Washington: a symbol of American unity in diversity

Status
Not open for further replies.

viewsgiver

Newbie
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
0
There are many capitols in the world, but the distinction that Washington holds as a capitol is highly different than those of the other caiptols of the European and the western governments in the world. To the best of my understanding, it is beacuse of the fact that the capitol is a symbol of US federation on the one side and an insignia of transnational unity in diversity, on the other. But to add any thing in this connection, I would also like to suggest since the capitol holds a distinctive place as symbol of American's strengthing democracy,the policies- custodians of this capitol, do also hold very sensitive responsibilities to depict and sanctitise in thier external poolicies the blend of liberal, humane and accomodationg values- the true feature of American constitution of civil liberty.
 

ScanDaBands

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
0
Location
State Line
viewsgiver said:
There are many capitols in the world, but the distinction that Washington holds as a capitol is highly different than those of the other caiptols of the European and the western governments in the world. To the best of my understanding, it is beacuse of the fact that the capitol is a symbol of US federation on the one side and an insignia of transnational unity in diversity, on the other. But to add any thing in this connection, I would also like to suggest since the capitol holds a distinctive place as symbol of American's strengthing democracy,the policies- custodians of this capitol, do also hold very sensitive responsibilities to depict and sanctitise in thier external poolicies the blend of liberal, humane and accomodationg values- the true feature of American constitution of civil liberty.
:lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol: :roll: :lol:
 

Zaratsu

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
358
Location
Eastern Connecticut
I've been to D.C.

It is diverse all right. One wrong turn and you are not surrounded by embassays, top schools, or govt departments, but in in poor and violent slums. It is actually a poor representation of diversity, and I hope it does not represent the rest of the US or I fear that we have not come far at all.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
viewsgiver said:
There are many capitols in the world, but the distinction that Washington holds as a capitol is highly different than those of the other caiptols of the European and the western governments in the world.
Indeed. It's the only capital in the Western world where the citizens aren't represented in the legislature just down the street.
 

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
ibagli said:
Indeed. It's the only capital in the Western world where the citizens aren't represented in the legislature just down the street.
I'd say America is the ones who have it right.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
af5rn said:
I'd say America is the ones who have it right.
If you think telling hundreds of thousands of people that they aren't actually worthy of the privilege their city was founded on, I suppose you could say that. Personally, I would just cede most of DC back to Maryland (if they'll take it) like the part across the Potomac was ceded back to Virginia. Most of the District isn't used for government purposes, and even if they need it, they can do like they did with the Pentagon and build it there anyways, give it a DC ZIP code, and realize there's no functional difference.

(But I also think that US overseas territories like Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands should, at the minimum, each have a voting representative in the house, so I might be a little crazy.)
 
Last edited:

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
ibagli said:
If you think telling hundreds of thousands of people that they aren't actually worthy of the privilege their city was founded on, I suppose you could say that.
That's exactly what I think. Thanks for the clarification.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
Would you feel the same about, say, taking Texas' or California's representation away? I say the only moral options are to stop subjecting DC residents to all federal taxes or give them a vote in Congress (preferably by just giving most of the District away or some other non-new-state option.)
 

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
I'm fine with taking no more taxes from DC residents, so long as we also no longer spend 100 times that money on wasteful programmes for them too. Total win.

DC takes and takes, and gives nothing back. It's like a prison without a productive industry. No loss at all.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
So you're fine with disenfranchising people because you don't like them?
 

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
ibagli said:
So you're fine with disenfranchising people because you don't like them?
Depends upon why I don't like them.

We disenfranchise felons because we don't "like" them, so this is not my idea. It's certainly not a new concept.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
Not every state disenfranchises felons, and in that case, they are so by choice. (I suppose one could say that DC residents "choose" to be there by not moving, but that's not exactly easy or cheap.)
 

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
ibagli said:
Not every state disenfranchises felons...
That further validates my claim that disenfranchisement in America is inconsistent, yet remains a valid concept. I can think of a lot of felonies that I wouldn't disenfranchise someone for. But being a waste of human flesh that only takes from society without giving anything back... yeah, I'd disenfranchise that.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
So you think that every resident of DC is a "waste of flesh" that "takes from society without giving back" (whatever that means)? Why not just take the vote away from all poor people, or better yet, just imprison or kill them all, that way they don't take from the salt of the earth that are the final arbiters of who is worthy of voting?
 

af5rn

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
1,059
Location
N. Tex / S. Fla
ibagli said:
So you think that every resident of DC is a "waste of flesh" that "takes from society without giving back" (whatever that means)?
Pretty much. Especially the politicians and lobbyists.

Why not just take the vote away from all poor people, or better yet, just imprison or kill them all, that way they don't take from the salt of the earth that are the final arbiters of who is worthy of voting?
Send me a plan. I'll consider it. All options are on the table.
 

Zaratsu

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
358
Location
Eastern Connecticut
DC does not NEED national representation. It does need, and get local representation. The residents of DC would not enjoy any additional benefits with voting representation. They have the needs of a city, not a state. Making DC have the same representation as a state would possibly give precidence for other cities with "special needs" to become treated like states. NYC would be the first possible option that comes to mind.

Also, no matter what side you are on, you have to pretty much give in to accepting that DC would put democrats in office over and over again unopposed.

It is amazing that people do not understand the idea of a republic and seating the government in a politically disinterested entity. If DC residents want to vote in a presidential election, there are 50 states that they can move to where they can do it. They are better off without it with politicians the way they are these days.
 

ibagli

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
973
Location
Ohio
DanTSX said:
DC does not NEED national representation.
Why does anybody need it?

DanTSX said:
Making DC have the same representation as a state would possibly give precidence for other cities with "special needs" to become treated like states. NYC would be the first possible option that comes to mind.
NYC already has representation in Congress. NYC has several Congressional districts that lie completely within its city limits. Should those be taken away?

DanTSX said:
Also, no matter what side you are on, you have to pretty much give in to accepting that DC would put democrats in office over and over again unopposed.
Not an argument. You can't make people second-class citizens because you don't agree with their vote.

DanTSX said:
It is amazing that people do not understand the idea of a republic and seating the government in a politically disinterested entity.
I understand the idea and think it's moronic. I think we could get a long perfectly fine without it, and they've voted in Presidential elections for 40 years now, so they aren't "politically disinterested."

DanTSX said:
If DC residents want to vote in a presidential election, there are 50 states that they can move to where they can do it.
They already can vote in presidential elections. See the Constitution. I'm talking about Congress. And people shouldn't have to move out of the capital city of a country that calls itself democratic in order to have a vote in their own congress.

Most of DC isn't used for government purposes. It's been over 200 years since it was founded. The rest should be given back to Maryland or given a vote in the House. I understand not giving it a vote in the Senate (though I'm not a big federalist myself), but the House is the chamber of the People, not the chamber of the cities, states, or anything else.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top