Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Pick a conflict
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Pick a conflict Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Aug 20th, 2004 04:38 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10
I could say once someone achieves CEO status, I don't want them to vote b/c they have money and don't represent the rest of society and what they want and if there are so many then they get what they want and that's not fair...how exactly does that make sense.
Good point. Additionally, I think that the rich ALREADY have a decided political advantage and/or say so in receiving public services, appointing local boards/commisions, ect.
Aug 20th, 2004 04:18 PM
punkgrrrlie10 It's stupid to think that barring a group of voters based on class would help "protect the vote" from "mainstream" society.

I could make all kinds of classification based on that argument. It was used against Blacks, women, etc. b/c there could be so many that vote that the white man is not represented anymore.

I could say once someone achieves CEO status, I don't want them to vote b/c they have money and don't represent the rest of society and what they want and if there are so many then they get what they want and that's not fair...how exactly does that make sense?

If there are that many prisoners convicted in jail where they are a majority in a jurisdiction, I think that represents a bigger problem than voting rights.
Aug 20th, 2004 04:14 PM
kellychaos If you're going to use that logic, Fartin, then those prisoners wouldn't be voting for local elections since support for prisons begin at the county level and, more than likely, most of the prisoners are originally from that area. In turn, state penetentaries would get state voting privileges and federal prisoners, federal voting privileges. Thus, none of the polluted voting you predicted would occur.

Although I believe that certain levels of crime should revoke a person's voting privileges, Conus does raise an interesting point. What may have been considered a serious crime years ago, and may have gotten someone's voting privileges revoked, may not be considered so serious today due to changing beliefs, societal morrays, legal statutes, expanding prison populations, ect. You may even, as a felon, be in the reverse situation. So now you are basically screwed just due to a chronological spin of the wheel.
Aug 20th, 2004 08:12 AM
davinxtk He's making the bad point that these convicted felons could sway local elections.
The reason the point is bad is that local elections don't mean jack shit to prisoners, unless they're maybe trying to get a selectman, representative, or senator that might be buddies with the governor to pardon one or two of them. Even then, it's far fetched that they'd get the vote of the entire prison or make much of an impact on the situation even if they did.
Aug 19th, 2004 10:45 PM
punkgrrrlie10 No I don't...
Aug 19th, 2004 09:43 PM
FartinMowler If a small community has a large prison and all the inmates could vote in the local election...well, you get what I mean.
Aug 19th, 2004 09:31 PM
ArrowX Napalm the entire middle east untill its glass then build a giant Light reflection DEATH RAY WITH IT!
Aug 19th, 2004 09:14 PM
punkgrrrlie10
Quote:
Originally Posted by conus
Quote:
felon is someone who has proven himself to be unable to function in a society.
No, a felon is someone convicted of a certain classification of crime, regardless of sentence or whether or not violence was involved. Overdraw your checking account beyond a certain point and it's felony check fraud, meaning that, depending on where you live, you could have permanently lost your right to vote in America.
I think it's usually restricted to "violent" felonies must like felony murder. Usually they enumerate the felonies necessary for this kind of thing.
Aug 19th, 2004 07:44 PM
FartinMowler Huh? I'm glad I don't have the perspective of a convict I'm not argueing intelligence, I'm stating the fact that the prison society is not a society that should be connected to the outside world for certain levels of prisoners, like lifers or death row

Quote:
Which makes them much like many legally registered voters.
good arguement I guess :/
Aug 19th, 2004 07:27 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by *FARTINMOWLER*
Some Convicts don't have a clear representation of the outside world and thus would not make a credible and consciencous vote, so for certain levels of convictions they should be denied.
And some convicts have a perspective of the world that you never will. It's not they, necessarily have any less intelligence because they have served time ... although some would disagree. It is; however, a privilege that they have lost. They brought this upon themselves and I can't really say that I feel sorry for them. At the same time, I don't discount anyone's opinion. You don't know every freakin' thing, Fartin. That is all.
Aug 19th, 2004 06:42 PM
conus
Quote:
Some Convicts don't have a clear representation of the outside world and thus would not make a credible and consciencous vote,
Which makes them much like many legally registered voters.


.
Aug 19th, 2004 06:38 PM
FartinMowler I hate put an effort trying to sound smart and somebody has to go and ruin it :/
Aug 19th, 2004 06:15 PM
kahljorn Somebody should give him a title that basically spells out eternal noobdom.
Aug 19th, 2004 05:57 PM
Guitar Woman I dont really give a shit. I'm just gonna post a lot so I can lose my n00bage.
Aug 19th, 2004 05:11 PM
FartinMowler Some Convicts don't have a clear representation of the outside world and thus would not make a credible and consciencous vote, so for certain levels of convictions they should be denied.
Aug 19th, 2004 02:37 PM
conus Evidently you've been watching the six o'clock news and believe that most incarcerated people are drooling serial killers. It isn't true, but that wasn't the point. I wasn't distinguishing between various crimes. Voting rights shouldn't be a part of it, period. It sounds as if you're saying that the only people who deserve the vote are those who have lived their lives without deviating from what is generally considered to be acceptible behavior.
Aug 19th, 2004 02:10 PM
El Blanco And when was the last time you've heard of that happening?

You're going to need more than hyperbole to convince me that someone who has earned himself several decades of hard time deserves to be able to choose the guy who will be leading us for the next 4 years.
Aug 19th, 2004 12:07 PM
conus
Quote:
felon is someone who has proven himself to be unable to function in a society.
No, a felon is someone convicted of a certain classification of crime, regardless of sentence or whether or not violence was involved. Overdraw your checking account beyond a certain point and it's felony check fraud, meaning that, depending on where you live, you could have permanently lost your right to vote in America.
Aug 19th, 2004 10:00 AM
El Blanco You don't do 20 years for an ounce. Even in the most absurd laws(NY's Rockafellar Laws), it takes more than one person is going to use.

A felon is someone who has proven himself to be unable to function in a society. You can't have civil rights if you aren't part of civilization.

Thats basically the primary function of a prison, to get the convicted the hell away from the rest of us who can actually live together.
Aug 19th, 2004 12:45 AM
conus
Quote:
You'll have to pardon me if I don't cry a fucking river if a convicted felon doesn't get a right he probably wouldn't use anyway.
I'm not crying a river. The person who killed your friend obviously deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars, at least. But unless you're going to strip away a felon's citizenship and deport him, don't take the vote. Most people convicted of felonies in this country aren't violent criminals. Should anyone who at any time in their lives possessed over an ounce of marijuana be permanently deprived of their right to vote? They committed felonies.
Aug 18th, 2004 11:29 PM
El Blanco
Quote:
agree with Krajick. Voting defines citizenship. It is not a privilege to be revoked. The rights should be restored, even for those still incarcerated.
So, then who is going to restore my firend Eddy's right to fucking breathe? Some asshole revoked that a few months back. You'll have to pardon me if I don't cry a fucking river if a convicted felon doesn't get a right he probably wouldn't use anyway.

Violent criminals have proven they are unable to function amongst the rest of us. Voting should be the least of the issues here.
Aug 18th, 2004 05:27 PM
kahljorn Yea, i know sethomas, but I'd say it's a little better to have things disrupted than to have people being able to put shit into play like, "The patriot act".

"If kahl hadn't taken this seriously, this thread would have been comedy gold"

THATS WHY ITS FUNNY.
Aug 18th, 2004 01:49 PM
conus Okay, here's one. An editorial by Kevin Krajick in the Washington Post this morning http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug17.html regarded America's 4.7 million convicted felons, most of whom have lost the right to vote. According to a July 2002 Harris poll, 80% of respondents indicated that felons should eventually have voting rights restored. But that opinion isn't universal. In Alabama, Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors admitted that he liked the current system since the ranks of former criminals are comprised largely of those with low incomes, low education or minority status-- groups not known for voting Republican.

I agree with Krajick. Voting defines citizenship. It is not a privilege to be revoked. The rights should be restored, even for those still incarcerated.

(And before November. )


.
Aug 18th, 2004 12:44 PM
Sethomas Kahl, that's what they did for the first three elections and it panned out horribly. All it did was make everything even more partisan and disrupt progress.
Aug 18th, 2004 08:03 AM
FartinMowler I don't have any beer it's 8am and I have to go to work...I was looking forward to reading some intelligent responses. I read Kahls but as soon as I got to the unnatural homosexual thing my brain turned off and I forgot what it was about.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.