Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 

Quote

Sen. Tom Cotton argued on Thursday that Wyoming, which he called a "well-rounded working-class state," is more deserving of statehood than the District of Columbia, even though the nation's capital has more citizens.

"Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population, but it has three times as many workers in mining, logging and construction, and 10 times as many workers in manufacturing. In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded working-class state. A new state of Washington would not be," the Arkansas Republican said on the Senate floor.

Advocates of DC statehood point to the fact that residents pay taxes to the federal government but don't have representation in the US Senate and only have one non-voting delegate representing them in the US House. But Cotton argued that Democrats are only pushing for DC statehood so they can "have two new Democratic senators in perpetuity" and to "rig the rule of our democracy."

And there it is: Cotton says representative government is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

The Great State of Wynona would also be an acceptable answer for such a big politically red expanse.

wynonna-dancing-with-the-stars-032613.jp

Would... not tell you about it unless asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If D.C. becomes a state I hope they name it something original like "North Virginia."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m going to say this slowly for the people in the back:  700,000 American citizens who share the exact same rights and responsibilities as the people on this page do not have the right of say over their own locality, or a vote in Congress.  There is literally a DC Appropriatons Subcommittee that has  virtual dictorial control over the lands and residents there in.  Any rights DC residents have are given and can be taken by Congress, and to a lesser degree, the President, at any time. 
 

While retrocession makes much sense, it’s complicated by the fact Maryland doesn’t want DC AND DC doesn’t want Maryland.  Store you’re “the Founder’s believed X about the capital” in your asshole.  They also counted black people as 3/5 of a human being in a cynical congressional districting argument.
 

The largest federal agency is actually housed and staffed in a state, not DC, and yet we manage to military just fine even though the pentagon is in Virginia, not some artificial plot of land that supposed to be neutral. 

 

The primary reason over retrocession for making DC a state is it would add two Democrat Senators. Mitch McConnell would have broken the filibuster and brought DC in as a state 10 minutes after Trump was sworn in if it guaranteed two extra GOP senators.  
 

The fight over bringing in states to change the political make up of the Congress was at the core of the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850.  Ultimately it was structural reason for the Civil War.  If your a Democrat, DC Statehood should be priority 1,2, and 3.  

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

pretty sure this whole thing boils down to one unarguable fact - stupid people really really like round numbers.

So combine Oklahoma and Arkansas into one big state called Crapahomasas, or just Hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bookman said:

If D.C. becomes a state I hope they name it something original like "North Virginia."

Well, there's the elephant in the room.  For decades the name of the new state was gonna be "Columbia."  

Good luck getting that to pass right now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DC residents should have some ability to vote for representation and similar control over their future that I have.  Joining Maryland makes sense to me ... or maybe giving them a rep and allowing them to vote in Maryland's Senate elections, although I can't claim to understand the politics of the area.

However, I'm not sure statehood is fair to many of the rest of us.  Austin has a million residents and no serious influence in the Senate.  Texas citizens have one senator per 14,000,000 people and DC would have one senator per 350,000 people, a ratio of 40:1. Solve the Senate problem and it's a lot more reasonable to me.  Without that solution it seems like DC would go from no representation to an outsized influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Texas Jeff said:

The DC residents should have some ability to vote for representation and similar control over their future that I have.  Joining Maryland makes sense to me ... or maybe giving them a rep and allowing them to vote in Maryland's Senate elections, although I can't claim to understand the politics of the area.

However, I'm not sure statehood is fair to many of the rest of us.  Austin has a million residents and no serious influence in the Senate.  Texas citizens have one senator per 14,000,000 people and DC would have one senator per 350,000 people, a ratio of 40:1. Solve the Senate problem and it's a lot more reasonable to me.  Without that solution it seems like DC would go from no representation to an outsized influence.

Yep. If dc can be a state, Why not Houston, nyc, or Chicago?  Hell. Let’s go full on Holy Roman Empire and get us some Free Cities in the house.  Sorta makes sense if you think about it. Why should city folk be at the mercy of country bumpkins? 

Edited by Xian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go ahead and combine Puerto Rico and USVI into a Caribbean state and the pacific territories into a Pacific state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

The DC residents should have some ability to vote for representation and similar control over their future that I have.  Joining Maryland makes sense to me ... or maybe giving them a rep and allowing them to vote in Maryland's Senate elections, although I can't claim to understand the politics of the area.

However, I'm not sure statehood is fair to many of the rest of us.  Austin has a million residents and no serious influence in the Senate.  Texas citizens have one senator per 14,000,000 people and DC would have one senator per 350,000 people, a ratio of 40:1. Solve the Senate problem and it's a lot more reasonable to me.  Without that solution it seems like DC would go from no representation to an outsized influence.

Split Texas in half. I would love to get away from the asshole state reps from ft worth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I’m going to say this slowly for the people in the back:  700,000 American citizens who share the exact same rights and responsibilities as the people on this page do not have the right of say over their own locality, or a vote in Congress.  There is literally a DC Appropriatons Subcommittee that has  virtual dictorial control over the lands and residents there in.  Any rights DC residents have are given and can be taken by Congress, and to a lesser degree, the President, at any time. 
 

While retrocession makes much sense, it’s complicated by the fact Maryland doesn’t want DC AND DC doesn’t want Maryland.  Store you’re “the Founder’s believed X about the capital” in your asshole.  They also counted black people as 3/5 of a human being in a cynical congressional districting argument.
 

The largest federal agency is actually housed and staffed in a state, not DC, and yet we manage to military just fine even though the pentagon is in Virginia, not some artificial plot of land that supposed to be neutral. 

 

The primary reason over retrocession for making DC a state is it would add two Democrat Senators. Mitch McConnell would have broken the filibuster and brought DC in as a state 10 minutes after Trump was sworn in if it guaranteed two extra GOP senators.  
 

The fight over bringing in states to change the political make up of the Congress was at the core of the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850.  Ultimately it was structural reason for the Civil War.  If your a Democrat, DC Statehood should be priority 1,2, and 3.  

Tom Cotton figures if it was relevant to Arkansas they woulda called it the Arkansas compromise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Xian said:

Yep. If dc can be a state, Why not Houston, nyc, or Chicago?  Hell. Let’s go full on Holy Roman Empire and get us some Free Cities in the house.  Sorta makes sense if you think about it. Why should city folk be at the mercy of country bumpkins? 

People’s Republic of Austin motherfuckers. I’m down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the process for Puerto Rico to become a state? Is it as simple as legislation passed by the Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 2:36 PM, henrygandorf said:

pretty sure this whole thing boils down to one unarguable fact - stupid people really really like round numbers.

I would be down with kicking out Kentucky and their two jackass senators to keep things even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Xian said:

Yep. If dc can be a state, Why not Houston, nyc, or Chicago?  Hell. Let’s go full on Holy Roman Empire and get us some Free Cities in the house.  Sorta makes sense if you think about it. Why should city folk be at the mercy of country bumpkins? 

That's what the House is for.

The structure is not a problem. There are two problems related to this issue. The first is that no American citizen should be deprived of representation. If you're a citizen, you should have elected representatives in both chambers.

The other is that the House needs a shitload more representatives in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Store you’re “the Founder’s believed X about the capital” in your asshole.  They also counted black people as 3/5 of a human being in a cynical congressional districting argument.

Well, shit, we might as well just trash the whole fucking Constitution.  Clearly, every idea in it was as bad as 3/5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, swraith said:

What would be the process for Puerto Rico to become a state? Is it as simple as legislation passed by the Congress?

Yes.  Literally that simple. They just need to ask.  And that’s the trick: it’s not clear whether the Puerto Ricans want to become a state.  

They should become a state or be cut loose to become an independent nation.  

 

 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, shit, we might as well just trash the whole fucking Constitution.  Clearly, every idea in it was as bad as 3/5.

The idea that the current Capitol District should exist as a non democratically represented entity controlled by congress with no say in its own governance is wrong. Full Stop. 
 

Also: there’s a reason when we set up foreign governments, it doesn’t look like our own.
 

The founders were just men. Rich, white men with a self interest in maintaining the status qou. Nothing more. Treating them as all seeing oracles 230+ years later is both nonsensical and often self serving.

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

The idea that the current Capitol District should exist as a non democratically represented entity controlled by congress with no say in its own governance is wrong. Full Stop. 
 

Also: there’s a reason when we set up foreign governments, it doesn’t look like our own.
 

The founders were just men. Rich, white men with a self interest in maintaining the status would. Nothing more. 

I’m a pretty big cynic, and I support your cause, but were you born in DC or did you move there of your own free will knowing what you were getting into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

I’m a pretty big cynic, and I support your cause, but were you born in DC or did you move there of your own free will knowing what you were getting into?

I moved. And allowed to vote in Texas because I worked for a Texas member.  Congress exempts itself from the lack of representation it imposes on native DC residents. 
 

The vast bulk of DC residents are born and raised in the district, don’t work in government, and live their lives without a vote.  They are eligible for the draft, serve and die in the military, and pay the same federal taxes you do. I live in Maryland now.

You can argue that DC should retrocess into Maryland.  You can argue for statehood.  You can’t argue DC residents shouldn’t have full suffrage. 
 

We literally sacrificed trillions of dollars and thousands of America  lives to give Iraqi’s rights we don’t Give to 700k American citizens.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I moved. And allowed to vote in Texas because I worked for a Texas member.  Congress exempts itself from the lack of representation it imposes on native DC residents. 
 

The vast bulk of DC residents are born and raised in the district, don’t work in government, and live their lives without a vote.  They are eligible for the draft, serve and die in the military, and pay the same federal taxes you do. I live in Maryland now.

You can argue that DC should retrocess into Maryland.  You can argue for statehood.  You can’t argue DC residents shouldn’t have full suffrage. 
 

We literally sacrificed trillions of dollars and thousands of America  lives to give Iraqi’s rights we don’t Give to 700k American citizens.

 

 

 

 

I don’t disagree with anything you said there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The idea that the current Capitol District should exist as a non democratically represented entity controlled by congress with no say in its own governance is wrong. Full Stop. 
 

Also: there’s a reason when we set up foreign governments, it doesn’t look like our own.
 

The founders were just men. Rich, white men with a self interest in maintaining the status qou. Nothing more. Treating them as all seeing oracles 230+ years later is both nonsensical and often self serving.

Those are all valid or arguable points.

But your argument about 3/5 threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I assume the residential portions of DC at one time housed only or mostly government employees.  How did the District get such a population?  And why is it mostly black?

Actually, the black population of DC is declining and has been since 1970.

I don't really give a fuck about the government hangers on that live there, which have to be a significant chunk of the population.  They have options.

I do give a shit about the less-privileged, who can't move.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

That's what the House is for.

The structure is not a problem. There are two problems related to this issue. The first is that no American citizen should be deprived of representation. If you're a citizen, you should have elected representatives in both chambers.

The other is that the House needs a shitload more representatives in it.

I still don’t understand what the issue is with the residential neighborhoods joining Maryland.  I mean, what’s the downside? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Xian said:

I still don’t understand what the issue is with the residential neighborhoods joining Maryland.  I mean, what’s the downside? 
 

I suppose they aren't contiguous and while there are many very nice ones, there are also some real ghettos.

I did read that DC has the highest rate of gentrification of any place in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do other countries deal with representation for their capital federal districts? I can think of three off the top of my head that have a special designation for theirs: Australia, Brazil, and Mexico. So far as I know, the vast majority of countries don't have some special status for their capitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Those are all valid or arguable points.

But your argument about 3/5 threw the baby out with the bathwater.

I assume the residential portions of DC at one time housed only or mostly government employees.  How did the District get such a population?  And why is it mostly black?

Actually, the black population of DC is declining and has been since 1970.

I don't really give a fuck about the government hangers on that live there, which have to be a significant chunk of the population.  They have options.

I do give a shit about the less-privileged, who can't move.

Are you for real? Are you honestly arguing different citizenship castes?  But you have inadvertently made an eloquent argument for shrinking the capital district down to an area covering the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court and giving the rest back to Maryland or Statehood.  

My point about the 3/5 is not that we should just dispense with everything in the constitution. 
 

We shouldn’t fetishize the founders and just assume decisions they made 200+ years ago are still correct. DC Is one of many compromises that is wrong now. It was put under federal control because rebellions within the new states were so common that it was thought a federalized area could be better secured against local insurrection. Essentially the founders got tired of being harassed by armed mobs every time they gathered in Philadelphia.
 

Alexandria was given back to Virginia because it was a major slave trading center and it got caught up in the antebellum fight about slavery. 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bolverk said:

How do other countries deal with representation for their capital federal districts? I can think of three off the top of my head that have a special designation for theirs: Australia, Brazil, and Mexico. So far as I know, the vast majority of countries don't have some special status for their capitals.

I’ve been to Canberra.  It’s about the most sterile and boring place in Australia.  
 

The district and Maryland are pretty much contingous.  On the west side you slide in and out pretty much without even being aware.  The east side is bordered by Eastern Ave.  Anacostia is also not as clearly defined.  The Eastern half is much poorer and diverse than the area west of Rock Creek Park.  There are some mild cultural differences between suburbs and the city itself, but the main hang up about retrocession is between DC and greater Maryland (Baltimore, Annapolis, Eastern Shore). They are just not culturally synched. 
 

Again: it’s a political question really. IF you are republican, you should be arguing for retrocession.  If you are a Democrat, statehood.  If you are saying they shouldn’t have suffrage, you just don’t believe in equal representation. 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the fucking constitution creates DC as a non state region and sets out how its to be governed the issue seems pretty cut and dried to me. 
That said- if you are really worried about the rights of its citizens to be governed then giving the residential pet to Maryland doesn’t seem problematic- other than I’d like to see if it actually could be sliced up in such a way that this would be feasible. 
I don’t see why PR would want statehood as they’ve already got all the perks of citizenship more or less without paying federal taxes, and they can move whenever they want, but if they want in as a state that seems to be their prerogative, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I’ve been to Canberra.  It’s about the most sterile and boring place in Australia.  
 

The district and Maryland are pretty much contingous.  On the west side you slide in and out pretty much without even being aware.  The east side is bordered by Eastern Ave.  Anacostia is also not as clearly defined.  The Eastern half is much poorer and diverse than the area west of Rock Creek Park.  There are some mild cultural differences between suburbs and the city itself, but the main hang up about retrocession is between DC and greater Maryland (Baltimore, Annapolis, Eastern Shore). They are just not culturally synched. 
 

Again: it’s a political question really. IF you are republican, you should be arguing for retrocession.  If you are a Democrat, statehood.  If you are saying they shouldn’t have suffrage, you just don’t believe in equal representation. 

I’m not a Republican, but I’m for retrocession. DC  shouldn’t be a state.  Puerto Rico absolutely should and has been fucked over. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Puerto Rican’s pay taxes, just not federal income taxes. They still pay payroll taxes. I believe they actually have one of the higher overall tax burdens. It’s an old wives tale that it’s some sort of low tax paradise, unless you have an exceptionally clever accountant. 
 

PR’s issues are that is doesn’t get any of the perks of being a state while having -additional burdens, like an inability to declare bankruptcy or trade freely, and other issues. Keeping it as a territory is both profoundly undemocratic and economically cruel. Either bring them in so they have two senators to defend their rights, or Make them an independent nation so they can at least devalue their new currency, dispense with the crushing debt, and start fresh. 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

Are you for real? Are you honestly arguing different citizenship castes?  But you have inadvertently made an eloquent argument for shrinking the capital district down to an area covering the White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court and giving the rest back to Maryland or Statehood.  

My point about the 3/5 is not that we should just dispense with everything in the constitution. 
 

We shouldn’t fetishize the founders and just assume decisions they made 200+ years ago are still correct. DC Is one of many compromises that is wrong now. It was put under federal control because rebellions within the new states were so common that it was thought a federalized area could be better secured against local insurrection. Essentially the founders got tired of being harassed by armed mobs every time they gathered in Philadelphia.
 

Alexandria was given back to Virginia because it was a major slave trading center and it got caught up in the antebellum fight about slavery. 

First, I don't have a problem with the concept of a government district.  It makes a certain amount of sense.  But it seems like it ought to have a minimum of residential area.

As you note, the representation issue doesn't affect those working directly for the legislative branch.

If a K street mongrel chooses to live in DC to be close to the seat of power, then I don't really give a damn whether s/he is represented in Congress.  Commute to vote.

It's the little people that I care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Combine North and South into "Dakota"... problem solved.
Combine Texas and Oklahoma into "Okass" ... problem solved.

Regarding DC becoming a State, it's a non starter. Republicans would never allow 2 more blue electoral votes and Senators to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

First, I don't have a problem with the concept of a government district.  It makes a certain amount of sense.  But it seems like it ought to have a minimum of residential area.

As you note, the representation issue doesn't affect those working directly for the legislative branch.

If a K street mongrel chooses to live in DC to be close to the seat of power, then I don't really give a damn whether s/he is represented in Congress.  Commute to vote.

It's the little people that I care about.

Most K street mongrel’s live in MD or VA. Better schools.  There’s a reason the MD side of Chevy Chase has 30% higher real estate prices.

 

I profoundly disagree with your stance that because a person works in or about the federal government They should have less rights.  And I’ll leave it at that for the sake of comity.

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Combine Texas and Oklahoma into "Okass" ... problem solved.

Regarding DC becoming a State, it's a non starter. Republicans would never allow 2 more blue electoral votes and Senators to happen.

Well, they would have if it voted 80% GOP.
 

DC already has 3 electoral votes.  23rd amendment out front should have told you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Combine Texas and Oklahoma into "Okass" ... problem solved.

Regarding DC becoming a State, it's a non starter. Republicans would never allow 2 more blue electoral votes and Senators to happen.

Give is back eastern New Mexico and southern Colorado and we're good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making the residential areas of DC their own state could eventually transform that area into the wealthiest state in America. It could eventually gentrify and push out all low income residents into Maryland or Virginia.

but as the motivations of the constitution authors, I don’t think they envisioned that this many people would live in the district that they envisioned for the govt offices and buildings.  The framers of our country were short sighted in many cases and I think they knew that and didn’t care. This is why they made processes to alter it when needed and they didn’t carve it in stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Combine Texas and Oklahoma into "Okass" ... problem solved.

Regarding DC becoming a State, it's a non starter. Republicans would never allow 2 more blue electoral votes and Senators to happen.

It wouldn’t create 2 more electoral votes.  DC already has 3 and a new state would remain that way at the current population level.

Now in the case of the new district that would be carved out for the Capitol itself, technically the currently law would also give this new, smaller district the same 3 electoral votes. Presumably the White House would be only the few residences there. But congress has the right to remove that electoral votes as the amendment only give the right for DC to get the votes, it doesn’t guarantee it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




DC already has 3 electoral votes.  23rd amendment out front should have told you. 


Really? I am embarrassed not to know that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Parliament said:


 

 


Really? I am embarrassed not to know that

 

It's not talked about much in the press as basically Dems start out election night with a 3-0 lead because of DC. I think it's an automatic announced win for the Dems as soon as the polls hit the closing time. Probably gets 3 seconds of airtime that night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It's not talked about much in the press as basically Dems start out election night with a 3-0 lead because of DC. I think it's an automatic announced win for the Dems as soon as the polls hit the closing time. Probably gets 3 seconds of airtime that night.

I’d say the GOP equivalent is Idaho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It wouldn’t create 2 more electoral votes.  DC already has 3 and a new state would remain that way at the current population level.

Now in the case of the new district that would be carved out for the Capitol itself, technically the currently law would also give this new, smaller district the same 3 electoral votes. Presumably the White House would be only the few residences there. But congress has the right to remove that electoral votes as the amendment only give the right for DC to get the votes, it doesn’t guarantee it.

 

For the GOP, its about maintaining tyrannical minority control of the Senate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

For the GOP, its about maintaining tyrannical minority control of the Senate.  

This is my thing about DC statehood: it helps offset the rural slant of the Senate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is simple.  Make PR a state, and DC can be a district within it.  This ridiculous distracting has already been established and legitimized.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

First, I don't have a problem with the concept of a government district.  It makes a certain amount of sense.  But it seems like it ought to have a minimum of residential area.

As you note, the representation issue doesn't affect those working directly for the legislative branch.

If a K street mongrel chooses to live in DC to be close to the seat of power, then I don't really give a damn whether s/he is represented in Congress.  Commute to vote.

It's the little people that I care about.

Isn’t it the little people that can’t just up and move which was your original solution to the issue? Telling someone to move to obtain representation isn’t a solution no different than telling African Americans to go back to Africa is any sort of solution for racial problems.

The lines have been blurred in DC and it was not kept separate as it was originally intended. I can’t really see how them having 2 Senators puts them with some undue influence on politics, so make it a state and move on. Carve out the White House and surrounding area if it makes everyone feel better, but every American citizen deserves representation. Shit, it’s what got us to where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

For the GOP, its about maintaining tyrannical minority control of the Senate.  

Ironically, I imagine you saying that in a thundering bourbon-and-string-tie accent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 4:51 PM, shakahorn said:

My biggest question is how to put 51 or 52 white stars on the flag.  I've always thought it pretty clever how the 50 were laid out, but for the life of me I don't see how you get 51 or 52 in a nice uniform pattern.

I think we've had a little bit of experience altering the flag for new states, but I could be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...