Does America “WE THE PEOPLE” want Puerto Rico our 51 State ..WHY?
If it for political votes ...NO …. the Democrat suggesting this are Assholes and should be voted out ….

I see no reason, … no benefit, profit, security advancement, agricultural, technology, or economic justification ....nothing to justify doing this... only more cost and additional burden on the American Public.

I say ...... NO .......

http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/04/28/puerto-rico-51st-state-congress-scrambling-to-make-it-so/

They've talked about this before, haven't they? (politicians)

Does Puerto Rico want to become a state? I was under the impression they have not wanted to become a state.

If they do, I don't see why not. They've been a territory for many years. They've shed blood to defend this country.
I also think DC should be considered a state. Taxation without Representation at its finest.

It is a trick to add 2 democrat senators to immediately be able to rebuff republican filibuster efforts.

It is clever, but it is completely underhanded ----- just like everything else coming out of DC now.

November cannot get here fast enough.

Interesting that the people of PR are American citizens but can't vote.

THE4RINGZ wrote: Interesting that the people of PR are American citizens but can't vote.

Add the citizens of DC. I moved to DC in January. I have a House Rep. but no Senator. There is a reason why the DC license plates say, "Taxation without Representation"

Puetro Rico is the same, but again, I was under the impression they did not want to become a state to avoid the taxes.

THE4RINGZ wrote: Interesting that the people of PR are American citizens but can't vote.

They do vote, they have their own government.

Plus, PR has voted against becoming a state many times, they don't want to.

I think the people of PR have voted against it, but i don't really have a problem with it if they do decide that they want to become a state.

And lol @ the writer in the link complaining about us automatically becoming a bilingual nation if this happens, "like Canada." I don't really see what the problem with that is, either.

But, i am against it if the Puerto Ricans vote against becoming a state, as they have recently, and it still happens.

But, if they want it, then by all means, i have no problem with it.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Add the citizens of DC. I moved to DC in January. I have a House Rep. but no Senator. There is a reason why the DC license plates say, "Taxation without Representation"

No way should DC become a state. It would be a state that would have a distinct advantage over all others. It would hold the seat of the federal government. The founders new this and instead of allowing the federal capital to be within the borders of any state the required a federal district in the constitution. Virginia and Maryland ceded land to carve out this federal district. I believe the land Virginia ceded has been returned.

I would suggest if you want representation in the senate you can live outside of the district in Maryland or Virginia.

QuakerOats wrote: It is a trick to add 2 democrat senators to immediately be able to rebuff republican filibuster efforts.

It is clever, but it is completely underhanded ----- just like everything else coming out of DC now.

November cannot get here fast enough.

They've tried multiple times over the years and they always vote it down.

It's not like they just came up with this out of nowhere. But, there's no getting through to you so what does it matter.

ts1227 wrote:
They've tried multiple times over the years and they always vote it down.

It's not like they just came up with this out of nowhere. But, there's no getting through to you so what does it matter.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/27/puerto-rico-democracy-act-%E2%80%93-legislation-biased-in-favor-of-statehood/

You are smart enough to connect ALL the dots.

ts1227 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: It is a trick to add 2 democrat senators to immediately be able to rebuff republican filibuster efforts.

It is clever, but it is completely underhanded ----- just like everything else coming out of DC now.

November cannot get here fast enough.

They've tried multiple times over the years and they always vote it down.

It's not like they just came up with this out of nowhere. But, there's no getting through to you so what does it matter.

They've never tried it with a rigged bill like this one.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Add the citizens of DC. I moved to DC in January. I have a House Rep. but no Senator. There is a reason why the DC license plates say, "Taxation without Representation"

No way should DC become a state. It would be a state that would have a distinct advantage over all others. It would hold the seat of the federal government. The founders new this and instead of allowing the federal capital to be within the borders of any state the required a federal district in the constitution. Virginia and Maryland ceded land to carve out this federal district. I believe the land Virginia ceded has been returned.

I would suggest if you want representation in the senate you can live outside of the district in Maryland or Virginia.

Exactly, but don't use logic/reason in this thread full of opinion .

There's a reason when it was first "created" the District was made/annexed from land that was half MD and half VA. Modern DC is now really just from the original land annexed from MD, but it really doesn't matter now.

There is a reason DC is not a state, if you want respresentation move a couple miles either direction and live in MD or VA.

I lived in College Park for a summer while interning in D.C., that was ok, but would much rather live in D.C. if i am working there...if i can afford it.

jmog wrote:

THE4RINGZ wrote: Interesting that the people of PR are American citizens but can't vote.

They do vote, they have their own government.

Plus, PR has voted against becoming a state many times, they don't want to.

Winner!!!!

cbus4life wrote: I think the people of PR have voted against it, but i don't really have a problem with it if they do decide that they want to become a state.

And lol @ the writer in the link complaining about us automatically becoming a bilingual nation if this happens, "like Canada." I don't really see what the problem with that is, either.

But, i am against it if the Puerto Ricans vote against becoming a state, as they have recently, and it still happens.

But, if they want it, then by all means, i have no problem with it.

This.

Congress has been trying to figure out what to do with PR for a long time. Unlike the other territories (Guam, American Somoa, Northern Marianas, US Virgin Islands), Puerto Rico is quite capable of existing as a state. So, the fact that it has perpetually been kept a territory has been puzzling. Alaska and Hawaii became states. The Philippines and Cuba became independent). Yet, PR is still there "None of the Above" according to their last vote. Which was a sham.

Their options were Statehood, Commonwealth (i.e., current status), Independence or None Of The Above. Which was the majority vote. They had no force with the majority being the final result of their status.

Any new vote must just say "Independence or Statehood" as the two options. No more Status Quo, and definitely no "None of the Above".

Sykotyk

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/house-approves-puerto-rico-statehood-measure/%20/?test=latestnews



More ............................................... change we can believe in ................

QuakerOats wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/house-approves-puerto-rico-statehood-measure/%20/?test=latestnews



More ............................................... change we can believe in ................

Don't worry Quaker, I'm sure the President won't sign the bill until after people have had 5 days to review and comment on the White House website.

How would making PR a state benefit our country?

Al Bundy wrote: How would making PR a state benefit our country?

How does having it as a territory benefit our country?

If they became a state, they'd pay federal income tax, for one. We already pay to protect them. We have paid for various other things. Our federal highway bills pay for some of their roads, etc.

PR has the best of both worlds. Not be independent (with all the headaches and negatives), yet doesn't have to be a state.

Their last vote didn't 'cast down' statehood. Their last vote was between four options. Independence, Commonwealth (i.e., Status Quo), Statehood, and "None of the Above". They voted just above 50% in favor of "None of the Above". Just about 47% voted for statehood. They didn't vote against statehood. They voted in favor of not having to make a decision as nobody has ever explained what other option they could have in "None of the Above". The majority didn't even vote in favor of independence or in favor to stay a territory/colony.

If we do force them to hold another vote (which is about the only way we'll decide this matter of their status), they need two choices. Independence or Statehood. If conservatives out there are against a welfare state, PR is the quintessential definition. They get the benefits of citizenship without paying federal income taxes. Either let them go free or let them vote to be a full tax-paying state of the United States.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk wrote: If they became a state, they'd pay federal income tax, for one. We already pay to protect them. We have paid for various other things. Our federal highway bills pay for some of their roads, etc.

PR has the best of both worlds. Not be independent (with all the headaches and negatives), yet doesn't have to be a state.

Their last vote didn't 'cast down' statehood. Their last vote was between four options. Independence, Commonwealth (i.e., Status Quo), Statehood, and "None of the Above". They voted just above 50% in favor of "None of the Above". Just about 47% voted for statehood. They didn't vote against statehood. They voted in favor of not having to make a decision as nobody has ever explained what other option they could have in "None of the Above". The majority didn't even vote in favor of independence or in favor to stay a territory/colony.

If we do force them to hold another vote (which is about the only way we'll decide this matter of their status), they need two choices. Independence or Statehood. If conservatives out there are against a welfare state, PR is the quintessential definition. They get the benefits of citizenship without paying federal income taxes. Either let them go free or let them vote to be a full tax-paying state of the United States.

Sykotyk

I have my doubts whether they would be paying more in federal taxes or receiving more in refunds.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: How would making PR a state benefit our country?

How does having it as a territory benefit our country?

There were miliary reasons for making it a territory after we took control of it in the Spanish-American War.

Al Bundy wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Al Bundy wrote: How would making PR a state benefit our country?

How does having it as a territory benefit our country?

There were miliary reasons for making it a territory after we took control of it in the Spanish-American War.

How is that relevant to today?