are higher than they were in virginia, and there could be many reasons for that, but I think a large part is that every motorcade going by that is protected by DC police officers is paid for by the district. The federal government refuses to pay for or reimburse the district for money spent shuttling around high ranking officials. They cite common rules that say host towns will pay for security for visiting dignitaries, but IMHO it's a little different when they in fact live there. And are the federal government. And don't forget about the congresswoman who didn't feel safe in my neighborhood and tried to get a concealed carry law passed in the district, that was real nice of them. Now I know I've been going into separate issues here, but the point is that living in the district has a lot of federal level disadvantages, and I see no effort to fix it. FYI folks, the issue and the difference between DC and Puerto Rico, is that Puerto Rico does not have to pay federal taxes – whereas as a district resident I’ve already paid thousands this year. If we had no federal taxes, or even lessened taxes we might be having a different argument, but I can assure you that right now it is quite literally taxation without representation — that’s not a smarmy catch phrase.

Furthermore, my local taxes are higher than they were in virginia, and there could be many reasons for that, but I think a large part is that every motorcade going by that is protected by DC police officers is paid for by the district. The federal government refuses to pay for or reimburse the district for money spent shuttling around high ranking officials. They cite common rules that say host towns will pay for security for visiting dignitaries, but IMHO it’s a little different when they in fact live there. And are the federal government.

And don’t forget about the congresswoman who didn’t feel safe in my neighborhood and tried to get a concealed carry law passed in the district, that was real nice of them. Now I know I’ve been going into separate issues here, but the point is that living in the district has a lot of federal level disadvantages, and I see no effort to fix it.

]]> By: Berken http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696475 Berken Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:30:11 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696475 I know there's no support for it, but it is still the best practical solution and should be somewhere in the discussion: dissolve the district and give the land back to Maryland. Maintain soveriegn Federal control over important properties. Note that this was already done with the section of the DC originally donated by Virgina. This gives DC one or more voting members of the Maryland Congressional delegation and a less disproportionate share of voting influence over two US senators. It also breaks up the concentrated power of the two horribly corrupt political entities ruinning the district: the City of Washington and the United States congress. I know there’s no support for it, but it is still the best practical solution and should be somewhere in the discussion: dissolve the district and give the land back to Maryland. Maintain soveriegn Federal control over important properties.

Note that this was already done with the section of the DC originally donated by Virgina.

This gives DC one or more voting members of the Maryland Congressional delegation and a less disproportionate share of voting influence over two US senators. It also breaks up the concentrated power of the two horribly corrupt political entities ruinning the district: the City of Washington and the United States congress.

]]> By: Brian Coughlan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696391 Brian Coughlan Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:16:51 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696391 <em>They are mostly frightened and in “war mode” vis a vis Jim from the thread below. but he was surely mistaken about you being in war mode… bet he still had COMMENT BY JIM on his mind when saying that… maybe? ah well… enough of this… all’s well… Comment by katy — July 30, 2006 @ 1:15 am </em> I don't even know who I was talking about now:-) Apologies if you got dinged by accident. They are mostly frightened and in “war mode” vis a vis Jim from the thread below.

but he was surely mistaken about you being in war mode… bet he still had COMMENT BY JIM on his mind when saying that…

maybe? ah well… enough of this… all’s well…

Comment by katy — July 30, 2006 @ 1:15 am

I don’t even know who I was talking about now:-) Apologies if you got dinged by accident.

]]> By: Brian Coughlan http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696389 Brian Coughlan Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:11:07 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696389 <em> Brian, what does it take to immigrate to Sweden? Comment by Impeachcheneythenbush — July 29, 2006 @ 7:48 pm </em> Since I get this question from time to time, I've got a handy link that has all the info. As it happens, because I'm an EU citizen, I can live anywhere in the EU with a minimum of fuss, so I'm not sure how hard it would be for a US citizen to move to Sweden. Here you are : http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp Brian, what does it take to immigrate to Sweden?

Comment by Impeachcheneythenbush — July 29, 2006 @ 7:48 pm

Since I get this question from time to time, I’ve got a handy link that has all the info. As it happens, because I’m an EU citizen, I can live anywhere in the EU with a minimum of fuss, so I’m not sure how hard it would be for a US citizen to move to Sweden.

Here you are : http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp

]]> By: Alphonse http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696266 Alphonse Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:35:31 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696266 #194: <em>all’s well… </em> Also hunky dory. #194: all’s well…

Also hunky dory.

]]> By: JosephW http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696256 JosephW Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:18:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696256 Well, foolishly attempting to get the thread back on topic (I know, I know--"fools rush in where angels fear to tread" and all that), we do have one minor problem with a full DC representation in the Congress. Federal law limits the House of Representatives to 435 members; until Census-imposed redistricting following the 1960 Census, we did have a temporary 437 member House following the admission of both Alaska and Hawai'i in 1959--the 86th Congress had a 436 member House and the 87th Congress had a 437 member House. The 88th Congress, which opened its session in January 1963 restored the House back to 435 members. (I believe the limit was enacted around 1912, since the 63rd Congress which convened in 1913 had the first 435-member House, and aside from the brief increase from 1959-63, that has been the limit.) If DC should gain full Congressional representation, as it stands now, the House would expand to 436 seats only until 2012; as the 2010 Census results would lead to a nationwide Congressional redistricting, the new lines would be redrawn which would lead to some state losing one of its Representatives to DC (it's highly unlikely that DC would have more than one Representative--its current population is less than North Dakota's and that state has only one Representative). The big problem would then lie with various States trying to protect their incumbents (preferring those of whichever party controls the various State Legislatures) without appearing to deny minority representation. Republican-controlled Legislatures would be very hesitant to lose one of "theirs" for an almost-certain Democratic seat for DC. The Senate would pose less of a problem as the Senate isn't limited on the number of members beyond the two-per-state Constitutional mandate (if we expanded to 67 States, we could have 134 Senators under current law, but we would still be limited to 435 Representatives). Personally, I would support increasing the House membership by at least 100 members, if only to bring the Representative to Constituent ratio to a more manageable level. Currently, each Representative is supposed to stand for roughly 690,000 people which is incredibly underrepresentative for Montana (with nearly 1,000,000 residents) but horribly overrepresentative for Wyoming (with less than 500,000 residents). For heaven's sake, the British House of Commons has 659 members for a national population that's less than 1/4 that of the US. Even Canada, with less than 1/10 the population of the US, has a House of Commons with 308 members (70% the size of the US House membership). With a US House membership in the 535-550 range, most of the mid-range population states would gain between 3 and 5 seats; more heavily-populated states would likely gain anywhere from 5 to 20 extra seats (that high-end would probably apply only to California with states like Texas, New York and Florida gaining a more modest 10 to 12 seats) while the lowest-populated states would most likely gain at least 1 extra seat. I also would like to see a law that would allow the House to increase its size whenever the overall population increases by 25 million. Since 1912, this country's population has increased from less than 100 million (1910 Census--92,228,496) to right around 300 million (per the Popclock at www.census.gov --we stand at 299,346,030 at 0541 GMT 07/30/06) while the House of Representatives hasn't added a single permanent member. Well, foolishly attempting to get the thread back on topic (I know, I know–”fools rush in where angels fear to tread” and all that), we do have one minor problem with a full DC representation in the Congress. Federal law limits the House of Representatives to 435 members; until Census-imposed redistricting following the 1960 Census, we did have a temporary 437 member House following the admission of both Alaska and Hawai’i in 1959–the 86th Congress had a 436 member House and the 87th Congress had a 437 member House. The 88th Congress, which opened its session in January 1963 restored the House back to 435 members. (I believe the limit was enacted around 1912, since the 63rd Congress which convened in 1913 had the first 435-member House, and aside from the brief increase from 1959-63, that has been the limit.)
If DC should gain full Congressional representation, as it stands now, the House would expand to 436 seats only until 2012; as the 2010 Census results would lead to a nationwide Congressional redistricting, the new lines would be redrawn which would lead to some state losing one of its Representatives to DC (it’s highly unlikely that DC would have more than one Representative–its current population is less than North Dakota’s and that state has only one Representative). The big problem would then lie with various States trying to protect their incumbents (preferring those of whichever party controls the various State Legislatures) without appearing to deny minority representation. Republican-controlled Legislatures would be very hesitant to lose one of “theirs” for an almost-certain Democratic seat for DC. The Senate would pose less of a problem as the Senate isn’t limited on the number of members beyond the two-per-state Constitutional mandate (if we expanded to 67 States, we could have 134 Senators under current law, but we would still be limited to 435 Representatives).
Personally, I would support increasing the House membership by at least 100 members, if only to bring the Representative to Constituent ratio to a more manageable level. Currently, each Representative is supposed to stand for roughly 690,000 people which is incredibly underrepresentative for Montana (with nearly 1,000,000 residents) but horribly overrepresentative for Wyoming (with less than 500,000 residents). For heaven’s sake, the British House of Commons has 659 members for a national population that’s less than 1/4 that of the US. Even Canada, with less than 1/10 the population of the US, has a House of Commons with 308 members (70% the size of the US House membership). With a US House membership in the 535-550 range, most of the mid-range population states would gain between 3 and 5 seats; more heavily-populated states would likely gain anywhere from 5 to 20 extra seats (that high-end would probably apply only to California with states like Texas, New York and Florida gaining a more modest 10 to 12 seats) while the lowest-populated states would most likely gain at least 1 extra seat. I also would like to see a law that would allow the House to increase its size whenever the overall population increases by 25 million. Since 1912, this country’s population has increased from less than 100 million (1910 Census–92,228,496) to right around 300 million (per the Popclock at http://www.census.gov –we stand at 299,346,030 at 0541 GMT 07/30/06) while the House of Representatives hasn’t added a single permanent member.

]]> By: katy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696253 katy Sun, 30 Jul 2006 05:15:27 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696253 ohhh... well he WAS referring to you, specifically your "good eveil" list: <em>They are mostly frightened and in “war mode” <strong>vis a vis Jim </strong>from the thread below.</em> but he was surely mistaken about you being in war mode... bet he still had COMMENT BY JIM on his mind when saying that... maybe? ah well... enough of this... all's well... ohhh… well he WAS referring to you, specifically your “good eveil” list:

They are mostly frightened and in “war mode” vis a vis Jim from the thread below.

but he was surely mistaken about you being in war mode… bet he still had COMMENT BY JIM on his mind when saying that…

maybe? ah well… enough of this… all’s well…

]]> By: Alphonse http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696172 Alphonse Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:54:59 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696172 #191: The thing is, if he was addressing blogenfreude, why did he say "Jim"? #191: The thing is, if he was addressing blogenfreude, why did he say “Jim”?

]]> By: Alphonse http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696171 Alphonse Sun, 30 Jul 2006 03:53:44 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696171 #191: Oh, dear. I'm confused too. I think I'd better just keep quiet and hope no one notices. #191: Oh, dear. I’m confused too. I think I’d better just keep quiet and hope no one notices.

]]> By: katy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696105 katy Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:48:22 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696105 except, brian was addressing blogenfreude in that comment #17, on the 52% thread... and your "good and evil" list is on THIS thread... i'm not sure who is confused now... no, i know i am....... :-) except, brian was addressing blogenfreude in that comment #17, on the 52% thread… and your “good and evil” list is on THIS thread…

i’m not sure who is confused now… no, i know i am…….
:-)

]]> By: Alphonse http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-696044 Alphonse Sun, 30 Jul 2006 02:11:52 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-696044 #189: <em>i’m wondering about this post: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 07/ 29/ 52-2/ #comment-695953 who are you (as jim) addressing? </em> I was addressing #17 (Brian Coughlin), who seemed to think I was serious when I listed the Geneva Conventions as "evil." For the record, I don't think the Geneva Conventions are evil. #189: i’m wondering about this post:
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 07/ 29/ 52-2/ #comment-695953
who are you (as jim) addressing?

I was addressing #17 (Brian Coughlin), who seemed to think I was serious when I listed the Geneva Conventions as “evil.”

For the record, I don’t think the Geneva Conventions are evil.

]]> By: katy http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-695977 katy Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:33:52 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-695977 ok, alphonse - try it out, anyway... i ain't gonna mess wit' ya! but, i'm wondering about this post: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/52-2/#comment-695953 who are you (as jim) addressing? ok, alphonse – try it out, anyway…
i ain’t gonna mess wit’ ya!

but, i’m wondering about this post:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/52-2/#comment-695953
who are you (as jim) addressing?

]]> By: Impeachcheneythenbush http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/comment-page-4/#comment-695971 Impeachcheneythenbush Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:27:53 +0000 http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/29/the-un-sticks-up-for-dc/#comment-695971 $+# 166 - Tampa Guy: Your ideas and feelings are not invalid, but you are expressing them in quite an irrational manner. You need to get on meds, or back on them. Been there, done that, have family members with the same issue. $+# 166 – Tampa Guy: Your ideas and feelings are not invalid, but you are expressing them in quite an irrational manner. You need to get on meds, or back on them. Been there, done that, have family members with the same issue.

]]>