Felons vote Democratic, national study says

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:
Do you think only criminals' votes have been omitted? :|

Melon
Why the democratic party chooses to target criminals so blatantly is beyond me. If you commit a serious crime, it's your own fault for isolating yourself from a free society. Sorry, no sympathy here.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Why the democratic party chooses to target criminals so blatantly is beyond me. If you commit a serious crime, it's your own fault for isolating yourself from a free society. Sorry, no sympathy here.

I think you're really stretching with this theory.

Why do you think a free man shouldn't be allowed to vote where his tax money goes?
 
U2democrat said:
yeah...but then we get to the whole disenfranchising voters thing when blacks were forced to take tests before they could vote...:|
Nothing to do with race, everything to do with lawbreakers who commit serious crimes. Heck, they should be punished worse than they are right now.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I think you're really stretching with this theory.

Why do you think a free man shouldn't be allowed to vote where his tax money goes?
If they've been given a strict enough punishment as a result of their felony, then fine. Let the states determine what is fair and just, as the Constitution calls for. If you've done your time, I suppose you can vote for the next bigshot from the democratic party. If you're still behind bars, you should be stripped of every right except your right to live and eat one meal a day.
 
U2democrat said:


no i was responding to the intelligence bit.
Understood at last.

Yes, I think that would only retrogress society back to the days when we forced tests on law abiding citizens.

Bad idea.

:down:
 
Macfistowannabe said:
If they've been given a strict enough punishment as a result of their felony, then fine. Let the states determine what is fair and just, as the Constitution calls for.
I love how conservatives don't want to touch the constitution when it fits their theories, but want a change when it fits their "morals." The beauty of the constitution is it was designed so that it can be modified or changed when neccesary. I believe voting should be given to ALL free citizens over 18.

Macfistowannabe said:

If you're still behind bars, you should be stripped of every right except your right to live and eat one meal a day.

I agree that prisoners shouldn't be able to vote, but if you're paying taxes and living in a free society you should be able to vote, no way around it.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
The beauty of the constitution is it was designed so that it can be modified or changed when neccesary.
Besides this and the Electoral College, what else should we change?

(I don't mean to break from the topic)
 
reminds me of a saying ...

"A conservative is someone who's been mugged; a liberal is someone who's been to jail."
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Besides this and the Electoral College, what else should we change?

(I don't mean to break from the topic)

Who knows something may occur 50 years from now something may occur tomorrow, we don't know. But it's been changing since it's conception. The only thing I can say is it needs to change to better society, to make society a freer society and not limit or make second class citizens.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Who knows something may occur 50 years from now something may occur tomorrow, we don't know. But it's been changing since it's conception. The only thing I can say is it needs to change to better society, to make society a freer society and not limit or make second class citizens.
Good enough.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Why the democratic party chooses to target criminals so blatantly is beyond me. If you commit a serious crime, it's your own fault for isolating yourself from a free society. Sorry, no sympathy here.

Who says that they target criminals? A GOP-sponsored study? :crazy:

Melon
 
melon said:


Who says that they target criminals? A GOP-sponsored study? :crazy:

Melon
Let's see... Al Sharpton feels he needs to raise hell over some crazy five year old child who couldn't otherwise be restrained. The lefties freak out as John Kerry campaigns to kill terrorists. California politicians are stiff and politically correct on illegal immigration. Dylan Pardo gets raped, but democrats object to toughen penalties for teenage rapists. Conservatives on the other hand favor strong law enforcement, while liberals tend to cheer on the legalization camp and bargain for lenient sentences.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Let's see... Al Sharpton feels he needs to raise hell over some crazy five year old child who couldn't otherwise be restrained.

The GOP felt the need to raise hell over Elian Gonzalez whose Cuban father wanted him back. I guess "family values" only extends to Americans and those who aren't part of a crucial ethnic demographic in Florida.

The lefties freak out as John Kerry campaigns to kill terrorists.

A sweeping generalization calls for a specific example.

California politicians are stiff and politically correct on illegal immigration.

President Bush condemned those civilian border patrol people, and American corporations make probably hundreds of millions of dollars a year off of illegal immigration. You have a Republican President and a Republican Congress who have ignored the issue of illegal immigration for years, and they are the ones who must set effective immigration law and enforce them. The states can only bring up the issue. You can't blame the big bad Democrats anymore. You have your "majority."

Dylan Pardo gets raped, but democrats object to toughen penalties for teenage rapists.

If it were up to Republicans, every criminal would be executed. And every high-profile case gets the usual salvo of "toughening penalties."

Conservatives on the other hand favor strong law enforcement, while liberals tend to cheer on the legalization camp and bargain for lenient sentences.

Conservatives are just out for blood. Not every criminal conviction warrants throwing someone in maximum security prison forever and ever. Add that to their rabidly religious tendencies, and liberals just get a right to call them "hypocrites."

As I see it, the difference between conservatives and liberals are that conservatives "talk" morality, while liberals "live" morality. Looking at the low divorce rates in New England versus the high divorce rates in the Bible Belt, I don't think my sweeping generalization is that far off either.

Melon
 
Last edited:
What melon said--here in Alabama, people are divorcing like it's going out of style. And it's not. Our definition of morality is definitely different than it is in other places. People here generally don't give a damn about divorce.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Let's see... Al Sharpton feels he needs to raise hell over some crazy five year old child who couldn't otherwise be restrained. The lefties freak out as John Kerry campaigns to kill terrorists. California politicians are stiff and politically correct on illegal immigration. Dylan Pardo gets raped, but democrats object to toughen penalties for teenage rapists. Conservatives on the other hand favor strong law enforcement, while liberals tend to cheer on the legalization camp and bargain for lenient sentences.

Hold on, let me put my boots on, it's getting thick in here.
 
melon said:
President Bush condemned those civilian border patrol people, and American corporations make probably hundreds of millions of dollars a year off of illegal immigration. You have a Republican President and a Republican Congress who have ignored the issue of illegal immigration for years, and they are the ones who must set effective immigration law and enforce them. The states can only bring up the issue. You can't blame the big bad Democrats anymore. You have your "majority."
No, Bush hasn't done the job the way he should, but I would suggest that it has more to do with winning the Hispanic vote than the "evil corporation" theory.

melon said:
If it were up to Republicans, every criminal would be executed. And every high-profile case gets the usual salvo of "toughening penalties."
That's just as foul as me insinuating that if it were up to the democrats, they would pamper every criminal. The California law doesn't even define drug rape as rape, at least from what I've been hearing, if you're unconscious, it's not considered rape.

melon said:
Conservatives are just out for blood. Not every criminal conviction warrants throwing someone in maximum security prison forever and ever. Add that to their rabidly religious tendencies, and liberals just get a right to call them "hypocrites."
I would say that victimless crimes don't meet the standards of a maximum security prison, but hard crimes like rape, murder, etc. deserve life in prison at minimum.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
That's just as foul as me insinuating that if it were up to the democrats, they would pamper every criminal.

And didn't you do exactly that? You reap what you sow, and if you can dish out the muck, expect me to fling it right back.

Melon
 
I didn't insinuate that they "pamper" them, but that they are SOFT on them, and seemingly, their stances appeal to them.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
I didn't insinuate that they "pamper" them, but that they are SOFT on them, and seemingly, their stances appeal to them.

Same difference. I'm tempted to bring back a certain smiley...

Melon
 
Macfistowannabe said:
That's just as foul as me insinuating that if it were up to the democrats, they would pamper every criminal. The California law doesn't even define drug rape as rape, at least from what I've been hearing, if you're unconscious, it's not considered rape.

I live in california, and that's not true at all. Maybe you should research things before you post them as fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom