Impolite? Over the top??
What rock did you grow up under? Just answer the questions as they were posed to you. Or don’t.
And have your sarcas-o-meter checked. It’s malfunctioning.
Why…because I disagreed with your jackboot brand of justice? Because I was debating the issue and expressing my disrespect for your position?
If you are debating, then there should be some sort of non pissing match response to your last statement. Tell us what sort of response Moto could have given you that would have been appropriate for the forum.
Mr. Moto actually seemed to hold a fairly open minded, somewhat sensible position. He was in favor of allowing people to get their vote back, per his comments on the Virginia process. He admitted that he would have no problem if Virginia gave them the vote back after completion of parole. The only things he disagreed with was giving them the vote while incarcerated and giving it back automatically while they’re still on parole. BTW, on parole does not mean you’ve served your sentence, it just means they’re letting you walk free while reserving the right to throw you back in the slammer if you don’t play nice.
Even after admitting multiple times that he was OK with re-enfranchisement, you decide to lay down sarcastic strawmen responses that there is no reasonable response to and claim Moto is the jerk.
Gotta go with Moto on this one. Complete misrepresentation of a reasonable position.
I agree that you were, and it was. Also, when I first read Kalhoun’s post, I didn’t think it was sarcasm, either.
I hope this doesn’t mean I have to turn in my Usual Suspect Card.
He could have answered the questions. He could have revealed a little more of his attitudes about justice.
Bullshit. He said they’d have to go through some sort of expungment or pardon process. When the sentence is completed (whether that includes parole or not…and it doesn’t always, even when the most heinous of crimes is committed) the ex-con should be free to resume his life, in total. The exception in my opinion might be with regard to violent crime and being forbidden to own firearms. But even that is questionable, as a violent crime can be committed with something other than a firearm. Moto failed to explain what the benefit would be with regard to crime, punishment, protection, and the general good of the country. We’re waiting.
Sarcastic? Absolutely. So what? He wasn’t “ok” with re-enfranchisement; he wanted the ex-con to jump through hoops that are unrelated to the crime he committed. He wanted them to cough up some sort of proof that no one else has to produce. For no other reason than to be a Governmental Pricktoid.
There were no strawmen. They were honest questions that he chose not to answer. And that’s his perogative.
Then you’ve turned over a new leaf? Excellent!
I remember when you were king of the cryptic posts.
Is that so?
His personal preference?
So, he has a preference you don’t agree with, but will accept the decision of the state if they vote to have automatic enfranchisement upon completion of parole. Truly, he is a monster.
I never said he was a monster. I said his support of disenfranchisement is stupid. Aside from that, he feels that ex-felons should be somehow not quite as citizeny as the rest of us.
and
(aside from the disconnect of the whole thing, he hasn’t offered up a plan for that rehabilitation guarantee)
and he also said this:
…except I couldn’t find where he stated reasons. I only saw him parroting law. If someone could find those “reasons” for me I’d appreciate it.
He believes that the completion of a sentence does not, in and of itself, demonstrate rehabilitation.
Nor does it exclude rehabilitation, in and of itself. So what’s his point?
Neither case is provable. He feels more comfortable with a waiting period and a separate process; I (for example) feel that completion of the sentence is enough. I think that’s something on which reasonable people can disagree. I think that’s all his point is.
You’ve assumed I think my own posts are good. You’re projecting.
And I was disagreeing. He’s the one who felt disagreement with anything other than a clinical, non-emotional presentation was worthy of a pitting.
What about his support for re-enfranchisement? You asked him what he would think if Virginia loosened their restrictions, he says he wouldn’t have much of a problem with that, and you respond to that with an insult.
But he would be fine if the state decided to give ex-felons (felons who completed their sentence) the vote back.
Clearly he doesn’t want current felons to be allowed to vote, a position shared by many people, and the law in 48 states. Felons are removed from society for their bad acts, until they’ve served their time. Voting is something you get to do when you’re part of the community, if you’ve harmed the community and are being separated from the community, losing the vote can be thought of a part of that process.
Must be a point of view thing - I would say that Kalhoun’s comments (and much of the first page of this thread) are evidence in favor of my position.
To be fair to the boards, Cheesesteak and Frank are doing a good job of pointing out that Mr. Moto is not refusing to answer any questions, or that he is debating in any way in bad faith, or any of the rest of the dust Kalhoun is trying to throw up to disguise her chagrin at being out-debated. The board does not consist entirely of Usual Suspects. There’s too many of them, and they are hugely over-represented by left-wing assholes, but (as I also mentioned earlier) Mr. Moto and Bricker and Sam Stone and Starving Artist and so forth are easily the equal of any of them. And now that some of the Usual Suspects have had their shit in the thread, it is possible to develop some kind of reasonable discussion. My point is that the boards do have people, several of them, who shit in threads, and make it a point to aim it at conservatives.
A fair position. And I would say that the fact is that Kalhoun is merely repeating that anyone who does not agree with her opinion is a monster/Pricktoid who thinks ex-felons are subhuman and so forth. And since Czarcasm’s ad hominem was pretty much his only contribution to the thread, I think we can agree that he was dismissing everything Mr. Moto was saying, and is unfair and pointless.
Yes.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, he’s sending mixed messages as far as I’m concerned. He’s not for simply giving them the vote back when their sentence is served. He’d be fine with looser restrictions if his state decided that, but really…what choice would he have? He’s leaving it up to the state. I was looking for a deeper gaze into who HE is.
Maybe you should have asked me, then.
And whom exactly – by name – are you accusing of shitting in this thread?
Are you “fine” with the way Bush is dealing with Iraq, because you don’t have any choice in the matter?
To me, his being fine with it indicates two things. One, the proposed process is close enough to his preference that there’s no need to be upset. Two, the right people (the state) are making the decision, it’s not being forced on them from the federales like some other posters would prefer.
Right from his initial post, he supported a “robust” system to give the vote back to people who have “reformed” their lives. What reformed means is open to debate, but he seems willing to accept full completion of sentence (including parole) as the dividing line, even if his personal preference is more stringent.