Independence from the British Empire

[ArtDrake]

Yes, but does DC have Congressional representation? None in the Senate, I'm afraid.

[Deagonx]

Because it isn't a state >_<

It remains an independent jurisdiction.

[ArtDrake]

All the more reason it should be independent!

If it doesn't get states' rights, then shouldn't it revolt?

[Deagonx]

-facepalm-


Are you really believing what you are saying? You really aren't proving a point.

[ArtDrake]

You really aren't proving a point either. Do you believe what you're saying about America being justified to revolt? I'm actually trying to emphasize the (relatively small) level of absurdity in your stance in this debate by emphasizing its absurd implications on today's world.

Didn't you get that?

[Deagonx]

Oh yes, ofcourse. Lets compare one city not having representation in congress to something the size of britain not having representation of congress.


Enough with these ignorant linguistic games. There is no correlation other than that this one city does not have representation in parliament.


Well boohoo for those people??

[SmartyPants]

It is true that people in DC aren't represented fully in Congress, but it doesn't seem to be a big deal to the people living there.   I am sure that if they demanded more voting rights more actively such as petitions with loads of signatures and lobbyist, then they would be granted more voting rights.  If they fail every diplomatic option, then I do think they have the right to succeed. 

[ArtDrake]

@deagonx

Just so you know, the linguistic games themselves cannot be ignorant, the United States does not have a parliament, the British Empire didn't have a congress, and all of the American colonies had representation in the Continental Congress; America was not the size of Britain, and it was significantly larger than England; "in" and "fact" are two separate words, and "infact" is not one; the District of Columbia isn't a city, but rather is a district; you made my point precisely with your "boohoo", saying it was unreasonable to complain about not having representation in Congress, therefore by extension, it is unreasonable for any jurisdiction to complain about not having representation in a legislative body.

@im2smart4u:

Just a silly bit of trivia, but d'you happen to know what's on their license plate?

[Deagonx]

There are very few things that bring me to this point, but there is nothing to say.



What you are trying to say is entirely to idiotic to respond to. The situations aren't even remotely similar.

=_=

[bugfartboy]

Okay... Let's try to avoid hate speech. Please. I like it here. :'(

I sorta get where DeagonX is coming from, but... Well... He sorta ruined his argument.

[Deagonx]

Hes just using a run-around with word play to try and prove his point.


Just trying to twist my words for something to argue with, because he is so far down in this argument that it is all that he has.

That, and bad analogies.

[ArtDrake]

No. This just happens to be the path you've chosen. You accepted defeat in all other regards, but I believe you are the one who chose to pursue this line of argument. It could only last so long, and finally I had you agree to a point that was, in fact, analogous to another point I was trying to make.
Next up, you just responded to something that was, in your own words, "idiotic to respond to." You rather set yourself up there.
The situations are quite similar in the point of discussion you have chosen, in that you were referring to the lack of Parliamentary representation as a reason for revolt.
And about the word twisting -- that's what good debators do.
Fifth: do you have an apostrophe key? I don't see you use apostrophes or quotation marks much, instead favoring the quote button. Just a friendly inquiry.
I did prove my point.

And finally, don't diss the analogies, man. Not cool.

[SmartyPants]

@im2smart4u:

Just a silly bit of trivia, but d'you happen to know what's on their license plate?

IDK, what?

[Deagonx]

No. This just happens to be the path you've chosen. You accepted defeat in all other regards, but I believe you are the one who chose to pursue this line of argument. It could only last so long, and finally I had you agree to a point that was, in fact, analogous to another point I was trying to make.
Next up, you just responded to something that was, in your own words, "idiotic to respond to." You rather set yourself up there.
The situations are quite similar in the point of discussion you have chosen, in that you were referring to the lack of Parliamentary representation as a reason for revolt.
And about the word twisting -- that's what good debators do.
Fifth: do you have an apostrophe key? I don't see you use apostrophes or quotation marks much, instead favoring the quote button. Just a friendly inquiry.
I did prove my point.

And finally, don't diss the analogies, man. Not cool.

Oh, yes indeed. These situations are sooo similar.


America in the 1700s: No representation in parliament, heavy taxing, neglect from leader, no choice of leader, no say in what goes on
DC: No representation in Congress.


Yeah they should leave. mmmhmm. Totally.

[ArtDrake]

Seriously not trying to prove anything here, but it says:



Which is why I got a small chuckle out of hearing you say that the DCers don't protest; it's true, they don't demonstrate, but they do have a bit of a passive thing going on.

@deagonx, I think you're leaving out some key details. Let me make this a bit easier.

	Them	Others
America in 1700s	No representation in Parliament, heavy taxing after a war on their continent, leader's attention somewhere else, no choice in leader, no representation in Parliament	Representation, moderate taxing after a war, leader's attention partially on them, no choice in leader, representation
DC now	No representation in Congress, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, No representation in Congress	Representation, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, Representation in Congress

Let's see the the results. America was being snubbed representation, a bit of tax, some of their leader's attention, and say in laws (that is to say, representation).
DC is being snubbed representation and say in lawmaking. So if Obama stopped attending to DCites, and cut taxes for the states, they might be justified in revolt.

Now, of course, this isn't quite an accurate comparison. America's treatment by the rest of Britain wasn't just becuase of inattentiveness, and the DCites aren't having regular skirmishes with the military. (don't bring a snowball to a gunfight)