GOP FRAUD

LAM FOR DICTATOR OF THE WORLD!!!

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Is it my breath?

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Red herring. Whether drug laws are too harsh or not is not the issue ( I agree, to some extent, that they are). They are, however, the law. If they are to be changed it must be done through the democratic process. No one has the right to disobey them without consequence simply because they personally don't like them.Citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights. You asked for my opinion. That's it.

Very reasonable reply. Indeed it comes very close to my own perspective on how and why criminal sentencing should be developed. I even agree with most of the post incarceration prescriptions that you mentioned.However I feel voting is something different and Let me lay this out and see what you think about my position. Remember I do think your argument is valid, that continued voting is the carrot to keep people respecting the rule of law they would be controlling with their vote, and deprivation of that right would be the stick. Yet there are two issues which I think make preserving their right to vote important.1) Not all felony crimes involve the deprivation of others' rights, but rather personal behavior due to political/social machinations which use laws in place of normative sanctions to change the morality of society. Thus while a felon has undoubtedly chosen to break "the law" it was not necessarily a law which was to protect physical order of the nation, but rather to enforce a moral code on others.It has been documented that the US is increasingly replacing normative sanctions with the rule of law. Thus because group does not like another group doing something "there ought to be a law". This trends to yet more felonies involving actions wholly separate from people's treatment of others.Given this trend it seems more important to allow social minorities, incarcerated for simply being minorities, to have the ability to change the legal landscape. Otherwise the remain at the mercy of those on the moral majority side.The laws could of course be made to allow people to vote for crimes which do not involve the direct victimization of others. But I would argue they should still get a vote for the next reason...2) Most people that commit crimes do not choose to do so "freely". That is they do not share the same social situation that others enjoy. Even if physically possible to have the same environment they have tuned out for some reason. For this subject I will leave out those who simply feel the law is wrong, and perhaps the law was unjust. That was covered above. This is about those who break laws that are quite common, about physical safety of others, and unlikely to change based on fads. So things like murder, rape, theft...These people were already disconnected from society before they commited their crimes, most probably not even caring about voting. It has become known that a good way of rehabilitating criminals is to reconnect them to society. Lopping off their right to vote simply ensures further disconnection. It makes the state an enemy they cannot deal with reasonably.However if their vote, their voice, is maintained, it could be used as a method of rehabilitation. Help them realize what laws and processes are, the ones they have violated, by showing that they really do have a piece of that process. And it doesn't just have to be national level stuff, but local and state elections as well.Without a vote they simply have one less reason to worry about politics, or care about the society they live in. They can honestly say it is them against the world, and then only money and power talks.Hope this sounds like a reasonable response.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Some of the founding fathers would have disagreed. The fact that there is a law does not make it just nor does it mean you should obey. If you truly feel it is an unjust law some would have said you have a duty to disobey.There is of course a difference between the person who feels a law is unjust and the base criminal who would appeal to the same law to protect his interests, while breaking them when they don't suit his purpose.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for making my point. So why should such prisoners not be able to have a voice in realistic political issues like economic or foreign policies which could affect the nation and their families? You condescendingly bring up the size of our prison system and the number of incarcerated individuals as if I might not be aware of it, and then act hurt when I bring up what is the major crime that caused this vast inflation of our penal system?Heheheh... vast inflation of our penal system. Now I can't take myself seriously. Anyhow, chill out. Yes I honestly believe the majority in prison for selling drugs are against the drug war. You think they really want to stay in prison just for higher profits? That's the guys at the top who rarely if ever go to prison.And I can guarantee the guy in prison for using drugs was against the war. Why would he want higher prices and lower quality? Does that even make sense to you? This sounds like a bigoted and ignorant position.You don't think that many sellers were trying to make money having grown up in environments where they felt disconnected from society, and this was an easier way to make a living?You don't think that many users were just trying to enjoy themselves as gays try to enjoy what they enjoy?Your argument smacks of the same arguments I hear against gays and women who have abortions. It doesn't matter how many laws are just or not. The question is which are unjust. And in this case we may even move further to ask if the law which has incarcerated the overwhelming majority is just. Your hypocracy is noted.By the way, I currently live in a nation that does not prosecute people for being "junkies" and indeed helps them with social programs. While they are unsightly, kind of zombie looking, I have never had a problem with them.Indeed most crimes being commited here are not by junkies. They happen to be commited by muslims... obviously not very good ones. It could just as easily... and I'm sure there was a time when this was true... that jews were commiting the most crimes here. So then why could muslims or jews not be as derisively treated as you suggest "junkies" should be?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

the idea of an absolute dictator that does nothing says nothing is GOOD!

quote:

---

Perhaps if you'd state your point, and arguments in favor of it, in your own words rather than cutting and pasting, I'd be more interested in responding to your posts.

---

I did do that, in the other thread that you abandoned over a month ago.My point is that the Bush regime strongly implied, in speeches and press conferences and interviews given in the run up to the war, that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was connected to and greatly responsible for 9/11.You say you don't think that he lied, and it is true that they never came right out and made a direct connection, but they mentioned "terrorism", "9/11", "WMD" "Iraq", and "Saddam Hussein" in the same breath over and over again.There is, today, a vast chasm between what most Bush supporters believe abut the existence in Iraq of WMD and the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and reality.

Red herring or no, the rights of freedom, equality, justice and liberty come with responsibilities as well, and one of them is ensuring that they are kept and made available to all to the same degree. That is being patriotic to the ideals that America is founded on (rather than to icons or people that happen to be (s)elected), and those ideals were also founded on the precept that unjust laws must be changed (see Declaration of Independence).The fear of how people would vote should not determine whether or not they should vote -- in fact if you anticipate that they will vote different from you, shouldn't you be even more determined to let their voice be heard? In the second world war prisoners were offered the option of going to war in exchange for their sentence and many went willingly to serve their country and did so with honor.Most Americans did not choose to become Americans they just happened into it, but those who have come here to have a good life, good job, and who work hard to accomplish those goals should be citizens. Personally I don't anticipate a problem with letting virtually everyone in the US vote, especially when you have people who are "automatic citizens" that aren't as well behaved and informed on the issues as some "alien immigrants" -- this amounts to bias\bigotry on who is "good enough" to vote.NOTE: One of the reason there are terrorists in the world is because they are disenfranchised, marginalized by the society around them -- this leads to the obvious conclusion that stopping such disenfranchising and marginalizing would also prevent a lot of terrorism, whether in Oklahoma City or Gaza. Shouldn’t that mean that all people are entitled to vote? Are we not all citizens of the world?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Oops, forgot about this thread. Cuz, they had their chance to participate in our normal society and they chose to blow it. I wasn't hurt. Now, you are talking about the concept of social justice. Different issue.I've lived in the worst places in one of the worst countries in the world and some of the worst places in this country. You don't have to lecture me on how it is justified to commit crimes just cuz your life is shitty. I can guarantee you that the guy was against the war too, but for a different purpose than what we are refering to. Breaking the law in such a way (breaking up families, spend all your earnings on drugs, denying that you're addicted, etc.) ain't the same thing as civil disobedience for civil rights. In fact, I'm somewhat offended by the comparison. The old argument "I didn't kill here, my gene did... my father was a murder and his father was a murderer so it must be genetic... whoa whoa whoa" Ok, so now you are comparing homosexual people to crack addicts and crack dealers. On the one hand, we are talking about people with basic rights to choice. On the other, we are talking about people that rob and kill for pure enjoyment. I spent a part of my life surrounded by crack addicts. Trust me, they don't care about basic rights like we do. They only care how much money they can con out of other people to go out and buy more drugs. Let me ask you something. Is it hypocrisy if you say "you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" when you have the first amendment?Different situation calls for different reactions. It is called flexibility, not hypocracy. I don't either. What they want to do with their lives is up to them. However, that doesn't mean that I should give murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc. the power/potential to change my life just because a group of people decided to become zombie looking who probably never cared about political issues. I don't understand what part of "different situations call for different measures" don't you understand? Here, you are implying that being a drug addict is the same as being a Jew, homosexual, Muslim, etc.Let me try to make my position clear. I think the drug war should end. I think they should legalize drugs. But just like alcohol, they should be regulated. However, I don't think that people who choose to become drug addicts should be the reason why we let murderers, rapists, child molesters, bank robbers, etc. to have any say in our democracy. When you have the power to vote, you have the potential to change other people's lives. Multiply you by a few hundred thousand and you end up with a lot of potential to change a lot of people's lives.To tell you the truth, I'm kinda offended for being compared to drug addicts, murderers, etc. just cuz I'm gay. That's what religious ultr-conservatives do, not you, holmes.

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

This is the reasoning used against social minorities once a majority decides to pick on them.But more to the point... and assuming the ridiculous assumption everyone chose to "blow" their chance at being "normal"... a person who makes a poor choice in one area of their life does not necessarily have nothing valuable to say or do in other parts of their life.And especially when we are discussing morals laws, there seems to be no reason to treat them the same as those who while commiting their crime chose to violate the rights of others.This is why I have mentioned there might very well be a reason to punish those who violated others rights by taking away such criminal's right to vote. But for those who didn't victimize others, losing that right seems nothing more than silencing a minority.In a reply to paisano I also detailed why it might be useful to maintain the right to vote for those that violated the rights of others. This might act as a way to keep them connected to society, giving them somethin to take an interest in. Given the way you talk my guess is I've lived in worse areas than you. I agree that a bad life does not give a person the right to commit a crime. This does not change the fact that people do end up commiting crimes because of alienation from society, which poverty tends to increase.I might also add that this is beside the point. You said the people in prison were for the drug war for the market it creates. It stands in direct contrast to the lack of care you also posit they have toward gov't policies. My comment was that those in prison are likely not for the drug war, and would not want to stay in just for profit. I'm unsure how you think this makes sense. How many people in prison for drug use are addicts? And most people that use drugs do it simply for entertainment. They don't break drug laws in order to "break up families"? "spend all their earnings on drugs"? Whoops, hey didn't I point out that the drug war increases prices and lowers quality which heightens those problems you just mentioned? This is not what I said at all. I was discussing environmental factors on people's choices in life, not inherited factors. No not addicts and dealers, though yes in a way to drug users. While sexual drives are inherent and using other substances for fun is not, we choose to experiment and use them in much the same way. I've got a drug clinic for addicts a few doors down from mine. They hang out all the time. There is a needle dispensary the next block over, as well as the Salvation Army down the block. I have no idea what you are talking about.Oh yes I do, you are talking about desperate people trying to deal with their problems in a place where there is an active drug war where users as well as addicts are treated poorly and have no access to deal with any issues they might encounter... very similar to conservatives who dodges AIDs when it was a gay disease.I am talking about people who use or have become addicted to substances. The first don't need anything but information on how to avoid problems, the second group need help out of the problems they are encountering. They do not inherently have to act in any fashion.Certainly even the deepest addicts are not likely to kill and steal just for fun. That is the product of many other social factors. This has no relevance to what we were discussing. You are a hypocrite for slandering people you don't like because of your obvious ignorance about them, while whining constantly for special consideration for your social minority (and apparently some others you happen to like). How will they be able to change your life? You have already admitted they are not going to be able to vote in pro murder candidates. The most you will have to put up with is them voting for candidates you might not agree with for other reasons.Also, your consistent equation of drug criminals with addicts, and then addicts with murderers, thieves, and rapists reveals your bias against them. I have not even brought up the other felonies that have little or nothing to do with victimizing others, or not in any direct way.And in the end your argument is inconsistent. If these people don't care about politics anyway, then why do you fear how they will vote? They won't, right? If they begin to vote once they lose their other freedoms, isn't that a good sign? Isn't that an indication they want to reconnect with society? I understand different situations call for different measures. However your not understanding and liking some group as compared to another does not make it an objectively different situation.Drug users are part of a subculture that is just as real as being a Jew, homosexual, etc etc. Addict are simply a fraction of the drug using community that has developed a serious health problem which can impact their life in many different ways. Again, your dehumanization and blaming of the drug addict is similar to those who dehumanized AIDs victims during the early 80's. That is a very similar situation. Find me one person who chose to be a drug addict. They are criminals. They have broken laws. Paisano has laid out a logical argument regarding using the removal of voting rights as a form of punishment for violating laws.I have agreed that the worst offenders, such as murderers and rapists perhaps should have that punishment as they have transgressed the rights of others, in some cases permanently. But given that morals laws do not involve actually transgressing against others, and they are on the rise, it does not seem rational to deprive those people of a vote. It is reminiscent of what the Nazi's did to undesirables in Germany. You are like drug users (and thus addicts as well). I would not say like murderers as that entails violating someone else's rights. If you are offended by the comparison it is only because you do not like the other subculture you are being compared to.I suppose there were plenty of gays who did not see why they had to be lumped in with Jews during Nazi Germany. There certainly were a couple in Hitler's cabinet.You need to learn more about other humans and fear them less.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, you win.

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

Did you guys see this? Voter suppression timeThis is, apparently, a flyer circulating among the black population of Milwaukee:Wisconsin has, of course, same-day registration voting.It's a well-known fact that minority voters vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and Milwaukee is no exception; since I doubt Democrats would try to discourage voting among one of their major contitutents, I think we can all surmise who is behind this outrage.

Saddam Hussein?Let's get him!!!!!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Maybe the U.N. needs to oversee the U.S. election!

---

You will recall, of course, that Saddam Hussein offered to provide election supervisors for 2004.