another black eye for the NAACP............. 
Man Given Crack Cocaine To Register Voters Arrested In Ohio
- Thread starter zod
- Start date
Sweet!
LOL.
Last week I had to go take care of a ticket and there was a table out front of the courthouse with a sign on it reading:
"Off parole, on probation? You CAN register to vote."
(parole/probation may have been the other way around)
At the bottom of the sign was the text:
"This public service paid for by the Democratic National Comittee"
Sweet, convicted criminals are EXACTLY the people I want taking part in selecting local and national govt. leadership.
LOL.
Last week I had to go take care of a ticket and there was a table out front of the courthouse with a sign on it reading:
"Off parole, on probation? You CAN register to vote."
(parole/probation may have been the other way around)
At the bottom of the sign was the text:
"This public service paid for by the Democratic National Comittee"
Sweet, convicted criminals are EXACTLY the people I want taking part in selecting local and national govt. leadership.
Doesn't matter what you "feel" true - if they've served their time and paid for what they did wrong they get to be active members of society again. You should read your sig a little more closely.
Once again, why shouldn't people who have served thier time be allowed to vote?Damn True said:
I just find it amusing that the DNC is courting that demographic.
If that dosen't bother you.....it should.
It isn't out of the kindness of their heart I assure you. Its because people like that are more likely to be on public assistance of some sort. Since DNC candidates more often than not support more welfare, and more entitlements they can extrapolate that such a person is more likely to vote for a democrat.
Sweet, what a pair.
If that dosen't bother you.....it should.
It isn't out of the kindness of their heart I assure you. Its because people like that are more likely to be on public assistance of some sort. Since DNC candidates more often than not support more welfare, and more entitlements they can extrapolate that such a person is more likely to vote for a democrat.
Sweet, what a pair.
I think that Felons who have paid their time in full (ie. not on parol) should be allowed to vote.
Why? Like I said, if a felon has served his/her sentence, I have no problem with them voting.Damn True said:
Hijinks from both sides, with the RNC trying to make it seem like if you have a traffic ticket outstanding you can't vote...
when the last election came down to 537 votes, you enlist who you can.
What? Were you the crack guy in Ohio?
How did you connect the RNC to this at all?
How did you connect the RNC to this at all?
and re-enlist, and give them crack..........
narlus said:
That's the winning spirit!
You from Chicago?
Vote early, vote often, vote democrat!
Where do you think the meme that felons can't vote (when it is on a state by state basis) comes from?Damn True said:
Yes, I'm the crack guy, you've got me. On the weekends, I also push old ladies off of bridges just for kicks.
Silver said:
Bwahahahahahaha!!! Good times! :evil:
Hrmmm just like it should bother the Repubs who sit outside the courthouse to help immigrants take full advantage of the new rights by registering them to vote - but the forms the new citizens were given were already filled out for republicans?Damn True said:
If you participate in society by holding a job, living, taking advantage of its social perks, or being affected by its negative policies, then you should have a right to vote for the side that makes the most sense to you - and those who have served their time fall into the cateogory of participating in society - like it or not you probably rub elbows with ex-cons on a regular basis who would like to see their votes count.
Do you honestly believe that your contribution to society is so much greater than that of an ex-con that you should have the right to deny them participation in society?
I like your brain.Jr_Bullit said:
Reformed ex-felons who are responsible would vote thier conscience, one's who are not, are too busy being losers to vote anyways. Alot of people in this world have commited crimes and never will be held accountable, Bush was rich and did Cocaine put that combo together and there's a felony in there somewhere......
Can we get back to the point at hand.......the NAACP is corrupt as hell (not like that's a news flash) 
Yah but what if you allowed NASCAR into the mix, everything would get better i suppose?zod said:Can we get back to the point at hand.......the NAACP is corrupt as hell (not like that's a news flash)
\Jr_Bullit said:
Ahh what the heck, let 'em purchase firearms too!
Ahh - there's the generous spirit - besides, if they wanted to commit their crimes again, I'm sure there was plenty of information on creative ways to skirt the law they could have gleaned while "on the inside". So what? They're still members of society after having served time, and contribute no less then a person who spends their life on welfare using the number of kids they produce as a reason to get more money from the government. More often then not they are more willing to hold the kind of job most "citizens" wouldn't touch, because they need to work and survive in order to stay "free".Damn True said:
If you are a member of a democratic society, you deserve to have a say in the type of government your nation has.
I'm quite frankly, disappointed in the creativeness of your reply.
Here's the thing. If someone is a convict they have proven that they are NOT capable of responibly dealing with their own lives and property or that of others. Having completed a sentance does not prove that they now can any more than the fact that you paid your last speeding ticket proves you will not speed again.
People that cannot responsibly deal with their own life should not be involved in the political process.
People that cannot responsibly deal with their own life should not be involved in the political process.
Maybe they could add a clause which would allow them to vote, so long as they voted Republican?Damn True said:
Would that work for you?
No. This has nothing to do with parties.
The primary reason for my opposition to it is that irresponsible people should not be involved in the political process.
Second, a convict is far more likely to be on public assistance. Therefore they are far more likely to vote for the party that is putting food in their mouth which equates to a party being given a greater opportunity to "buy votes" by promising increases in public assistance.
The primary reason for my opposition to it is that irresponsible people should not be involved in the political process.
Second, a convict is far more likely to be on public assistance. Therefore they are far more likely to vote for the party that is putting food in their mouth which equates to a party being given a greater opportunity to "buy votes" by promising increases in public assistance.
True - perhaps you should be more careful about passing judgement on others. Until you are voted into a position where your judgement surpasses all others, we all could be judging you the same. You can use the societal leach argument on someone who finds away to live on government assisted unemployment pay for more than a year.
You can use the societal leach argument on someone who finds away to claim many children as dependents in order to raise the amount of welfare they receive daily.
And always beware of who else may feel you are unable to "responsibly deal with your life".
Read your sig a little more closely....
You can use the societal leach argument on someone who finds away to claim many children as dependents in order to raise the amount of welfare they receive daily.
And always beware of who else may feel you are unable to "responsibly deal with your life".
Read your sig a little more closely....
Quit throwing my sig in my face, the context of that verse bears no relation to this at all.
People that are on unemployment paid unemployment INSURANCE while they were working and are entitled to it.
There are people that are on welfare who ARE societal leaches. Do you think they would vote for someone who would REDUCE welfare? .....and no, I don't think they should vote.
I like you Jen. You are bright, articulate and often witty. However.....your level of idealism surprises me. I figured that you would have a greater appreciation for EARNing ones privlidges in society.
People that are on unemployment paid unemployment INSURANCE while they were working and are entitled to it.
There are people that are on welfare who ARE societal leaches. Do you think they would vote for someone who would REDUCE welfare? .....and no, I don't think they should vote.
I like you Jen. You are bright, articulate and often witty. However.....your level of idealism surprises me. I figured that you would have a greater appreciation for EARNing ones privlidges in society.
Pun intended? :devil:zod said:another black eye for the NAACP.............
If I had a dollar for every time that happened to me...Damn True said:
So just because you haven't been convicted of a felony, you're automatically a responsible person?Damn True said:
I would trust someone who spent 5 years behind bars for being a stupid youth to have their priorities straighter than someone who, say, wasn't convicted because they're wealthy family hired better lawyers, and they've never been held accountable for anything during their long pampered but conviction free lifetime.
Tenchiro said:Pun intended? :devil:
When I typed it, it did cross my mind :evil: but no pun intended
I don't think the current president would be very happen with a policy like this...Damn True said:
The vice-president either...No but they sure as hell would vote for better funding of urban schools, because they don't want their children to be stuck in the same lifestyle they are. That you would deny someone who has never commited a crime other than, at worst, sloth, is appalling.Damn True said:
Who are you to judge?
Perhaps we should focus more than on the kiddos to fill them with proper moral values, rather than trying to prevent legal adults from participating in a society that continues to pass judgement on them far beyond the time they legally must server for their crimes.
Perhaps we should consider reforming the welfare and unemployment systems so the money flow is cut off if you refuse to participate in society, rather than simply denying them a voice at all in their government.
Perhaps through simple education we can begin to stem this tide of bitterness and pity that causes those of us who do work hard to be angry towards those who take advantage, yet can't stop paying their bills because they can't care for themselves.
Or...better yet...perhaps we should simply eliminate all forms of government controls and let anarchy reign for awhile until the leaches are purged, and only the strong, creative, smart individuals remain.
Perhaps we should consider reforming the welfare and unemployment systems so the money flow is cut off if you refuse to participate in society, rather than simply denying them a voice at all in their government.
Perhaps through simple education we can begin to stem this tide of bitterness and pity that causes those of us who do work hard to be angry towards those who take advantage, yet can't stop paying their bills because they can't care for themselves.
Or...better yet...perhaps we should simply eliminate all forms of government controls and let anarchy reign for awhile until the leaches are purged, and only the strong, creative, smart individuals remain.
Clearly, but I fail to understand your attachment to giving ex-cons the keys to the city once their sentance is served. One word recitivism.Jr_Bullit said:
Not a bad idea. There ought to be more pathways to a retraction of assistance, but I like that one a lot.Jr_Bullit said:
They can't/wont take care of themselves because they exist in a culture that tells them they don't have to. When generations live on handouts you can't tell me that I am the reason for it because it pisses me off to have to support someone who can, but refuses to support himself.Jr_Bullit said:
Not a bad idea.Jr_Bullit said:
But as a evolutionist, consider this:
Those who are most adapted to, and most able to handle living in the world we as the human race have created are on average having 1-2 children. That equates to a zero if not negative population growth curve. However, those who are ill adapted to handle this world are having many many more children. So it seems that eventually the number of people available to provide support will shrink while the number requireing it will grow.
Reverse evolution?
Social Darwinism?
Wait a minute...you're confusing the fact that people who subscribe to evolutionary theory are automatically Social Darwinists...which is absolutely not true. I can't speak for Jr. Bullit's beliefs, but that idea is completely and utterly false.
Wait a minute...you're confusing the fact that people who subscribe to evolutionary theory are automatically Social Darwinists...which is absolutely not true. I can't speak for Jr. Bullit's beliefs, but that idea is completely and utterly false.
So anyway one time in bandcamp.......
Hate to put you on the spot, but how do you reconcile the teachings of Jesus Christ with a Randian philosophical outlook?Damn True said:
Just curious, y'know? I'm still looking for the part in the bible where Jesus means tests his followers...
Because I believe in Jesus does not mean I have to think it's ok for the govt to take what I work hard for and give it to someone who refuses to do the same.
Yeah, give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. I have no problem with that. I'll pay my taxes, but I want it to go to benefit my safety, my security, and things that benefit the greater good. Rewarding sloth does not qualify as such.
Yeah, give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. I have no problem with that. I'll pay my taxes, but I want it to go to benefit my safety, my security, and things that benefit the greater good. Rewarding sloth does not qualify as such.
I never ever saw Jesus say that in any of his sermons. There is a parable or two that may apply (the talents on comes to mind) but those are mostly focused on spiritual mattesr. Jesus seemed to be very NOT worried about financial matters, by my reading.Damn True said:
I guess maybe you see what you look for? Because Christ appears to be standing right next to Marx economically, the way I read him. Rich men have trouble getting in heaven, remember, because they can't forsake their earthly possessions. If you have two coats, you supposed to give one to a brother who doesn't have one. There's nothing in there about making sure that said brother works his ass off...
"I never ever saw Jesus say that in any of his sermons."
You were there? Cool, what was he like?
At the period of our Saviours residence on earth, the Jews were greatly divided in opinion, respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to the Roman emperors, under whose government they lived.
"Render unto Cesar the things that are Caesar; and to God, the things that are Gods" (Mark 12:17).
Weve heard it all before. Jesus was a liberal because he fed the hungry and healed the sick. Implicit is the common notion that conservatives dont want people to be fed or healed. Liberals think theyve cornered the market on compassion simply because they advocate bigger government programs to do the caring and feeding. To sum up the difference between liberal compassion and true compassion, Ill borrow an old saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Non-political conservative values, such as promoting traditional families, self-restraint, self-reliance (physical, not spiritual), to name a few, are biblical attributes. Feeding the hungry and comforting the sick are also biblical attributes, but Jesus Christ did much more than this in his 3-year ministry. That is not all he did or ultimately why he came.
Christ wasnt a traveling doctor or soup kitchen volunteer walking the countryside curing ailments and filling bellies with loaves of bread and fish. He was extending an offer to heal spiritual sickness and provide the bread of life Himself to satisfy spiritual hunger. The physical feeding and curing were signs pointing to the real feeding and curing.
You were there? Cool, what was he like?
At the period of our Saviours residence on earth, the Jews were greatly divided in opinion, respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute to the Roman emperors, under whose government they lived.
"Render unto Cesar the things that are Caesar; and to God, the things that are Gods" (Mark 12:17).
Weve heard it all before. Jesus was a liberal because he fed the hungry and healed the sick. Implicit is the common notion that conservatives dont want people to be fed or healed. Liberals think theyve cornered the market on compassion simply because they advocate bigger government programs to do the caring and feeding. To sum up the difference between liberal compassion and true compassion, Ill borrow an old saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Non-political conservative values, such as promoting traditional families, self-restraint, self-reliance (physical, not spiritual), to name a few, are biblical attributes. Feeding the hungry and comforting the sick are also biblical attributes, but Jesus Christ did much more than this in his 3-year ministry. That is not all he did or ultimately why he came.
Christ wasnt a traveling doctor or soup kitchen volunteer walking the countryside curing ailments and filling bellies with loaves of bread and fish. He was extending an offer to heal spiritual sickness and provide the bread of life Himself to satisfy spiritual hunger. The physical feeding and curing were signs pointing to the real feeding and curing.
Did Jesus also teach that it's okay to be so blinded by a condescending need to teach a suffering man a lesson that one loses ability to sympathize (the root, by the way, of "compassion," and not to be confused with "empathy") with someone who has not lived the same life as himself.
Compassion and empathy are one thing, enabling is something all together different.
There are people that fall on hard times and need assistance. No problem with that. The problem is when we allow people to make a career, even a culture of it.
There are people that fall on hard times and need assistance. No problem with that. The problem is when we allow people to make a career, even a culture of it.