We’re having a spirited discussion in this thread, and I’m stating my position as plainly as I can. Maybe not as plainly as possible, but the majority of posters there tend to get the gist of what I’m saying, and though they disagree, mostly, they’re responding to these arguments in kind.
Everyone, that is, except for Kalhoun, who not only automatically ascribes the worst possible motives to my position, but attacks it with luducrous statements totally not indicated by any of my posts.
Now, Kalhoun, if you hated what I had to say that much, you should have come over here a while back. Your statements were out of line in what what should have been a rational debate. Choosing to attack me in that way in that forum was uncalled for, and demonstrates to me a basic disrespect for your political opponents and the general rules of this place.
I like Kalhoun , she’s gone after things I’ve said and done with some, um ‘enthusiasm’ before, but she’s rational and pretty smart when all is said and done, and I frankly don’t see the big insult here.
I don’t see any ascribing of motives anywhere in your quote. I see questions.
First off, they weren’t statements. They were questions. Questions that were perfectly valid, in my opinion. It just seems that you thought the disconnect between crime and punishment is ok in some instances and not in all. I was giving you a chance to flesh it out more clearly.
I happen to believe (and I’m not alone) that forbidding ex-felons to vote has absolutely no positive impact on society. It’s like treating an ovarian cyst by striping a parking lot. I also believe that when a sentence is served, we should all get on with the business of being productive members of society. The scarlett letter attitude serves no one.
I never said you were a cock-sucking imbicile with no value to the human race who should be cast aside like a myopic waste-oid. If that were the case, a pitting would be in order. I merely think your ideas about crime and punishment and citizens’ rights are inconsistent, ill-conceived and silly. The snarkification of that last comment was fine in that forum. Maybe you should spend less time making a mountain out of that mole hill and think about what you hope to accomplish by supporting the stupidity that is the disenfranchisement of a large segment of the community who has done their time.
Actually, if I were you, Mr. Moto, I would have been more offended at Czarcasm’s attempt to assign unworthy motives to you.
No, the part where you pretended that supporting the removal of voting rights from felons was the same as saying that they were sub-humans who didn’t deserve medical care or education was a statement. A stupid, unnecessarily inflammatory straw man statement. Not a question at all.
:shrugs:Kalhoun lost her temper along with the argument.
Seems like the boards are nastier nowadays. I thought you folks would cheer up when the Dems took over Congress.
I agree that Kalhoun was demolishing straw men with the specific statements quoted in the OP. On the other hand, on reading the thread I didn’t see any movement on your part towards addressing her points about including penalties not related to the crime and which would not help prevent future crimes, especially lifelong penalties, in sentences. Given that said penalties include the forefiture of basic rights I would think there would need to be a compelling reason to do so. Your continued arguments about there being “something”(poor judgement, “civic immaturity”, etc.) about committing a felony(regardless of what the actual crime was) automatically meeting that standard seem pretty weak. You do have caselaw on your side however, so if you want to continue standing firm on the “it’s the law” platform you can. When you leave those waters and start to argue the wisdom and appropriateness of the caselaw is where you seem to flounder in getting your point across.
