Gravitymaster 0 #76 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. So you support the beating of wives and children. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. If you read post #42 and then the ensuing arguments, you will agree it was well deserved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 150 #77 December 11, 2011 QuoteWe can't go around living in fear of the absolute extreme,... Actually people do that every day, whether or not it is 'right' or even related to this thread. gay rights, religion, terrorism, war on drugs. Fear is one of the largest motivating factors in the USA politically IMO, so extreme stances are a reality and yet people tend to defend the 'free country' but live far from it. Voting is a simple right. Again there is NO, NONE, ABSOLUTELY ZERO statistical or reality basis to say that a felon voting is going to inappropriately or negatively affect the outcome of any election. Or same for insane or idiots. Or for teenagers, or for any other demographic that you might propose. And therefore I am for voting for everyone of the age of majority or 18 or even 16; bar none, even running for office, even running for President. It is up to the people to decide who they want as their leaders, not up to the legislature to decide who can and cannot run or vote. This is a fundamental basis for true democracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #78 December 11, 2011 You would change your view if you read up on the history of Chicago when gangsters ran everything including electing their own politicians. Of course, that's the way it is today, it's just not as blatant with the public acts of violence that occured in the past. Thanks, but I prefer to keep unrepentent gangsters out of our political system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #79 December 11, 2011 QuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #80 December 11, 2011 QuoteGiven your line of reasoning, if the voters want to elect Hu Jintao, President, what's wrong with that? Excluding the obvious constitutional issues, what is wrong with that? And how would such an outcome be linked to felon's votes?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #81 December 11, 2011 Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. Meh, wouldn't matter much in my case since I use the ballot like one big parlay slip...my picks usually win. However this may be the first year I lose since I'm most likely writing in Ron Paul, but I'm getting like 45/1 on my money...not bad for a guy that might pull through...Newt is at 50/1 and according to Georgiadon he's the front runner!btw, when did you become such a troll?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,368 #82 December 11, 2011 Quotethere are plenty of places that have corrupt governments where felons cannot vote. I put it to you that there is little, if any statistical correlation or causation to suggest that felons voting would in ANY WAY change that. If you are American, you already earned the right to vote. The right to vote should be absolute. No one and no government should be able or allowed to take that away from you, period. This is my belief and it is the cornerstone of democracy. If you allow rules to come into play, then you also allow those 'rules' to be expanded and perhaps to no end - allowing the population that is able to vote to itself become a 'popular vote'. not my kind of democracy. and the number of felons, even if they all unionized for one candidate, would hardly make a difference, And the impossibility of ALL felons deciding to vote for one candidate (or even being able to due to geography) makes this pretty much a moot point. You are trying to fix a problem that does not exist, much like all the 'alleged voter fraud' reasons of late for tightening the rules. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud yet we pass legislation to restrict it just in case there is. I think we have bigger fish to fry. And no, i would not be coming back crying about all the crooked politicians - as I am already doing that today - i.e. there would be no change likely in my stance, again reinforcing my point. I'm not completely opposed to allowing those with a felony conviction to vote. And I always believed rights aren't "earned." Earned implies you have to do something in order to get them. All I had to do to have the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution was to be born here (and I didn't have any choice in that matter). I was just answering the question about criminal gangs organizing and electing other criminals to office. And there was massive election fraud in Chcago during those times too. And I'm pretty sure (although I could be wrong) that during the worst of the Chicago political corruption, convicted felons weren't allowed to vote."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #83 December 11, 2011 Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. So you support the beating of wives and children. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. Lawyer: Do you or do you not still beat your wife and children? Respondent:.... Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #84 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #85 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #86 December 11, 2011 Quote And I always believed rights aren't "earned." Earned implies you have to do something in order to get them. ...All I had to do to have the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution was to be born here (and I didn't have any choice in that matter). So, I have to assume that you are opposed to having to register for gun ownership. You want to own weapons? You have to earn the right by registering. You want to vote? You have to earn the right by registering. You want to XXX? You have to earn the right by YYY. Welcome to the U.S.A.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #87 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,368 #88 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuote And I always believed rights aren't "earned." Earned implies you have to do something in order to get them. ...All I had to do to have the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution was to be born here (and I didn't have any choice in that matter). So, I have to assume that you are opposed to having to register for gun ownership. You want to own weapons? You have to earn the right by registering. You want to vote? You have to earn the right by registering. You want to XXX? You have to earn the right by YYY. Welcome to the U.S.A. I don't have to register to own firearms in any way, shape or form. Not in Wisconsin. I can purchase any (legal) weapon in a private party purchase without any government involvement. I know a couple people who have purchased all their firearms from private individuals. The government has no idea that they have any guns. That's a little bit too paranoid for my taste, but that's their decision. If I purchase from a FFL holder (gun dealer), I have to fill out the paperwork and submit to a background check, but even that isn't registration. The background check info is supposed to be destroyed after a period of time to prevent it from being used for registration purposes. If I wish to carry a concealed weapon in public, I have to obtain a license to do so, but that is to establish a minimum of training (and it really is a minimum in Wisconsin) and pass a background check. The weapon that I choose to carry isn't required to be registered at all. And registering to vote is far more establishing that I am eligible to exercise that right than doing anything to earn it."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #89 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #90 December 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument. It's pretty apparent that you are incapable of even understading my argument. Apparent to everyone but you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #91 December 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument. It's pretty apparent that you are incapable of even understading my argument. No, see that's just not true. That's just you lashing out because you can't defend your nonsense argument. Why is it you think your 'feeling disenfranchised' () argument applies when you're talking about felons but not when you talk about any other voting block?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #92 December 11, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument. It's pretty apparent that you are incapable of even understading my argument. No, see that's just not true. That's just you lashing out because you can't defend your nonsense argument. Why is it you think your 'feeling disenfranchised' () argument applies when you're talking about felons but not when you talk about any other voting block? Because I haven't talked about any other voting block. Thanks for proving my point that you are incapable of understanding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #93 December 12, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd for the latter, let's not forget the person has to commit a rather serious crime to start. It's not like your going to go 5 mph over the speed limit and suddenly lose your right to vote.Not necessarily. In some jurisdictions you can lose your right to vote for as little as $250 (quote from this source): "For example, in Massachusetts under penalties specified in MGL Chap. 266: Sec. 127,[16] a prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250.[17] Some people would argue that $250 is excessively low and that since this dollar amount has not risen for many years, even damaging another's radio or cell phone could result in losing one's right to vote. If the dollar thresholds are not increased by law (or indexed to inflation), a conviction for what is effectively very little money could result in losing one's right to vote." Don Well, I would certainly be willing to look at what felonies should and should not lose the right to vote. I think there's a world of difference b/w say, $300 dollars in property damage and capital offenses. But I'm certainly against the idea of allowing *all* felons to vote, as that would include some of the most heinous out there which as far as I'm concerned, have lost the right to get a say in how others ought to live, what taxes they should pay, etc.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #94 December 12, 2011 In Canada prisoners are allowed to vote if they are scheduled to be eligible for parole during the mandate of the government being elected. The idea being that they cannot be denied the vote if they may spend any time in the society during the mandate. I disagree with that and would prefer it that someone should be finished their sentence (including probation) before having their franchise reinstated. This would mean that murderers would never get it back as the sentence for murder in Canada is life with parole eligibility determined by the degree of the murder. I see no problem with the courts removing your voting rights at the same rate they removed your liberty. Sadly the Supreme court of Canada did not ask my opinion before issuing their judgement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #95 December 12, 2011 The point is you have to earn your rights by jumping through the hoops for having the permission from the goobermint in some form. Your residence in Wisconsin has no bearing on that. Bringing up "under the table" transactions not applicable. Can you think of any constitutional rights that you can exercise freely without goobemint clearance?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #96 December 12, 2011 I don';t know if anyone has mentioned this already... WTF? There are a whole bunch of idiots and insane people voting in Kentucky! No different than any other state!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 December 12, 2011 QuoteBringing up "under the table" transactions not applicable. Person to person transactions aren't 'under the table' and are entirely applicable.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,368 #98 December 12, 2011 QuoteThe point is you have to earn your rights by jumping through the hoops for having the permission from the goobermint in some form. Your residence in Wisconsin has no bearing on that. Bringing up "under the table" transactions not applicable. Can you think of any constitutional rights that you can exercise freely without goobemint clearance? I'm not sure what you mean by "under the table." Private party purchases are perfectly legal. At least they are here in Wiscsonsin, they aren't everywhere. That's why I made the statement. Wisconsin has no provision for registration of guns or owners. There's no "Firearms Owner Identification Card" or weapons registry (again, other places have these things). Again, I know a few people who have fairly extensive weapons collections, all of which were (100% legal) private party purchases. There was zero government involvement. And while there is a provision for licensing concealed carry, it is legal to open carry with no permit, permissions or government involvement. None. So (again, here in Wisconsin but not necessarily everywhere) it is perfectly legal to exercise the right to keep and bear arms with absolutely zero government clearances."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,279 #99 December 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument. It's pretty apparent that you are incapable of even understading my argument. No, see that's just not true. That's just you lashing out because you can't defend your nonsense argument. Why is it you think your 'feeling disenfranchised' () argument applies when you're talking about felons but not when you talk about any other voting block? Because I haven't talked about any other voting block. Then the whole 'feeling disenfranchised' angle is meaningless begging the question since it only applies if you've already decided felons shouldn't be able to vote. Thanks for proving you're incapable of understanding logic. Please ty again later.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #100 December 12, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote So you support criminals voting for other criminals. Got it. Thanks for clarifying your position. And you support banning members of religious groups from voting. seems like we're all on the same page. I do? News to me. You know how important it is that people don't feel disenfranchised. Imagine supporting a non-mormon in Utah! Pathetic and lame. Exactly. It's your argument. It's pretty apparent that you are incapable of even understading my argument. No, see that's just not true. That's just you lashing out because you can't defend your nonsense argument. Why is it you think your 'feeling disenfranchised' () argument applies when you're talking about felons but not when you talk about any other voting block? Because I haven't talked about any other voting block. Then the whole 'feeling disenfranchised' angle is meaningless begging the question since it only applies if you've already decided felons shouldn't be able to vote. Thanks for proving you're incapable of understanding logic. Please ty again later. Your hatred of religion is well documented. Too bad it blinds you to the point that you think criminals equate to religion. But if you want to continue to attempt to make your foolish points, by all means, don't let me stop you. I'm getting quite a laugh at your expense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
