• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

VA Gov Gives 200,000 Felons Voting Rights... 'Move to boost Clinton'...

Excon said:
Hilarious.
It is not insane. Again defective thinking was already demonstrated by the individual when they committed their crime.



No it is not an oversimplification, and unless we are dealing with an exception to the rule type of crime, the "why" does not matter to the fact that the person engaged in defective thinking and purposely committed a crime.


****ing more hilarity.
No one is speaking of a correlation.
If you are thinking that it is ok to break the law for what ever selfish purpose you have, you are engaged in defective thinking.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Paperview

Aren't you an Ex-convict?
Click to expand...


Can you find a post where I say I am?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Click to expand...

I guess it was just the thousand or so posts I've seen from you over the years where you link to your photobucket pictures - and very often my settings show only the URL address ...and your name comes up over and over as "ExConvict" on my screen.

I wonder where I'd get that idea.
 
Paperview said:
I guess it was just the thousand or so posts I've seen from you over the years where you link to your photobucket pictures - and very often my settings show only the URL address ...and your name comes up over and over as "ExConvict" on my screen.

I wonder where I'd get that idea.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Hilarious.
So what you are saying is that you like assuming. Yeah, we already knew that, still funny though.


This was already addressed once before.
1. The person who brought it up got -- well if it was you, you didn't learn the first time.
2. So again for the record.
When I went to set up a photebucket account Excon was not available so I chose one with a similar handle.

I have no problem with that and actually enjoy when people idiotically assume the worst because of my member name or because of the photobucket account.
Thanks for the laughs.


In addition, no, it is not "ExConvict".
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
:lamo
Hilarious.
So what you are saying is that you like assuming. Yeah, we already knew that, still funny though.


This was already addressed once before.
1. The person who brought it up got dinged for it. If it was you, you didn't learn the first time.
2. So again for the record.
When I went to set up a photebucket account Excon was not available so I chose one with a similar handle.

I have no problem with that and actually enjoy when people idiotically assume the worst because of my member name or because of the photobucket account.
Thanks for the laughs.


.
Click to expand...
Why would someone get dinged for asking you about a name that shows up as part of you and posts here on someone's screen?

If you're not, fine. I was asking. Your chosen name is, but you're not. OK.

In addition, no, it is not "ExConvict"
Click to expand...
I just did a search to refresh my memory -

There were 721 hits for your name with convict...and I guess I forgot to add the dash: It is "Ex-convict."

You're right tho -- ExCon and Exconvict are similar.

lol

Cherrio!
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Once punishment has been completed in full, including parole/probation, then the full of one's rights and liberties should once again be recognized and protected.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be up to the states? Right now, two states allow convicted felons to vote while incarcerated. Are we going to tell them to cut it out?
 
Paperview said:
as part of you and posts here on someone's screen?
Click to expand...
1. You should have checked the edit before posting. Not discussing moderation.

2. Someone's membership name here or at photobucket has absolutely no relevance to any discussion unless that person specifically makes it part of the discussion.
Do you not understand that?

3. So are you saying it wasn't you who brought it up previously?


Paperview said:
If you're not, fine. I was asking. Your chosen name is, but you're not. OK.
Click to expand...
This is a nonsensical reply to what I stated.
Like I said ...
I have no problem with that and actually enjoy when people idiotically assume the worst because of my member name or because of the photobucket account.
Thanks for the laughs.​



Paperview said:
It is "Ex-convict."

I guess you're right.
Click to expand...
Now you are correct.
Accuracy is your friend.
 
Caine said:
He has been governor since 2014...... Why do you suppose he started with this all of a sudden like?

Why don't you suppose he did this in 2014?, 2015?

Will he continue to sign these monthly restoration orders (article mentioned him having to do this every month as new people complete their sentences) in December?
Click to expand...

It's likely a political ploy given the Party Structure of America. But that has no bearing on my opinion. I believe that once punishment is completed in full, that the full of one's rights and liberties should once again be recognized and protected.
 
Southern Dad said:
Shouldn't that be up to the states? Right now, two states allow convicted felons to vote while incarcerated. Are we going to tell them to cut it out?
Click to expand...

I think it's a natural limitation to government force. Is States wish to lessen their force beyond that, then fine. But i believe in general that once one has completed their punishment in full, the full of their rights and liberties should be again recognized and protected.
 
Ikari said:
It's likely a political ploy given the Party Structure of America. But that has no bearing on my opinion. I believe that once punishment is completed in full, that the full of one's rights and liberties should once again be recognized and protected.
Click to expand...

Great, but why can't the states determine who they will let vote and who can't based upon criminal convictions? We have no federal elections in this country. Let the states decide.
 
Ikari said:
I think it's a natural limitation to government force. Is States wish to lessen their force beyond that, then fine. But i believe in general that once one has completed their punishment in full, the full of their rights and liberties should be again recognized and protected.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you want to take the decision from the states. Why? Because you think convicted felons will vote Democrat?
 
Excon said:
...
Someone's membership name here or at photobucket has absolutely no relevance to any discussion unless that person specifically makes it part of the discussion.
...
Click to expand...
If for years of reading a poster's commentary come up, and the name of the poster comes up over and over as "WV-Voter" if a discussion of West Virginia Voters ensues and said poster disparages WV Voters - it would have relevance to ask, "hey, aren't you a WV Voter?"

This is a discussion about Ex-Convicts.

I hope that explains it for you.
 
Paperview said:
If for years of reading a poster's commentary come up, and the name of the poster comes up over and over as "WV-Voter" if a discussion of West Virginia Voters ensues and said poster disparages WV Voters - it would have relevance to ask, "hey, aren't you a WV Voter?"

This is a discussion about Ex-Convicts.
Click to expand...
So you do need it explained to you. Figures
Personal information is never relevant to any discussion unless that person brings it up. Do you really not understand that?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, 'cause in Right Wing World, if anybody's committed a crime, they don't get to vote EVER, even after they've paid their debt to society in full.
Click to expand...

Jeez wow, sounds a lot like what left wingers want to do with gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society. Totally not a hypocrite :roll:
 
Luftwaffe said:
Jeez wow, sounds a lot like what left wingers want to do with gun rights for felons who have paid their debt to society. Totally not a hypocrite :roll:
Click to expand...

um because one is directly related to demonstrated propensity towards violence and the other tangentially related to some ephemeral notion of who "deserves" to vote, which in any case, if they "deserve" an endless punishment why were they released at all?

but you're right that a more consistent approach, and the one i favor, would be to ban gun sales to anyone with a violent disposition to prevent crime, and ban voting of anyone who doesn't know **** about the issues

which would exclude at least half of both
 
Luftwaffe said:
A right is a right.

Voting rights and gun rights are both rights.
Click to expand...

rights and the lack thereof are man made and fallible and forever a matter of contention

or they didn't teach you this in social studies yet? Figures
 
Southern Dad said:
Ah, so you want to take the decision from the states. Why? Because you think convicted felons will vote Democrat?
Click to expand...

because i don't believe anyone else is automatically better than them
 
Southern Dad said:
Because you think convicted felons will vote Democrat?
Click to expand...

No, that's stupid. It is as I said, once punishment is completed the full of one's rights and liberties should again be recognized and protected. It's a limitation on government force. Once someone's punishment is over, the full of their rights and liberties should be recognized again.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Sorry, guy, but comparing votes and guns is almost the perfect example of comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

When you put it that way sure.

Sorry, guy, but comparing a right to a right is... comparing apples to apples.

Care to read the constitution sometime?
 
chromium said:
um because one is directly related to demonstrated propensity towards violence and the other tangentially related to some ephemeral notion of who "deserves" to vote, which in any case, if they "deserve" an endless punishment why were they released at all?

but you're right that a more consistent approach, and the one i favor, would be to ban gun sales to anyone with a violent disposition to prevent crime, and ban voting of anyone who doesn't know **** about the issues

which would exclude at least half of both
Click to expand...

*bold* beats the hell out of me.

*underlined* Of course you do. The world is pretty black and white when the only thing you consider a right is having the ability to take a penis up the ass. Everything else we can do away with. **** democracy, **** rights other than the aforementioned. Easy solutions right?

This is why you aren't to be taken seriously.
 
Luftwaffe said:
When you put it that way sure.

Sorry, guy, but comparing a right to a right is... comparing apples to apples.

Care to read the constitution sometime?
Click to expand...

No, comparing a right to a right is comparing a fruit to a fruit...but the similarity ends there. Besides, if the Right cared half as much about the right to vote as they do about guns, there wouldn't be a continuing problem with voter suppression wherever the Right is in charge.
 
MickeyW said:
Felons can never own a firearm again and I have a problem with that myself. Just like restoring their right to vote, I think it depends on how egregious the felony.

The best scenario that could come out of this, is that they vote Trump or Cruz....that would be a real Hoot! :lamo
Click to expand...


I'm hardly a "gun fan," but would agree that they should be allowed to own a firearm depending on the felony. Imo people charged with assualt, a crime involving use of a gun, etc. shouldn't but if it's non-violent then don't see the issue with them owning guns after getting out of jail.
 
Ikari said:
No, that's stupid. It is as I said, once punishment is completed the full of one's rights and liberties should again be recognized and protected. It's a limitation on government force. Once someone's punishment is over, the full of their rights and liberties should be recognized again.
Click to expand...

As much as I do not like McAuliffe I agree. If the person has served their sentence 'and' any parole or probation they had was completed, then rights should be restored. This to me would include voting and gun ownership.
 
Ikari said:
No, that's stupid. It is as I said, once punishment is completed the full of one's rights and liberties should again be recognized and protected. It's a limitation on government force. Once someone's punishment is over, the full of their rights and liberties should be recognized again.
Click to expand...

Full rights? So you are okay with them buying guns? After all, they have served their sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom