Gothamite Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 New York has considered seceding from New York State in the past. We don't have much in common with the upstate, and the city gets far less money back from the Feds as it pays in taxes. Who knows, it could still happen one day. I guarantee you this will never happen."Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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."--Article IV of the ConstitutionAnyway, what happened to those guys who claimed they owned the trademark for "Washington Nationals"? Did they settle or lose or what?Oh, I'll grant that's it's very unusual, and not likely to happen (and as I said, I'm not sure it's a very good idea in any case), but it's certainly possible.There was a time when upstate would have been glad to see us go. Have a long enough recession, or if perception of the city's crime goes too far out of proportion again, and it could well happen. Congress would have to approve, as you mention, but a gerrymandering Congress might do it if they saw a chance to increase the dominant party's representation in the Senate (Democrats to insure NYC isn't cancelled out by the more conservative upstate, Republicans to insure that upstate isn't cancelled out by the more liberal City).I believe "those guys" lost in court, being essentially squatters. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbasalmon Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 New York has considered seceding from New York State in the past. We don't have much in common with the upstate, and the city gets far less money back from the Feds as it pays in taxes. Who knows, it could still happen one day. I guarantee you this will never happen."Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states 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."--Article IV of the ConstitutionAnyway, what happened to those guys who claimed they owned the trademark for "Washington Nationals"? Did they settle or lose or what?Oh, I'll grant that's it's very unusual, and not likely to happen (and as I said, I'm not sure it's a very good idea in any case), but it's certainly possible.There was a time when upstate would have been glad to see us go. Have a long enough recession, or if perception of the city's crime goes too far out of proportion again, and it could well happen. Congress would have to approve, as you mention, but a gerrymandering Congress might do it if they saw a chance to increase the dominant party's representation in the Senate (Democrats to insure NYC isn't cancelled out by the more conservative upstate, Republicans to insure that upstate isn't cancelled out by the more liberal City).I believe "those guys" lost in court, being essentially squatters. Slightly interesting side note - there was a question on NYS's own teacher certification exam for social studies this year about how the creation of the borough system in NYC was meant to do basically the same thing for state politics that you mention for federal politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totc Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Why didn't they just call them the Senators in the first place? Perhaps because Washington, D.C. doesn't have voting representation in the House and Senate? Same with Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa, and Palau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pharos04 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 The name Senators probably has to do with the fact that DC is where all Senators of the country do meet up and it's where they do live and work. Despite the fact of them not having one for themselves they do have 100 within the city which is unique of all the other cities.and totc, i think Micronesia and Palau dont' have representatives is cause they are their own countries respectively Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Why didn't they just call them the Senators in the first place? Perhaps because Washington, D.C. doesn't have voting representation in the House and Senate? Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysr92 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I love the curly W. Hope they will change the nickname, I always love the old fashioned Senators script. i dont mind the curly "W", but it doesnt go wit the current uniform at all, however, the interlocking "DC" looks really good wit there current jerseys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablo de Tejas Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 It'd be like if the Devil Rays moved to Portland, Tampa Bay got a new expansion team, and then named it the Devil Rays AGAIN. The Devil Rays are moving to Portland? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY They won three pennants and a championship. More than my team can say. More than many teams can say, for that matter. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed? "When the renegade Players League dissolved after the 1890 season, most of the league's player contracts were assigned to National League and American Association clubs, mostly to their previous clubs provided they had been "reserved" by their former teams' owners. Highly-regarded second baseman Lou Bierbauer, who had previously played with the Philadelphia Athletics of the Association, was awarded to the Pittsburgh team on the grounds that the A's had not reserved him. This led to loud complaints by the Athletics that the Pittsburgh club were "pirates". This incident (which is discussed at some length in The Beer and Whisky League, by David Nemec, 1994) quickly accelerated into a schism between the leagues that contributed to the demise of the A.A. The colorful epithet stuck with the Pittsburghers, and eventually became the club's official nickname. It was first acknowledged on the team's jerseys in 1912, but even by the 1903 World Series, "Pirates" was in common usage."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Pi...e_team.27s_name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griffelh Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed? The Red Sox do not actually wear red sox for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY Yeah, they did have a history of losing, so they were worthless. I mean, if they would have had a "beautiful" ivy-covered beer garden to go along with their history of losing, they would be "storied" like your Cubbies, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed? The Red Sox do not actually wear red sox for that matter. Yes they do, they have since 2003. OK, technically they wear red SOCKSThe White Sox do not wear white socks. Theirs are black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richm Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 The only part of the Nationals uniform I actually like is the cap, even though it doesn't fit with the block lettering of the rest of the uniform. I'm not wild about the name Nationals either, would have much preferred Senators... but it really isn't right I guess, if DC doesn't actually have a senator.I like the red alternate jersey... it's much better than the red/blue/gold combination. But I'd love to see just a basic white uniform, red trim, with "Nationals" in script, maybe outlined in blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 You can see the block W hat in the first post of this thread. It's not my photobucket account, so I'm not comfortable reposting it here.Here it is (my pic):I appreciate your courtesy, Gothamite.This guy is a photographer, possibly for the Washington Post. I work as a reporter at RFK and I see him all the time in the press dining area. I should probably ask him about it... Tomorrow's just your future yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 If you see him, that would be great. I'd love to know where he got it. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BallWonk Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 If you see him, that would be great. I'd love to know where he got it. Me too. If the Nats wore that they'd have easily one of the three or so best ballcaps in all of baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 WHO CARES THE SENATORS WERE A WORTHLESS TEAM ANYWAY They won three pennants and a championship. More than my team can say. More than many teams can say, for that matter. I was referring to the second version of the Senators, which did a whole lot of nothing. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 At a minimum the Nats should change the MLB logo on their hats and jerseys. Blue and gold? WTF? That's even more stupid than the Pirates' black and red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griffelh Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Pittsburgh doesn't have pirates, should they be forced to have their name changed? The Red Sox do not actually wear red sox for that matter. Yes they do, they have since 2003. OK, technically they wear red SOCKSThe White Sox do not wear white socks. Theirs are black. No, the Red Sox wear Red Stirrups, not red sox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.