tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post5336916352735743000..comments2024-02-14T06:26:09.116-05:00Comments on Frozen Tropics: CP: A Gas Station Grows Near H StreetUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-22141284726975777762012-05-23T01:05:59.147-04:002012-05-23T01:05:59.147-04:00don't get lonely, Wasingtonienne....my weekend...don't get lonely, Wasingtonienne....my weekends just last longer than those of normal men. You might think your leisurely days of selling access to yourself are representative of the human experience, but you are wrong. I push myself, constantly, to achieve things that a rent boy drinking pedialite can only begin to imagine. So, rest up, drink some fluids and apply some salve, and get ready for KNOWLEDGE.<br /><br />Or, just keep on keepin' on, and be a conclusory little hussy. Either way. It's all good.tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-80466233186981508332012-05-21T11:18:45.415-04:002012-05-21T11:18:45.415-04:00I think Tubbs was speaking metaphorically, Washing...I think Tubbs was speaking metaphorically, Washingtonian. He's a bombastic jerk, but your literalism, in all respects, is just as stultifying.H. Lamarrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-29260873136066341892012-05-21T10:44:19.129-04:002012-05-21T10:44:19.129-04:00@tubbs
I wasn't worried about you or you bein...@tubbs<br /><br />I wasn't worried about you or you being wrong.<br /><br />You're wrong about me going to Georgetown Law too, but hey, you might as keep this wrong streak rolling.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-51397888775232693752012-05-21T00:52:50.622-04:002012-05-21T00:52:50.622-04:00meh, Bleh...I'm always right, and I'm alwa...meh, Bleh...I'm always right, and I'm always an asshole. I pride myself on consistency. <br /><br />Washingtonian!!! WASHINGTONIAN!!!! COME OUT AND PLAY!!!!!<br /><br />You ready to talk about STATEHOOD? We're about to talk about STATEHOOD all up in this bitch! But, not until after the weekend. <br /><br />Jesus, seriously, get yourself something better to do on a Saturday morning other than worrying about me and then being wrong about constitutional stuff.<br /><br />I bet you looked cute as a button in your "Georgetown Law" shirt while you munched on a bagel at the coffee shop, though!tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-27416963096888057352012-05-19T13:01:09.347-04:002012-05-19T13:01:09.347-04:00Why do you bother to engage Tubbs? Sometimes he&#...Why do you bother to engage Tubbs? Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. But right or wrong, he's always an asshole, and isn't worth the trouble.blehnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-17134599105158790852012-05-19T11:08:30.453-04:002012-05-19T11:08:30.453-04:00@tubbs
And nothing in the 23rd Amendment override...@tubbs<br /><br />And nothing in the 23rd Amendment overrides Congress' Article IV power to admit New Columbia as a state. Or use its District Clause powers to shrink the federal center and admit the remainder as New Columbia. <br /><br />You're done here.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-71484833880994788162012-05-19T11:00:18.443-04:002012-05-19T11:00:18.443-04:00@tubbs
You literally can't read at all. My se...@tubbs<br /><br />You literally can't read at all. My second post in our exchange read "If a constitutional amendment was required to admit a state into the union..."<br /><br />Admitting a state isn't addressed at all in the District Clause, it's addressed in Article IV. You didn't "give" me anything. What you did was read my first statement, saw "District Clause", ignored what I said about "like every other state in the union" (admitted via the power enumerated in Article IV), provided an irrelevant link about whether Congress could provide voting representation (a wholly separate issue from statehood), then pretended you gave me the idea that I suggested at the BEGINNING of our exchange. <br /><br />You keep talking about "voting rights" not statehood, because you apparently are rehashing an argument you had with a straw man in a farm field one day...SMH. <br /><br />Statehood. Something not referred to in the District Clause. Something clearly referred to in Article IV. Read. Then reply. In that order.<br /><br />Actually, don't reply. You haven't written anything worth reading yet. <br /><br />Sadly, you can't point out one source that outlines why Congress *couldn't* use its Article IV power to admit the District as a state. Since you can't, you fell into hopeless ad hominem attacks and the old dismissive "lulz" Internet poster snark. SMH. You have no argument. Good day.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-61519395631331817432012-05-18T18:03:22.188-04:002012-05-18T18:03:22.188-04:00oh, and don't forget about the 23rd Amendment....oh, and don't forget about the 23rd Amendment. Or is the reason you didn't address that one because I didn't provide you with a source you could crib from and then pretend like you already knew what was going on.tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-32469605832002991832012-05-18T17:55:49.547-04:002012-05-18T17:55:49.547-04:00lulz, not cool to act like you knew anything about...lulz, not cool to act like you knew anything about that theory before I pointed you to it, dude. And your posts didn't "conflate" anything, they just showed that you didn't really know what you were talking about right from the start.<br /><br />It's Friday, and I need to prepare my basement for this weekend's water play, but I'll get back to you. For now, I'll leave a teaser:<br /><br />Your arguments re: the District Clause rest on hyper-literalism that would make even Scalia blush; you need to read Article IV more closely and with a more nuanced eye toward the constitutional issues at play than you've yet show an ability to do, and you might want to educate yourself with sources other than those I've gifted to you.<br /><br />P.S., I'll put my ad hominem attacks where I like, thank you very muchTubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-74060050024317231602012-05-18T17:25:14.053-04:002012-05-18T17:25:14.053-04:00@ tubbs
You might find the first sentence of Arti...@ tubbs<br /><br />You might find the first sentence of Article IV, Section 3 helpful: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union..." since you brought up Article IV like it isn't the central part of my argument.<br /><br />Good thing voting DC into the union doesn't do any of these things: "but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."<br /><br />You were saying?washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-13430243893973620632012-05-18T17:18:08.076-04:002012-05-18T17:18:08.076-04:00@tubbs
I realize this exchange might have gotten ...@tubbs<br /><br />I realize this exchange might have gotten off on the wrong foot b/c my initial post appears to conflate the power of Congress to admit new states into the union with the District Clause (which they would need to use to shrink the federal center, so that the separate nature of the seat of federal government could be maintained). Typed too fast, resulting in you finding an article about the District Clause that didn't directly relate to what I intended to be my original point. Okay, back to work now.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-8362972646842051982012-05-18T17:08:24.346-04:002012-05-18T17:08:24.346-04:00@tubbs
Congress could use its District Clause aut...@tubbs<br /><br />Congress could use its District Clause authority to shrink the federal center to the White House, US Capitol, and National Mall, then use its authority to admit new states into the union to vote in the surrounding land as New Columbia.<br /><br />I'm not tilting at "voting rights windmills" because (1) I'm talking about statehood, not voting rights (2) I'm actually engaged in work that has nothing to do with statehood at the moment, hence why I had no time *during the workday* to read the rather long piece you linked to in its entirety. Be easy, my employer doesn't pay me to read your links at length. I did read quite a bit of it, enough to know that it doesn't address what I'm talking about directly...the bulk of it deals with whether Congress can legislate the provision of a voting representative to the District, which is separate and apart from what I'm talking about.<br /><br />ps: Leave the ad hominem attacks somewhere else.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-22977590529683480702012-05-18T17:03:34.992-04:002012-05-18T17:03:34.992-04:00Hey funboys, get a room.Hey funboys, get a room.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-11743567509352982382012-05-18T16:21:38.146-04:002012-05-18T16:21:38.146-04:00oh, goodness. You want to make even sillier argume...oh, goodness. You want to make even sillier arguments. What fun. OK, pop quiz, hot shot: how do you contend with the District Clause, Article IV issues, and the 23rd Amendment? You could be an adherent of Professor Raven-Hansen's "New Columbia" theory, but that possibility that you're even aware of that proposal is belied by the simplistic and conclusory presentation of your argument thus far.<br /><br />Tubbs dropping knowledge, yo!Tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-91920451607442814342012-05-18T15:51:06.249-04:002012-05-18T15:51:06.249-04:00dude, you obviously don't know the Constitutio...dude, you obviously don't know the Constitution like you think you do, and if you can't be bothered to read a CRS report that directly addresses an issue you profess to care about and about which you claim to be knowledgeable, it makes me glad you spend your time tilting at the D.C. voting rights windmill, as opposed to messing up things that actually matter.<br /><br />Have a nice day, you little sophist, you.tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-39304639290845491172012-05-18T15:44:15.514-04:002012-05-18T15:44:15.514-04:00@tubss pt II
To be a good sport, I looked at you...@tubss pt II <br /><br />To be a good sport, I looked at your link.<br /><br />Your link is about congressional representation, which is already guaranteed to all states. I was talking about statehood, which could be achieved via a majority vote in Congress.washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-89328724820950610642012-05-18T15:41:50.976-04:002012-05-18T15:41:50.976-04:00@tubbs
If a constitutional amendment was required...@tubbs<br /><br />If a constitutional amendment was required to admit a state into the union, we'd have dozens more amendments than we have now because (surprise!) we've added 37 states since the original 13 colonies formed the union. Unless your link goes to the U.S. Constitution, which I've already read, I have no idea how you, um, want me to "come at you".washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-83105985898361591132012-05-17T09:37:00.886-04:002012-05-17T09:37:00.886-04:00Do they have to listen to the community to come wi...<i>Do they have to listen to the community to come with suggestions as to what it acceptable to put in this location? No. This is their property and <b>within the law</b> they can do whatever the freak they want with it.</i><br /><br />Just thought I'd point out the part where your argument dissolves into tautology. No one's arguing that this property be illegally taken from its owner, just that the existing laws and regulations be applied in as crushingly narrow fashion as the law allows.oboenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-32880557065569801822012-05-16T22:18:17.011-04:002012-05-16T22:18:17.011-04:00Is it more than a little annoying to ask and answe...Is it more than a little annoying to ask and answer 10 of your own questions in a blog comment? Apparently not. Does it betray a lack of self-awareness or common courtesy for the reader? You betcha.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-42062701300877320212012-05-16T20:58:38.202-04:002012-05-16T20:58:38.202-04:00Could something more interesting there? Yes. But ...Could something more interesting there? Yes. But did someone who wanted to put something more to your taste buy it? No. <br /><br />Is this their property? Yes. Do they have to listen to the community to come with suggestions as to what it acceptable to put in this location? No. This is their property and within the law they can do whatever the freak they want with it. It may make it easier for them if they are a "good neighbor" and play nice, but sometimes even that isn't good enough for people who just don't want whatever it is.<br /><br />Is this a great location for a gas station? Maybe - it depends on who you ask. Is this a great use of the space? Again maybe - it depends on who you ask. <br /><br />Should neighbors make sure that the owner is complying with permits, rules, regs, etc.? Yes. Should they be concerned? Yes. Should they complain about this location not being something they want? It's a free country so sure, why not. Do I care how this plays out? Not really - mostly becuase I just get damn tired of listening to people complain about how property owners/developers are not doing what people in the neighborhood want, they way they want it as if that was they were the single most important decision maker(s). New day, new development drama. If you fight everying like it "the most important decision ever" that in essence nothing is important at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-48220113143504769982012-05-15T11:53:56.415-04:002012-05-15T11:53:56.415-04:00@Karin R said.
EPA is now giving brownfield/greyf...@Karin R said.<br /><br />EPA is now giving brownfield/greyfield grants to pay for the clean up. No longer a barrier to redevelopment of old gas station sites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-30729021837510263132012-05-15T11:25:29.170-04:002012-05-15T11:25:29.170-04:00@ Washingtonian - are ya sure? Are ya real sure?
...@ Washingtonian - are ya sure? Are ya real sure?<br /><br />http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33824_20070124.pdf<br /><br />COME AT ME, BRO.tubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-1285653797016645302012-05-15T11:08:43.652-04:002012-05-15T11:08:43.652-04:00"i.e., a constitutional amendment to give D.C..."i.e., a constitutional amendment to give D.C. formal representation"<br /><br />@anon 6:56, DC could gain statehood via an act of Congress, like every other state and under the authority vested in Congress by the District Clause. No amendment needed for a vote in Congress for DC...washingtoniannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-90449217748602437482012-05-15T10:45:58.465-04:002012-05-15T10:45:58.465-04:00Is there going to be a Shell No Redux campaign thi...Is there going to be a Shell No Redux campaign this go-round? I moved within a couple blocks of this intersection in early 2010 and I'm eager to relive the glory days of the 2008 original crusade when activism, hope, change, etc really meant something.Mrs. Apathynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8835710.post-87526058850186156172012-05-15T10:38:19.044-04:002012-05-15T10:38:19.044-04:00i 2nd thati 2nd thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com