| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/07/2008 12:11:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would think that if an individual has committed a violent crime then they lose the right to own/possess a firearm. If an individual has committed a sexual offense against children they lose the right to be around children unsupervised. I don't think that serving time in jail along with completed probation should restore these rights. |
So what crime would cause you to permanently lose the right vote? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 12:12:03 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
That's right. If homeless people were ignorant and voted on the basis of a free meal instead of their own interests, then Republicans would be taking them to lunch. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 12:12:39 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would think that if an individual has committed a violent crime then they lose the right to own/possess a firearm. If an individual has committed a sexual offense against children they lose the right to be around children unsupervised. I don't think that serving time in jail along with completed probation should restore these rights. |
So what crime would cause you to permanently lose the right vote? |
I know! How about the crime of lying to and intimidating potential voters to disenfranchise them? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 12:15:18 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would think that if an individual has committed a violent crime then they lose the right to own/possess a firearm. If an individual has committed a sexual offense against children they lose the right to be around children unsupervised. I don't think that serving time in jail along with completed probation should restore these rights. |
So what crime would cause you to permanently lose the right vote? |
I know! How about the crime of lying to and intimidating potential voters to disenfranchise them? |
Then what would we do without Republicans? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 12:59:05 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would think that if an individual has committed a violent crime then they lose the right to own/possess a firearm. If an individual has committed a sexual offense against children they lose the right to be around children unsupervised. I don't think that serving time in jail along with completed probation should restore these rights. |
So what crime would cause you to permanently lose the right vote? |
I actually never addressed the voting by felons issue, just that certain crimes should and currently do result in the permanent loss of certain rights/privileges. I don't necessarily agree that all felons should lose the right to vote. Some felonies are much less detrimental to society than others. I do think that certain egregious crimes should result in the permanent loss of the right to vote. Murder, rape, pedophilia to name a few would fall into a group of crimes that are severely detrimental to society and individuals and I feel those who commit these types of crimes should lose their right to vote, among other losses of rights. Do you feel that everyone regardless of their criminal record should be afforded the right to vote? If so why?
Message edited by author 2008-10-07 13:00:21. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:02:22 PM · #31 |
ZING!
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
That's right. If homeless people were ignorant and voted on the basis of a free meal instead of their own interests, then Republicans would be taking them to lunch. |
|
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:12:44 PM · #32 |
If a felon is to be released back into society, doesn't it make sense that you would want them to become a productive, tax-paying "model citizen" rather than relapsing into their predatory ways?
As I recall, there was a little war fought a couple of centuries ago over the issue that if one paid taxes, one should have influence (through their designated) representative over how those taxes were structured and spent.
Every impediment you put in a felon's way through negative stigmatization reduces the odds of such a change in behavior. If they can't vote and can't get a job ("Ever been arrested" on a job app is a red flag), just how are they supposed to survive and become productive? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:34:08 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
I would think that if an individual has committed a violent crime then they lose the right to own/possess a firearm. If an individual has committed a sexual offense against children they lose the right to be around children unsupervised. I don't think that serving time in jail along with completed probation should restore these rights. |
So what crime would cause you to permanently lose the right vote? |
I actually never addressed the voting by felons issue, just that certain crimes should and currently do result in the permanent loss of certain rights/privileges. I don't necessarily agree that all felons should lose the right to vote. Some felonies are much less detrimental to society than others. I do think that certain egregious crimes should result in the permanent loss of the right to vote. Murder, rape, pedophilia to name a few would fall into a group of crimes that are severely detrimental to society and individuals and I feel those who commit these types of crimes should lose their right to vote, among other losses of rights. Do you feel that everyone regardless of their criminal record should be afforded the right to vote? If so why? |
Why shouldn't they get their rights back if they serve their time? We really shouldn't be in the business of practicing cruel and unusual punishment. As has already been said how on earth do you expect these people to start fitting into society when they are ostracize the moment they come out? It's as if society wants them to screw up again so they can go back to prison. I guess anything to continue this police-like state we have going on here.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:47:46 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If a felon is to be released back into society, doesn't it make sense that you would want them to become a productive, tax-paying "model citizen" rather than relapsing into their predatory ways?
As I recall, there was a little war fought a couple of centuries ago over the issue that if one paid taxes, one should have influence (through their designated) representative over how those taxes were structured and spent.
Every impediment you put in a felon's way through negative stigmatization reduces the odds of such a change in behavior. If they can't vote and can't get a job ("Ever been arrested" on a job app is a red flag), just how are they supposed to survive and become productive? |
So when the felon is released, regardless of what felony they committed, we should restore them to regular law abiding status? Let's throw out their criminal record, we wouldn't want them to feel stereotyped and held back by society with its cruel and unjust laws, despite the fact they have proven they don't follow those laws anyway. We might as well let the the pedophiles go teach kindergarten or let an armed violent criminal go buy another gun at the local sports store. I don't see how a criminals right to vote being taken away is impeding on his success in society. The issue in regard to employment is a private sector issue and an employer should have the right to know whether or not a person they are trying to hire has a prior criminal history.
I guess the next defense we will hear in court is that he committed that rape b/c he couldn't vote for his local representative due to a prior felony conviction. He's been disenfranchised by the system, the reality is that he's been disenfranchised by his own actions.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:58:07 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If a felon is to be released back into society, doesn't it make sense that you would want them to become a productive, tax-paying "model citizen" rather than relapsing into their predatory ways?
As I recall, there was a little war fought a couple of centuries ago over the issue that if one paid taxes, one should have influence (through their designated) representative over how those taxes were structured and spent.
Every impediment you put in a felon's way through negative stigmatization reduces the odds of such a change in behavior. If they can't vote and can't get a job ("Ever been arrested" on a job app is a red flag), just how are they supposed to survive and become productive? |
So when the felon is released, regardless of what felony they committed, we should restore them to regular law abiding status? Let's throw out their criminal record, we wouldn't want them to feel stereotyped and held back by society with its cruel and unjust laws, despite the fact they have proven they don't follow those laws anyway. We might as well let the the pedophiles go teach kindergarten or let an armed violent criminal go buy another gun at the local sports store. I don't see how a criminals right to vote being taken away is impeding on his success in society. The issue in regard to employment is a private sector issue and an employer should have the right to know whether or not a person they are trying to hire has a prior criminal history.
I guess the next defense we will hear in court is that he committed that rape b/c he couldn't vote for his local representative due to a prior felony conviction. He's been disenfranchised by the system, the reality is that he's been disenfranchised by his own actions. |
Once they've completed their sentence and probation, why not allow for them to ask for their other rights to be restored as well?
Not all convicted felons are repeat offenders and hardened criminals, some just make mistakes and will never offend again. You'd just flog them all for a lifetime rather than allowing them to be productive members of society again. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 01:59:48 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
So when the felon is released, regardless of what felony they committed, we should restore them to regular law abiding status? |
If we can't trust a rehabilitated former inmate in regular society, then what's the point in releasing them? One lapse of judgement, one stupid mistake, and your life is effectively over. I'm not saying ex-cons shouldn't get some extra scrutiny, but a 10 year sentence (or whatever) isn't really 10 years if you remain a prisoner forever. The extreme example of this is registered sex offenders. In some parts of the country, you effectively can't live or work ANYWHERE. You would literally be better off doing something to return to prison! It's one thing to guard against repeat offenders, but it's counterproductive to place barriers against redemption and the opportunity to live a normal life. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:00:28 PM · #37 |
| You do know that not all felon's are dangerous, horrible people don't you? Did you know that pointing a toy gun at someone and scaring them is a felony? Did you know that if you have an argument with someone and say anything along the lines of "I'm going to kill/get you" is a felony? Did you know that you can be convicted of these offenses and be a felon and never serve a jail sentence? But the conviction is there, and on paper you're no different than the murderer or rapist. Painting such a broad picture of people is what's dangerous. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:08:46 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If a felon is to be released back into society, doesn't it make sense that you would want them to become a productive, tax-paying "model citizen" rather than relapsing into their predatory ways?
As I recall, there was a little war fought a couple of centuries ago over the issue that if one paid taxes, one should have influence (through their designated) representative over how those taxes were structured and spent.
Every impediment you put in a felon's way through negative stigmatization reduces the odds of such a change in behavior. If they can't vote and can't get a job ("Ever been arrested" on a job app is a red flag), just how are they supposed to survive and become productive? |
So when the felon is released, regardless of what felony they committed, we should restore them to regular law abiding status? Let's throw out their criminal record, we wouldn't want them to feel stereotyped and held back by society with its cruel and unjust laws, despite the fact they have proven they don't follow those laws anyway. We might as well let the the pedophiles go teach kindergarten or let an armed violent criminal go buy another gun at the local sports store. I don't see how a criminals right to vote being taken away is impeding on his success in society. The issue in regard to employment is a private sector issue and an employer should have the right to know whether or not a person they are trying to hire has a prior criminal history.
I guess the next defense we will hear in court is that he committed that rape b/c he couldn't vote for his local representative due to a prior felony conviction. He's been disenfranchised by the system, the reality is that he's been disenfranchised by his own actions. |
Once they've completed their sentence and probation, why not allow for them to ask for their other rights to be restored as well?
Not all convicted felons are repeat offenders and hardened criminals, some just make mistakes and will never offend again. You'd just flog them all for a lifetime rather than allowing them to be productive members of society again. |
Again, I'm not referring to all felony convictions. I am well aware that there are many felonies that are bullshit. I think that a theft of anything over the dollar amount of $300 is considered a felony, it's bullshit to restrict their rights when done serving time. The war on drugs has produced a mass amount of bullshit felony convictions. I'm referring to the most severe felonies i.e rape, murder and the such. I don't think that restricting the right to own a gun to a violent criminal or keeping a convicted pedophile away from children is flogging them. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:11:38 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Again, I'm not referring to all felony convictions. I am well aware that there are many felonies that are bullshit. I think that a theft of anything over the dollar amount of $300 is considered a felony, it's bullshit to restrict their rights when done serving time. The war on drugs has produced a mass amount of bullshit felony convictions. I'm referring to the most severe felonies i.e rape, murder and the such. I don't think that restricting the right to own a gun to a violent criminal or keeping a convicted pedophile away from children is flogging them. |
I think the answer is to separate crimes from conditions. If someone is deemed by the courts to have a condition that compels them to rape, murder, etc., then that person needs to be jailed for his/her entire life. If it's a less dangerous compulsion, then other restrictions might be appropriate.
edited to fix improper use of "than." I know how important proper grammar is to dpc... ahem...
Message edited by author 2008-10-07 14:15:16. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:13:55 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
You do know that not all felon's are dangerous, horrible people don't you? Did you know that pointing a toy gun at someone and scaring them is a felony? Did you know that if you have an argument with someone and say anything along the lines of "I'm going to kill/get you" is a felony? Did you know that you can be convicted of these offenses and be a felon and never serve a jail sentence? But the conviction is there, and on paper you're no different than the murderer or rapist. Painting such a broad picture of people is what's dangerous. |
Not sure if this is directed at me but I never painted any broad pictures, I have been referring to the worst of the felony convictions which I put in my post. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:20:53 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by metatate:
Free soup! Yum!
Maybe if you talked to some homeless people or people that lost their jobs it might help gain some perspective.
This is really a goofy premise that 'poor' people are all about getting "free stuff". As if cars, lap-tops and cell phones are something they even think about. Obviously you think that our economy is being dragged down by people taking advantage of the social programs. |
You are not getting my point. The PROCESS of buying votes is wrong. The PROCESS of strongarming votes is wrong. It is not about homeless or felons or... - it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote. |
So, homeless people are ignorant?
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
Are you arguing that the buying of votes is acceptable to you? That any candidate that offered to pay a sum of money or goods to any voter for their vote, is an acceptable practice? How about strongarming votes? Is that acceptable? Is it OK for "persuaders" to be outside a polling station to insure you vote a certain way? Is it right or wrong to buy votes. Obama and the chicago political machine has for years bought votes. It has been nationalized. Are you arguing that this is a good thing? Is it permissible for some multi billionaire to offer "x" number of dollars for one's vote? Yes or No? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:27:45 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by metatate:
Free soup! Yum!
Maybe if you talked to some homeless people or people that lost their jobs it might help gain some perspective.
This is really a goofy premise that 'poor' people are all about getting "free stuff". As if cars, lap-tops and cell phones are something they even think about. Obviously you think that our economy is being dragged down by people taking advantage of the social programs. |
You are not getting my point. The PROCESS of buying votes is wrong. The PROCESS of strongarming votes is wrong. It is not about homeless or felons or... - it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote. |
So, homeless people are ignorant?
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
Are you arguing that the buying of votes is acceptable to you? That any candidate that offered to pay a sum of money or goods to any voter for their vote, is an acceptable practice? How about strongarming votes? Is that acceptable? Is it OK for "persuaders" to be outside a polling station to insure you vote a certain way? Is it right or wrong to buy votes. Obama and the chicago political machine has for years bought votes. It has been nationalized. Are you arguing that this is a good thing? Is it permissible for some multi billionaire to offer "x" number of dollars for one's vote? Yes or No? |
I can't speak for Spazmo, but I am inclined to believe that he was responding to this comment of yours: "it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote", none of which is to be confused with the scenario you are alluding to in this instance.
The gist of your argument seems to suggest that Obama has managed to usurp votes on a national basis by catering to the ignorant... a statement that would reflect negatively on american society should he win.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:33:03 PM · #43 |
We all know that the homeless that were homeless before an election will likely still be homeless after an election. If voting for a Democrat eliminated the homeless, then all the cities and states run by Democrats would be free of any homeless. But they are not. In fact one could argue that where Democrats rule, there are more homeless. So we have an example of a failed policy preying off the very persons the predators claim to protect. Vote Democratic and instill the liberal laws of governance. Problem is; it doesn't work. If the liberal view was so good and the conservative view so bad, then why is Europe in the same financial mess that the US is in? Europe is certainly not Republican.
I know I know, it is never the liberal's fault. It is always somebody else to blame. Who will the liberals blame when they control both houses of congress and the White House. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:43:43 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If a felon is to be released back into society, doesn't it make sense that you would want them to become a productive, tax-paying "model citizen" rather than relapsing into their predatory ways?
As I recall, there was a little war fought a couple of centuries ago over the issue that if one paid taxes, one should have influence (through their designated) representative over how those taxes were structured and spent.
Every impediment you put in a felon's way through negative stigmatization reduces the odds of such a change in behavior. If they can't vote and can't get a job ("Ever been arrested" on a job app is a red flag), just how are they supposed to survive and become productive? |
So when the felon is released, regardless of what felony they committed, we should restore them to regular law abiding status? Let's throw out their criminal record, we wouldn't want them to feel stereotyped and held back by society with its cruel and unjust laws, despite the fact they have proven they don't follow those laws anyway. We might as well let the the pedophiles go teach kindergarten or let an armed violent criminal go buy another gun at the local sports store. I don't see how a criminals right to vote being taken away is impeding on his success in society. The issue in regard to employment is a private sector issue and an employer should have the right to know whether or not a person they are trying to hire has a prior criminal history.
I guess the next defense we will hear in court is that he committed that rape b/c he couldn't vote for his local representative due to a prior felony conviction. He's been disenfranchised by the system, the reality is that he's been disenfranchised by his own actions. |
Once they've completed their sentence and probation, why not allow for them to ask for their other rights to be restored as well?
Not all convicted felons are repeat offenders and hardened criminals, some just make mistakes and will never offend again. You'd just flog them all for a lifetime rather than allowing them to be productive members of society again. |
Again, I'm not referring to all felony convictions. I am well aware that there are many felonies that are bullshit. I think that a theft of anything over the dollar amount of $300 is considered a felony, it's bullshit to restrict their rights when done serving time. The war on drugs has produced a mass amount of bullshit felony convictions. I'm referring to the most severe felonies i.e rape, murder and the such. I don't think that restricting the right to own a gun to a violent criminal or keeping a convicted pedophile away from children is flogging them. |
I don't think we really disagree then. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 02:43:44 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by metatate:
Free soup! Yum!
Maybe if you talked to some homeless people or people that lost their jobs it might help gain some perspective.
This is really a goofy premise that 'poor' people are all about getting "free stuff". As if cars, lap-tops and cell phones are something they even think about. Obviously you think that our economy is being dragged down by people taking advantage of the social programs. |
You are not getting my point. The PROCESS of buying votes is wrong. The PROCESS of strongarming votes is wrong. It is not about homeless or felons or... - it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote. |
So, homeless people are ignorant?
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
Are you arguing that the buying of votes is acceptable to you? That any candidate that offered to pay a sum of money or goods to any voter for their vote, is an acceptable practice? How about strongarming votes? Is that acceptable? Is it OK for "persuaders" to be outside a polling station to insure you vote a certain way? Is it right or wrong to buy votes. Obama and the chicago political machine has for years bought votes. It has been nationalized. Are you arguing that this is a good thing? Is it permissible for some multi billionaire to offer "x" number of dollars for one's vote? Yes or No? |
I can't speak for Spazmo, but I am inclined to believe that he was responding to this comment of yours: "it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote", none of which is to be confused with the scenario you are alluding to in this instance.
The gist of your argument seems to suggest that Obama has managed to usurp votes on a national basis by catering to the ignorant... a statement that would reflect negatively on american society should he win.
Ray |
Maybe so, but the [url=//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433681,00.html ]original article[/url] I linked specifically referenced a down and out homeless whom had never voted before. He was preyed upon at a soup kitchen by a biased Obama supporter and taken to register and vote for Obama. Now if the person had only wanted to register any unregistered and offered them both candidates to evaluate and consider, and allow them to vote for whichever they thought was right, then that would be a different situation. That however is not what is happening. These predators get people registered, not to enhance the participation of an increased electorate for "whomever" they might choose - instead it is specifically targeted to receive votes for only their candidate. A distorted view, a skewed frame of material, a predatory relationship between the registrant and the candidate. An advantage over the ignorant. Again I ask, if this is acceptable and some here argue it is, then why would it not also be acceptable to simply purchase votes on ebay?
Message edited by author 2008-10-07 14:50:02. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 03:00:09 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by metatate:
Free soup! Yum!
Maybe if you talked to some homeless people or people that lost their jobs it might help gain some perspective.
This is really a goofy premise that 'poor' people are all about getting "free stuff". As if cars, lap-tops and cell phones are something they even think about. Obviously you think that our economy is being dragged down by people taking advantage of the social programs. |
You are not getting my point. The PROCESS of buying votes is wrong. The PROCESS of strongarming votes is wrong. It is not about homeless or felons or... - it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote. |
So, homeless people are ignorant?
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
Are you arguing that the buying of votes is acceptable to you? That any candidate that offered to pay a sum of money or goods to any voter for their vote, is an acceptable practice? How about strongarming votes? Is that acceptable? Is it OK for "persuaders" to be outside a polling station to insure you vote a certain way? Is it right or wrong to buy votes. Obama and the chicago political machine has for years bought votes. It has been nationalized. Are you arguing that this is a good thing? Is it permissible for some multi billionaire to offer "x" number of dollars for one's vote? Yes or No? |
I never said that. I took exception to your claim the the homeless are ignorant and their votes votes were therefore for sale. That's simply not true and you should know better.
As for Obama and the Dems "buying" votes, where is your proof? I found this story, but it's about a Republican in New Mexico buying votes. Probably not what you wanted to read though.
Surely you aren't referring to voter registration drives and giving people, who would otherwise be unable to vote, rides to the polls are you? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 03:09:08 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by metatate:
Free soup! Yum!
Maybe if you talked to some homeless people or people that lost their jobs it might help gain some perspective.
This is really a goofy premise that 'poor' people are all about getting "free stuff". As if cars, lap-tops and cell phones are something they even think about. Obviously you think that our economy is being dragged down by people taking advantage of the social programs. |
You are not getting my point. The PROCESS of buying votes is wrong. The PROCESS of strongarming votes is wrong. It is not about homeless or felons or... - it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote. |
So, homeless people are ignorant?
I don't know how it is where you are, but a good portion of the homeless around here are some of the most politically informed and savvy folks I've ever encountered. |
Are you arguing that the buying of votes is acceptable to you? That any candidate that offered to pay a sum of money or goods to any voter for their vote, is an acceptable practice? How about strongarming votes? Is that acceptable? Is it OK for "persuaders" to be outside a polling station to insure you vote a certain way? Is it right or wrong to buy votes. Obama and the chicago political machine has for years bought votes. It has been nationalized. Are you arguing that this is a good thing? Is it permissible for some multi billionaire to offer "x" number of dollars for one's vote? Yes or No? |
I can't speak for Spazmo, but I am inclined to believe that he was responding to this comment of yours: "it is about ignorant persons being taken advantage of and "selling" their vote", none of which is to be confused with the scenario you are alluding to in this instance.
The gist of your argument seems to suggest that Obama has managed to usurp votes on a national basis by catering to the ignorant... a statement that would reflect negatively on american society should he win.
Ray |
Maybe so, but the [url=//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433681,00.html ]original article[/url] I linked specifically referenced a down and out homeless whom had never voted before. He was preyed upon at a soup kitchen by a biased Obama supporter and taken to register and vote for Obama. Now if the person had only wanted to register any unregistered and offered them both candidates to evaluate and consider, and allow them to vote for whichever they thought was right, then that would be a different situation. That however is not what is happening. These predators get people registered, not to enhance the participation of an increased electorate for "whomever" they might choose - instead it is specifically targeted to receive votes for only their candidate. A distorted view, a skewed frame of material, a predatory relationship between the registrant and the candidate. An advantage over the ignorant. Again I ask, if this is acceptable and some here argue it is, then why would it not also be acceptable to simply purchase votes on ebay? |
Even in the article you reference, it does not indicate who the homeless man voted for. So your claim that they are being told or forced to vote a certain way is untrue. Even the quote from the man himself,
"I never voted before, without this service, I would have had no way to get here."
The people gave him a ride to the polls, period. They didn't give him money. They didn't feed him, the homeless shelter did that.
Is helping those who would otherwise be disenfranchised to vote, wrong in your mind? Is voting only for those wealthy enough to get to the polls? |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 03:14:44 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for Obama and the Dems "buying" votes, where is your proof? I found this story, but it's about a Republican in New Mexico buying votes. Probably not what you wanted to read though.
Surely you aren't referring to voter registration drives and giving people, who would otherwise be unable to vote, rides to the polls are you? |
You are not aware of the chicken dinner for a vote campaign? It comes back to the proposition bewteen 2 people where one asks the other, would you have sex with me for a million dollars? Once one party says yes, then it is no longer a matter of whether or not they are for sale, it is only a matter of negotiating a price. Therefore, again I ask, if one's vote is for sale, whether it be for a chicken dinner, a ride to the polls or any other biased activity specifically to benefit one candidate over another, then why not allow candidates to simply purchase their votes from anyone willing to sell them?
If the activity of registeruing the unregistered was merely purity of heart, without a bias to the outcome of each registrants vote, then I say Hooray!!! But once it becomes partisan, then it falls (at least for me) to the wrongful purchase of votes. And if that is acceptable, then where will it stop? We already have Obama trying to purchase this election by promising a tax break to 95% of americans when we know that is a lie. 40% don't even pay Federal tax to get a tax break on. Again, we have already established that votes are for sale, it is simply a matter of how much. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 03:18:52 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even in the article you reference, it does not indicate who the homeless man voted for. So your claim that they are being told or forced to vote a certain way is untrue. Even the quote from the man himself,
"I never voted before, without this service, I would have had no way to get here."
The people gave him a ride to the polls, period. They didn't give him money. They didn't feed him, the homeless shelter did that.
Is helping those who would otherwise be disenfranchised to vote, wrong in your mind? Is voting only for those wealthy enough to get to the polls? |
Spazmo - having met you, you are not a naive person. Please do not present yourself as one who believes in the purity of this action by the Obama supporter who chose to spend his honeymoon registering homeless simply so they could vote for McCain. |
|
|
|
10/07/2008 03:21:13 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for Obama and the Dems "buying" votes, where is your proof? I found this story, but it's about a Republican in New Mexico buying votes. Probably not what you wanted to read though.
Surely you aren't referring to voter registration drives and giving people, who would otherwise be unable to vote, rides to the polls are you? |
You are not aware of the chicken dinner for a vote campaign? It comes back to the proposition bewteen 2 people where one asks the other, would you have sex with me for a million dollars? Once one party says yes, then it is no longer a matter of whether or not they are for sale, it is only a matter of negotiating a price. Therefore, again I ask, if one's vote is for sale, whether it be for a chicken dinner, a ride to the polls or any other biased activity specifically to benefit one candidate over another, then why not allow candidates to simply purchase their votes from anyone willing to sell them?
If the activity of registeruing the unregistered was merely purity of heart, without a bias to the outcome of each registrants vote, then I say Hooray!!! But once it becomes partisan, then it falls (at least for me) to the wrongful purchase of votes. And if that is acceptable, then where will it stop? We already have Obama trying to purchase this election by promising a tax break to 95% of americans when we know that is a lie. 40% don't even pay Federal tax to get a tax break on. Again, we have already established that votes are for sale, it is simply a matter of how much. |
First, I'm simply not having sex with you for any amount of money.
That said, if promising tax cuts is a form of buying votes, how is that any different than McCain's promises? Oh wait, he must be only buying the votes of those earning over $250K and those people, being wealthy, must not be ignorant and therefore capable of resisting the temptation to "sell" their votes.
You might have established for yourself that votes are for sale and maybe yours is, but I'm not buying it. Or selling. |
|
