Billo_Really said:I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.
That's one of the few things I like about George Bush. When he was asked about his DUI by reporters, he told them it was so long ago that it was none of their business.Originally posted by Pacridge:
Not sure he was addicted to coke, but he was a drunk driver.
In several states that could be a felony, so in some he might never be allowed to vote...ever. If you can't vote can you run for office?
Billo_Really said:I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.
Kelzie said:That's only in Pennsylvania. Fourteen states permanantly remove a felon's right to vote.
And it's not the worst of the worst. I have a friend charged with a felony. She shoplifted, which in and of itself isn't a felony, but she took the tags off to get it out of the store. Which is. Now, I'm not saying what she did was right, but never being able to vote for something you did when you were 18?
:rofl THAT was a good one!disneydude said:Its not that Democrats side with Criminals, its that Democrats stand up for Constitutional Rights that apply to all.
.
Good comeback! I like when he said he was "...ridding the streets of coke, one gram at a time."Originally posted by easyt65
When did the GOP elect Marion Berry?
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html
2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.
But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).
5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.
And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.
6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp
Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.
Mr. D said:Congratulations on contributing nothing positive but keeping the country split with ideological labeling! At least O' Reilly does it for money! What's your excuse?
Kelzie said:And so what? They go to jail and serve their debt to society. Exactly what would make them incapable of voting?
aquapub said:It's called Truth.
I see Democrats screwing over the little guy,
debate_junkie said:At 18, was she not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong? Shoplifting is a crime, period. Don't want to be convicted of a crime.. don't commit one. Being 18 makes no difference. She knew what she was doing was wrong, and did it anyway.
Kelzie said:And so she should lost the right to vote for the rest of her life because of it? What is your rational exactly?
aquapub said:It is usually violent felons who are banned from voting though, if that makes any difference.
It doesn't. I don't see the logic in denying people the vote when there is no reason to. And in a few states it's all felons.
Synch said:Liberal opinions side with the poor.. per capita blacks are more poor..
blacks do more crime per capita, so if criminals are allowed to vote, it would benefit Democrats more, and if criminals got off more easily, it would also benefit Democrats... poor people tend to do more crime.... and poor people usually side with democrats over tax, welfare, and medicare...
they need votes, and will do anything to get them.
credibility, history shows that they are not adequate in making correct decisions, I doubt you would let a licensed child molestor baby sit your kids.
in your resume you have to include your criminal history if you have one, it will decide whether your employer can trust you, and influenceds whether the person gets the job, why don't we make all criminal records private? You say robbing someone or molesting children doesn't affect their ability to vote, well it doesn't affect their ability to make coffee, get donuts, or diliver mail either. How about making criminal history only public in certain jobs???
Kelzie said:Your criminal record in no way affects your job. It does affect your co-workers though. It in no way affects your ability to vote. They are still citizens of the US. As such, they should have a voice in it.
Pacridge said:What do you mean you're criminal history in no way affects your job? Are you saying it doesn't affect your ability to do your job? If so I'll agree with that. But it certainly can affect your ability to obtain and maintain a job. Many employers not only do a criminal history check prior to hiring but they'll run your credit report as well.
PeteEU said:So with the present incosistant laws across the US, if you get a trafic ticket you could possibly be banned for life to practice the most basic democractic act... to vote.
And people dont see a problem with that?
One could also ask, why right wingers in the US are so bent to destroying the basic fabrics of a democratic society?
Kelzie said:Well, no, it has to be a felony. But it's still not right.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Actually it is right and constitutional, one can not be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process, but criminals can justly be deprived of their liberties once they have been granted due process, if you can't do the time or if you don't want restrictions put on your rights then don't do the crime. And even when felons are prevented from voting they do have means by which to regain the right to vote.
Kelzie said:First off, no they don't.
Second, the right to vote does not fall under life, liberty, or property. You certainly can't justify it by that route. In addition, a jail term has come to be looked at by our legal system as paying their debt to society. Once they have done so, there is no logical reason to deny them the right to vote.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Umm how does it not fall under the liberty category? Prison terms are just part of the punishment there are many punishments which are given to criminals after they have already finished their sentences IE sexual predator lists, the revocation of drivers licenses, and the like. One logical reason for revoking voting rights is because it's a punishment if they can not function in society then they have no entitlement to the same liberties enjoyed by functional members of said society.
And secondly yes they do they have to petition the clemency board to restore their full rights once they are released:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/florida-lawmakers-aid-felons.html
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?