I don’t agree with it. In my opinion, once you’ve paid your debt to society you’re square with the house. I don’t believe in lifetime bans or sex offender lists, serve the sentence and you should be completely back in society.
Not exactly true. I point out a post from your side that’s factually unsound, at best an exercise of hyperbole…and you guys all ignore it.
A post of mine that’s factually unsound, at best an exercise of hyperbole, from two years ago, and moreover one that I later repudiated, is hauled out now as evidence that this is my correct, complete, and honest opinion.
That weapon only works when it’s one of me and a whole gang of you.
Sure. And that’s one reason felons vote for liberals, and liberals count on felons’ votes.
I’m not seeing that correlation. Treating ex-felons like humans would likely lose more votes from the more vindictive members of society than would be gained from appreciative felons. And let’s not forget the many felons that happen to be former Republican elected officials, they aren’t going to suddenly start riding the donkey.
I believe the faulty assumptions are:
1- Felons are politically active and can’t wait to start electing Democrats. Some are very likely anti-abortion or anti SSM, some are very likely not. I don’t see any evidence that they are a Democratic monolithic voting bloc.
2- Democrats fall over themselves trying to court the ex-felon vote. Not that I’ve ever seen. Indeed, decriminalizing marijuana would undercut the business of many ex-felons who return to their drug dealing ways.
Didn’t you just claim to have at some unknown point in time repudiated this belief? This looks like an unrepudiation.
Lawyah, please.
The actual conversation went farther. I specifically said that one poster in the thread, Lobohan, did want illegal voters, including felons, to vote for his side, and believed his side could not win without those votes.
That was later repudiated as an exercise of hyperbole, not a serious argument.
From here:
How could you have been so mistaken?
Why, yes, point of fact, I do believe that the Washington Times is a scurrilous and reprehensible publication, unfit to wrap spoiled catfish. A high pressure fire hose for liquid diarrhea, a crapulous version of Old Faithful, an embarrassment to honest Republicans everywhere, perhaps both of them. That they were factual in this rather minor kerfluffle is a wonder for the ages.
And, as I clearly said, the Justice Department was misguided and foolish in this trivial matter, if for no other reason than they have much bigger fish to fry. Said so.
Be that as it may, I am but one person. And even if I am a lefty slimeball, that does not affect your status in any meaningful way. You are, once again, one tu quoque over the line.
Because no matter where you go, there you are.
Not me. You.
So we’ve been told. Given your unblemished record for candor and honesty, what more could we ask for?
There’s nothing whatever stopping you from finding old posts of any user and quoting them. Whether or not you get praise for doing so is a matter of popularity, not fairness.
You’re being quite the bitch, here. And kind of insulting to adaher and Uzi, truth be told.
Regarding this tangent to “how felons vote”, has anyone taken into account that convicts may be disproportionately poor and/or black, neither condition prompting a pro-Republican bias regardless of past convictions?
I think the real question here is not whether that’s cause to take some sort of legal action against the priestess, but whether it’s cause to call into question the legitimacy of the election result.
And again, there’s a question of context… So our setup is that there’s a town with a narrowly divided electorate, and a large population who believe in voodoo, who are overwhelmingly Democrat.
Variation 1:
So in our most innocent example, the priestess is in no way thought to be politically interested at all. And every once in a while she warns that the blood of a slaughtered pig have informed her that some particular day is one when the devout should stay inside and pray. This happens every other month or so. And then one year it happens on (already scheduled) election day. No evidence at all that this was done intentionally by the priestess, but sure enough Democratic turnout is noticeably lower and the Republicans win. Did anyone do anything wrong?
Variation 2:
Same as the above, but the priestess announces the stay-inside days way in advance, and then a Republican-dominated city council, which has the authority to schedule a special election on a wide variety of possible days, schedules it on one of the stay-inside days. Illegal? Scuzzy?
Variation 3:
After the election has happened, phone and bank records emerge proving that the priestess was bribed into naming that one day as a stay-at-home day. The briber was a wealthy local businessman with Republican leanings, but the Republican elected officials had no idea that was happening. Illegal? Scuzzy?
Variation 4:
Same as variation 3, but it’s a member of the city council who does the bribing. Illegal? Scuzzy?
And if your focus is purely on how much of a burden there is, without context; that is, if your answer to all of those is just “well, clearly those people COULD still leave the house on a stay-at-home day, if they didn’t believe something so silly”, then replace “voodoo” with “orthodox judaism” and replace “priestess announced a stay-at-home-day” with “the polling place is in the lobby of a hog slaughterhouse”. Does that make a difference?
So your position on voter ID laws is that you believe them to be legal/valid/good, but if you are presented with sufficiently compelling evidence that one specific law in one specific state presents an undue burden (with “undue burden” obviously being contentious) then you are prepared to withdraw your support for that particular state’s law? If so, is it possible for you to be convinced purely by a situation in which it is DIFFICULT for people to vote, but not IMPOSSIBLE? That is, if it was demonstrated that for X percentage of Democratic voters, it required a total of Y hours and Z dollars in order to acquire the necessary IDs, are there values of X, Y and Z that would be high enough that you would agree the burden was undue?
So… you were wrong?
It’s hard for the casual reader to sift through the volumes of words. When I’m wrong, I have no problem in clearly and unambiguously saying so.
So were you wrong?
Remember when you cried like a bitch for about a dozen posts or so because Trinopus hurt your feelings? Specifically, he said:
This is a perfect example of that. You made one declaration that you have been arguing for the legality of the law. I post an example of you being a partisan shitheel rather than arguing about the legality of the law.
You claim to have repudiated that statement (without specifying where or how), and cry how unfair it is that it is yet again suggested to be your feelings.
You then SAY THE FUCKING SAME THING AGAIN!
Then you argue that your previous elaboration involved the repudiation.
Then you provide data on felons’ party allegiances, as if that has anything to do with the offending part of what you’ve said, and proclaim victory.
This is exactly why Trinopus was spot on with his assessment of your communication. Note he said that you were unwilling to be clear and understandable (not unable, as you later lied).
Your contributions here are worthless.
It’s not that I seek praise – it’s that I expect something approaching condemnation for error be leveled at anyone who errs, since this is a site supposedly interested in fighting ignorance.
Instead, an error that accuses the Washington Times of fabrication is met with indulgent chuckles. “Oh, that zany whacky elucidator, with his cute little weaselly ways! Who’s a cute widdle elucidator? You are! Yes you are!”
A factual error from me is not greeted in the same way.
That’s destructive to debate. It forces me to carefully police my assertions, and not advance anything that I cannot rigorously defend, but lets others toss out much less stringent claims, knowing there is no real risk if their false claims are exposed.
That is, of course, what led to the concerted attempt to stop me from offering bets. The prospect of an actual consequence for spewing confident bullshit was staggering. What? A consequence for liberal-favoring error? We must halt this unseemly practice immediately!
Then stop reading my posts.
Absolutely. In fact, that happened with respect to the first go-around in Pennsylvania, when evidence was adduced that the ramp-up time between the law’s passage and its first use was so short that the agency responsible for distributing IDs was behind the curve for their own metrics. It was that that led to my saying the best approach was a delay of an election cycle between law’s passage and law’s use.
Sure. “Undue burden” does not mean “impossible.”
In fact, I’ll take the matter out of your hands. You’re hereby forbidden from reading my posts.
There. Problem solved.