Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-23-2004, 12:07 PM   #41 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by onetime2
So you have evidence that this was intentional then?
Notice the phrase "intentionally or not" in my earlier sentence. Since we have no way of knowing if it was intentional, the suspicious disbursement of mistakes on the felon rolls forces race into the issue. This is particularly galling given that the exact same thing happened four years ago.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 12:15 PM   #42 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Simple possession is usually not a felony, especially in the case of marijuana. Arguable about being vicitmless, but I at least agree on that part.

Felony possession is usually tied with intent to sell, far from victimless.

I would guess that it would be a royal pain in the butt to separate out the felonies as to whether the priviledge of voting should be retained or not.

I stand on my original point. If you are committing a felony then you are probably aware of the reprecussions, but don't care. Simple way to keep your right to vote: don't commit a felony, any felony.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 12:29 PM   #43 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Simple possession is usually not a felony, especially in the case of marijuana. Arguable about being vicitmless, but I at least agree on that part.

Felony possession is usually tied with intent to sell, far from victimless.
Simple versus felony possession is only a small difference of quantity and the amount differs from state to state. Also, if one friend buys pot from another, is he a victim?

Quote:
I would guess that it would be a royal pain in the butt to separate out the felonies as to whether the priviledge of voting should be retained or not.

I stand on my original point. If you are committing a felony then you are probably aware of the reprecussions, but don't care. Simple way to keep your right to vote: don't commit a felony, any felony.
Well, thankfully only 14 states agree with you and believe that committing any felony at all deserves lifelong punishment. Hopefully you live in one.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 12:43 PM   #44 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Ustwo,

It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up scenarios where stripping the right to vote from a felon seems overly harsh. How about a 17 year old busted for marijuana? If that is the only crime that they ever commit then should they be denied the right to vote their entire life? Therre are mechanisms for felons to have their voting rights restored in some states, but according to your view, felons do not deserve to have said rights restored. To take your example further, how serious does disrespect for the law/society have to be before someone's rights are stripped? Many of us willingly violate the traffic laws of society on a daily basis...should we also be disenfranchised? I know that the analogy is a bit ridiculous, but so are hard-line statements that tar every former felon as a societal malcontent that deserves no say.
I don't care what the crime is... that's why there's FELONY and MISDEMEANOR... here in NYC it's a MISDEMEANOR for pot possession up to 1 ounce...

don't do the crime if you can't do the time. PERIOD. Youth, ignorance, etc, is no excuse. Accept responsibility for your actions, when I found myself on the wrong side of the law, I made sure that I didn't get a felony conviction and just a misdemeanor because I understood what a felony would do to me. Some people don't care about their future. I care about mine.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 12:44 PM   #45 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
cthulu23,

huh?!?

Doesn't a criminal record stay with a person for their entire life in all 50 states? Isn't that a form of punishment....having a record that follows you wherever you go? Should we get rid of that too?

I guess I just have a hard time defending someone who has committed a crime. I think we should be more worried about preventing crime and punishing criminals then whether or not a convicted felon gets to vote or note.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 12:55 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Criminal records may follow you but "extra" punishment above and beyond the prison sentence is up to the states (I think). No one is arguing that we should throw away criminal records, so we can put that straw man aside.

If anyone here thinks that an ounce of weed should equal a lifetime punishment than I have to respectfully disagree with them. Thankfully, it seems that the majority of the states aren't quite so draconian in viewpoint.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 01:45 PM   #47 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I do not find it surprising that democrats want felons to vote.

I'm sure rapists, murderers, thieves, and lairs are all welcome with open arms. Maybe they could form groups like 'Killers for Kerry', or 'Rapists for Truth'.

Do you remember food eater lad? I hear echos of his presence.
filtherton is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:06 PM   #48 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Criminal records may follow you but "extra" punishment above and beyond the prison sentence is up to the states (I think). No one is arguing that we should throw away criminal records, so we can put that straw man aside.

If anyone here thinks that an ounce of weed should equal a lifetime punishment than I have to respectfully disagree with them. Thankfully, it seems that the majority of the states aren't quite so draconian in viewpoint.
gawd the straw man comment is really getting overused here.

First, carrying a criminal record is a punishment. Carrying an ounce of marijuana, in any state, is a crime. This is not draconian, it is the law.

2 + 2 = 4

Loss of voting priviledges is only one of the many reprecussions of committing a crime. The "lifelong punishment" comments are being used to elicit emotion. This is not an emotional issue. It is a personal responsibility issue.

There are only two answers here:

1) Don't commit a crime, specifically a felony.

or

2) Work to change the law.

Until then, everything else is just blather.

Cynthetiq said it best.

Unless you are forced to commit a felony, you commit the act of your own free will. Any rights lost because of this action are only the fault of the person committing the crime and I won't lose any sleep over it.

/this doesn't negate the point that the felony list must be maintained and accurate.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:11 PM   #49 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Incidentally, people who get out of prison vote 9x% democratic, so the democratic party DOES have an interest in allowing felons to vote.

A documentary that pertains to this is called "Unprecedented." It is about the 2000 election fiasco and it has a decidedly anti-Bush bias, but if you awtch it with a discerning eye, you can see that both sides tried to "steal" the election in their own ways, such as Gore only wanting recounts in counties where it would likely give him MORE votes, but not wanting recounts over the rest of Florida where he may have taken a hit.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 09-23-2004 at 02:15 PM..
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:15 PM   #50 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
KMA-268,

The straw man comment was perfectly acceptable given that you were bringing up a non-related issue into the discussion and foisting it upon me.

I never claimed that possession of marijuana isnt a crime, nor did I claim that 2 + 2 != 4 (thanks for the math refresher). I mention "lifelong punishment" because that is exactly what disenfranchisement amounts to and that is what I was referrring to as draconian. You can react emotionally if you wish.

By pointing out the flaws in a law, am I not, in a sense, doing something to change it? Anyway, if you want to ban "blather," than I suspect that the tfproject will be not be long for this world, particularly the political forum. "How can you complain about [issue x]? Go out and change it!"

All in all, this is not the most important idea that was being discussed in this thread. I find the disenfranchisement of innocent people much more compelling. What do you think?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:19 PM   #51 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Incidentally, people who get out of prison vote 9x% democratic, so the democratic party DOES have an interest in allowing felons to vote.
Although I am definitely curious about where you got that number, if it is accurate than you could just as easily say that the Republicans have an interest in NOT letting felons vote.

Let's forget party here, though. Issues of civil rights and citizenship are much more important. Do I have to mention that I'm not a registered Democrat and I organized for Nader last election? I only mention that because this thread has been littered with accusations of democratic propaganda from moment 1.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:25 PM   #52 (permalink)
Bokonist
 
Location: Location, Location, Location...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Moveon.org just accused Bush of causing the hurricanes, so I'd hope it comes from a real source.
Wha? Where? When? I dont see that on their site...
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut
zenmaster10665 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:25 PM   #53 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Although I am definitely curious about where you got that number, if it is accurate than you could just as easily say that the Republicans have an interest in NOT letting felons vote.
This is very true and I don't disagree one single bit. I got this number from one of two places (I don't remember PRECISELY). It was either mentioned IN the documentary that I pointed out in my previous post, which I watched in one of my poli sci classes, or it was mentioned in the discussion afterwards by the poli sci teacher who had as watch the documentary. I'm pretty sure it was IN the documentary though. Nonetheless, I can't see any reason why she'd provide us with that statistic one way or another if it were incorrect, considering that she is self-described as far left of even the democrats and is also a major political statistics junkie (we spent the entire first week of class simply looking at various government statistics).

I'm not defending or disproportionately accusing either side here. I think both sides try to do what they can to unjustly "obtain" elections, and it sickens me.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:28 PM   #54 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't see how it would be difficult to verify the criminal record of someone on the list. That information is easily available to law enforcement agencies.

Are there any legitimate numbers on this issue?
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:40 PM   #55 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
All in all, this is not the most important idea that was being discussed in this thread. I find the disenfranchisement of innocent people much more compelling. What do you think?
that's where the flaw is...from disenfranchising them to death penalty...that's why there are so many appeals etc because if there isn't reasonable doubt then a conviction must happen, even if the person is truly innocent.

there's people who say to work to change it... well those people who got disenfrancised are the ones who need to spread the word, to make those ignorant people less ignorant and to be wary of their position and what can happen to them. But as far as I'm concerned the dice have been cast and they don't get another chance, they should make it known and use their plight to scare people straight.

IMO that still won't work because of the apathy people have towards getting involved in the government.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:50 PM   #56 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Cynthetiq,

There is always the question of what rights can the government legitimately strip away from a citizen. As mentioned by another poster, most other western industrialized nations have no such law, not to mention that neither do a majority of the US states. Is this a reasonable state power? Citizens are forced to abide by the social contract no matter what so shouldn't the rights that are implicit within our social contract be inalienable from us? But we are drifting far afield from the original topic of this thread.

One last point: expecting the least powerful in a society to radically alter it is a bit unfair.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 02:58 PM   #57 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Allen, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Cynthetiq,

There is always the question of what rights can the government legitimately strip away from a citizen. As mentioned by another poster, most other western industrialized nations have no such law, not to mention that neither do a majority of the US states. Is this a reasonable state power? Citizens are forced to abide by the social contract no matter what so shouldn't the rights that are implicit within our social contract be inalienable from us? But we are drifting far afield from the original topic of this thread.

One last point: expecting the least powerful in a society to radically alter it is a bit unfair.
A government either recognizes or does not recognize a right. It can not remove the right, but only fail to respect it.

As for your last point, it is unreasonable to expect rapid radical change except in response to drastic emergencies. However, it is not unreasonable to chart goals that may be radically different than today's position, but which we can begin to take steps toward achievement of.
jb2000 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:20 PM   #58 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't see how it would be difficult to verify the criminal record of someone on the list. That information is easily available to law enforcement agencies.

Are there any legitimate numbers on this issue?

From the alternet article linked earlier in this thread:

Quote:
The Miami Herald revealed that the state issued faulty felon purge lists containing the names of 48,000 people it said were ineligible to vote. Among these were 2,100 who actually were eligible voters.
Those numbers apply to this year. I'm having a hard time dredging up exact numbers from the 2000 election, but here's a link to the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the election in Florida:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

Their conclusion? therer wre many irregularitites and actions by the state of Florida that resulted in the disenfranchisement of many citizens. To focus on those wrongfully accused of being felons, the state required that the IT firm that searched their voting databases for felons need an accuracy rate of 90%. The firm countered that it could increase accuracy to 99.9%, but Florida demured. A 10% error rate is not acceptable in matters such as these. Why would florida drop the ball so badly and so negligently?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:22 PM   #59 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb2000
As for your last point, it is unreasonable to expect rapid radical change except in response to drastic emergencies. However, it is not unreasonable to chart goals that may be radically different than today's position, but which we can begin to take steps toward achievement of.
I am a complete believer in the possibility of social change, but expecting change to be accomplished solely by the poor/ignorant (not my word) may be expecting too much.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:32 PM   #60 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Citizens are forced to abide by the social contract no matter what so shouldn't the rights that are implicit within our social contract be inalienable from us?
no. if they broke laws and harmed others, they why should their rights triumph over those they harmed? If there is no teeth to back it up then what's the point?

That's why IMO the Three Strikes Laws are fine... 3 chances.. you can't figure that out by the third time, then that's a shame even if the third time was petty compared to the first two... it's still 3 times.

back to the thread.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 09-23-2004 at 03:36 PM..
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 03:46 PM   #61 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
no. if they broke laws and harmed others, they why should their rights triumph over those they harmed? If there is no teeth to back it up then what's the point?

That's why IMO the Three Strikes Laws are fine... 3 chances.. you can't figure that out by the third time, then that's a shame even if the third time was petty compared to the first two... it's still 3 times.

back to your thread.
Well, I hate to continue threadjacking, but.....

The "teeth" in law enforcement are jails, prisons or the death penalty (as well as community service, fines, etc). There is a reason that the phrase "inalienable" was used to describe our rights as citizens in the Declaration of Independence. Stripping someone of their most meaningful method of influencing government is a scary proposition, and one the seems downright un-American. What about unjust laws or miscarriages of justice? Seeing the world in black and white terms may simplify things but it in no way reflects reality.

As for the 3 strikes laws, it's nonsense such as them that has turned America into the greatest jailer in the world. Along with mandatory minimum sentences, 3 strikes is taking away a cornerstone of any reasonable legal system; judicial discretion.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:15 PM   #62 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Its a lie of the left to 'scare' blacks into voting.

Never any proof, never any substance, never anything but lies.

It gets old.
As soon as Ann Coulter writes about, I'll be sure to post it for you.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:27 PM   #63 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it. It comes across from partisan from the Democratic side when these proposals are brought up in states that are in the red column. As far as I know, I don't see any of the blue states with this proposal. If I am wrong, please correct me, but it comes across like the Democrats want to pull electoral votes from the Republicans but they don't want to risk losing any of their own.
Why would you vote on something based specifically on a partisan methodology instead of the issue itself?

If you do not support electoral vote splits, you should vote against it and oppose it in all other states (start with the Red if you like). If you do support electoral vote splits, you should vote for it - and then support it in all other states (start with the Blue if you like).

But to just vote against something because someone from a different political party suggested it is an obscene affront to the concept of voting.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:31 PM   #64 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
don't do the crime if you can't do the time. PERIOD. Youth, ignorance, etc, is no excuse. Accept responsibility for your actions
So ... if you commit a felony before the voting age of 18, you feel you're still liable for the rest of your life?

If you're not old enough to be given the right to vote - how can you be old enough to understand what it means that a crime you are committing is going to eliminate your right to vote?
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:33 PM   #65 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I don't care what the crime is... that's why there's FELONY and MISDEMEANOR... here in NYC it's a MISDEMEANOR for pot possession up to 1 ounce...

don't do the crime if you can't do the time. PERIOD. Youth, ignorance, etc, is no excuse. Accept responsibility for your actions, when I found myself on the wrong side of the law, I made sure that I didn't get a felony conviction and just a misdemeanor because I understood what a felony would do to me. Some people don't care about their future. I care about mine.
How did you ensure your conviction was just a misdemeanor? Do you mean when you carried you were always sure to have less than an ounce, or that when you got caught with more than an ounce you struck a deal for misdemeanor, like informing on your dealer?
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:48 PM   #66 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
Why would you vote on something based specifically on assue its partisan methodology instead of the ielf?

If you do not support electoral vote splits, you should vote against it and oppose it in all other states (start with the Red if you like). If you do support electoral vote splits, you should vote for it - and then support it in all other states (start with the Blue if you like).

But to just vote against something because someone from a different political party suggested it is an obscene affront to the concept of voting.
you're kidding, right?

Your response to my post has nothing to do with what I said. You might want to re-read my post and edit yours or post again.

Let me recap:

1) From what I can tell, it is only being proposed in states that Kerry is losing in or that Gore lost in 2000.

2) It should be all or none. I would not vote for this measure AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST.

3) The fact that this measure is proposed in a state like Colorado and not even considered in California reaks of partisian politics. Obviously the Democrats want to take from the Republican column but will not even consider the reverse.

You are right, you should be 100% for it or 100% against it in all states, but that is not the issue here.

Where did I say I would vote on it based on "partisan methodology instead of the issue itself"?

Last edited by KMA-628; 09-23-2004 at 04:51 PM..
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:50 PM   #67 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
So ... if you commit a felony before the voting age of 18, you feel you're still liable for the rest of your life?

If you're not old enough to be given the right to vote - how can you be old enough to understand what it means that a crime you are committing is going to eliminate your right to vote?
Again, you're kidding, right?

Any crimes committed while a minor are null and void after your 18th birthday. They have no bearing on your ability to vote unless you did something so severe that you are tried as an adult.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 04:59 PM   #68 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hannukah harry's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
no. if they broke laws and harmed others, they why should their rights triumph over those they harmed? If there is no teeth to back it up then what's the point?

That's why IMO the Three Strikes Laws are fine... 3 chances.. you can't figure that out by the third time, then that's a shame even if the third time was petty compared to the first two... it's still 3 times.

back to the thread.
how is letting them vote allowing their rights to triumph over those they harmed?
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer
hannukah harry is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:01 PM   #69 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Again, you're kidding, right?

Any crimes committed while a minor are null and void after your 18th birthday. They have no bearing on your ability to vote unless you did something so severe that you are tried as an adult.
Actually, the age of legal adulthood as far as the criminal justice system in most states is concerned is 17. Some states go lower (really), but I can't think of any that go higher. does anyone else know any details about this?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:03 PM   #70 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
you're kidding, right?
No.
Quote:
You are right, you should be 100% for it or 100% against it in all states, but that is not the issue here.
The issue is, you have an opportunity to support either splitting the electoral votes or not splitting the electoral votes. Instead of voting based on that issue, you have decided to vote anti-Democrat.

If you support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote for it because there is not other method for you to cast a vote for states splitting their electoral votes.

If you do not support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote against it.

You have not claimed either position - but you have, twice now, mentioned your displeasure with the "fairness" of Democrats.
Quote:
Where did I say I would vote on it based on "partisan methodology instead of the issue itself"?
Where did you say you were not going to vote for it because you do not support it at all?

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-23-2004 at 05:12 PM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:08 PM   #71 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Again, you're kidding, right?
Again, no.

Quote:
Any crimes committed while a minor are null and void after your 18th birthday. They have no bearing on your ability to vote unless you did something so severe that you are tried as an adult.
We're talking about felonies. In general, they are severe. If severity has a bearing here - maybe we need to judge the seriousness of any given election in order to determine how old one must be in order to partake. But we don't - we set an absolute cut-off of 18 or older. We do not apply that same logic to "trying someone as an adult". Apparently, someone under 18 can "prove" their adulthood by commiting a crime - but they can never prove their adulthood in order to vote. And yet we still apply the same disenfranchisement by virtue of their proof of adulthood via crime.

That's ridiculous.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:10 PM   #72 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it.
Here is what I originally wrote.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:15 PM   #73 (permalink)
Loser
 
This is what you wrote. And I know this because I already quoted you once on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it. It comes across from partisan from the Democratic side when these proposals are brought up in states that are in the red column. As far as I know, I don't see any of the blue states with this proposal. If I am wrong, please correct me, but it comes across like the Democrats want to pull electoral votes from the Republicans but they don't want to risk losing any of their own.
Your explanation for voting against it is that it is only coming up in a Blue state.

That's you voting on an issue because it benefits Democrats in this case - not because of the issue itself.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:23 PM   #74 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
maybe it would have made more sense if I added a paragraph, but the last part of what you quoted is not my reasoning about why i am against it. I am stating that I don't like the way it is being presented. It is bogus in its nature.

You are ignoring the games behind this proposal.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:38 PM   #75 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
So ... if you commit a felony before the voting age of 18, you feel you're still liable for the rest of your life?

If you're not old enough to be given the right to vote - how can you be old enough to understand what it means that a crime you are committing is going to eliminate your right to vote?
yes. there are things that I did in my youth that I am liable for today...from cheating on tests to getting suspended in school for fighting. May not be the magnitude, but the idea is still the same.

If you get AIDS before you are 18 should you be given a second chance??? It's VERY simple....maybe it fits better if it's in bold...

Accept responsibility for your actions.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:42 PM   #76 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
There is no real analogy that can be made between AIDS and the criminal justice system. Hell, I hope you have a lttile sympathy for AIDS victims. Anyway, see my earlier post about a black and white perception of the world.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:47 PM   #77 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMA-628
maybe it would have made more sense if I added a paragraph, but the last part of what you quoted is not my reasoning about why i am against it. I am stating that I don't like the way it is being presented. It is bogus in its nature.

You are ignoring the games behind this proposal.
And yet I still have no clue if you support splitting electoral votes or not.

But I do know that you do not support splitting electoral votes in a Blue state if it is an initiative of Democrats.

I see very little difference between what you are doing and what you accuse the Democrats in your state of doing. Political manipulation for specific partisan ends instead of benefits to society.

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-23-2004 at 06:31 PM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:48 PM   #78 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
yes. there are things that I did in my youth that I am liable for today...from cheating on tests to getting suspended in school for fighting. May not be the magnitude, but the idea is still the same.

If you get AIDS before you are 18 should you be given a second chance??? It's VERY simple....maybe it fits better if it's in bold...

Accept responsibility for your actions.
I'm going to start another thread, because this would be going way off-topic - but this AIDS/responsibility/disenfranchisement thing is too much to just let pass.

But I will say that you are not making your case by repeating the apparently magical phrase "accept responsibility for your actions". Are all mistakes inexcusable? Apparently, they are - if making one mistake is enough to eliminate your right to vote forever. Why not just lock up anyone convicted of a crime forever? Being imprisoned is the punishment for a serious crime, it is a punishment that typically has a time limit - where is the connection with perpetual disenfranchisment?

Last edited by OpieCunningham; 09-23-2004 at 06:15 PM..
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 05:52 PM   #79 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Criminal sentences are not handed down by God. They are meted out by humans. Saying that someone should be punished doesn't mean that any type of punishment whatsoever is justified. What if the US government wanted to reinstitute stoning or crucifixion? Should we just "accept responsibility" then and lie back?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-23-2004, 11:34 PM   #80 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
I'm going to start another thread, because this would be going way off-topic - but this AIDS/responsibility/disenfranchisement thing is too much to just let pass.

But I will say that you are not making your case by repeating the apparently magical phrase "accept responsibility for your actions". Are all mistakes inexcusable? Apparently, they are - if making one mistake is enough to eliminate your right to vote forever. Why not just lock up anyone convicted of a crime forever? Being imprisoned is the punishment for a serious crime, it is a punishment that typically has a time limit - where is the connection with perpetual disenfranchisment?
I was asked my opinion. That's what it is. I'm not making a case for changing your mind. I'm saying ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

Whatever the consequences of your actions bear, that's what that means. Simple, if it happens to mean in 1950s that you are ostracized from the community, or in 2000s where the community is more permissive and forgiving. Or in the 1800s where marijuana or cocaine possession was legal, to the current past 20 year war on drugs. Times change. Viewpoints change. Laws change.

I have a few friends that died of AIDS. How did they contract it? A permissive gay lifestyle. Simple. They did not ask for it, it's what was a possible consequence for the lifestyle they lead and they lived very full lives up until their deaths.

Even a 14 year old who impregnates a girl may not fully understand the ramifications of the actions, but there is a consequence that must be accepted along with a responsibility. The concept I am trying to express is simple, we may not know what ALL the consequences are for all our actions, but we must be willing to accept the responsibility that there are some consequences to our actions, good or bad, temporary or permanent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Criminal sentences are not handed down by God. They are meted out by humans. Saying that someone should be punished doesn't mean that any type of punishment whatsoever is justified. What if the US government wanted to reinstitute stoning or crucifixion? Should we just "accept responsibility" then and lie back?
If you did nothing to combat it, then yes, lie back and accept the responsibilty of your actions, in this case inactions. The US government does not do things in a vaccum. There's time to discuss, implement, execute, study, and sometimes upon discovering new things not working return to previous methods. Since the governement is composed of humans, it's safe to say they will make mistakes, and humans will then have to correct them.

As a believer in survival of the fittest, life is not fair. Plain and simple. Is that black or white? No it's not, there's many factors that come into play, but ultimately each day the lion has to run faster than the slowest antelope, and
conversely the fastest antelope only has to run faster than the slowest lion.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Last edited by Cynthetiq; 09-23-2004 at 11:38 PM..
Cynthetiq is offline  
 

Tags
disenfranchised, voters


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360