lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The White House is blowin it...
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-23-2004, 01:23 AM   #41
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally posted by Noxrepere
If they are criminals themselves, they would have lost the right to vote already. That has nothing to do with Florida.
Incorrect. That is what the absentee balot is for.


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-23-2004, 01:34 AM   #42
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Actually the absentee ballot was designed to allow those unable to make it to the polls the opportunity to vote. People like soldiers and sailors, diplomats, those traveling overseas, the elderly, the handicapped, etc.

Most states have disenfranchisement rules that prohibit certain criminals from having the right to vote. Some states reinstate this right after a period of time post release, some strip it forever -depending upon the crime.

But absentee ballots weren't intended for those incarcerated. In fact, it's ironic that those that are incarcerated and still have voter privilages often must vote in the districts where their new residences are (the prisons).


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-23-2004, 01:49 AM   #43
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Oh, my bad. I thought we were talking about "criminals" and not covicted felons, or people on parole. Because there is a difference. You can be a criminal, without being convicted. And my source is my work. I admit people into my place of work (a forensic center) all the time, who are in fact, career criminals who've been found incompetant to stand trial. They just haven't been found guilty, not guilty, NGRI, or even been to trial for the particular charge they are there for. And one of the first things we do on admission, is offer them the chance to vote, as an absentee.

But now we're getting OT, aren't we?


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-24-2004, 07:59 PM   #44
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Noxrepere
Well Fascism, as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary is defined as:

a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc...

In what way is that related to the Republican Party or conservatism?
In what way is that not related to the Republican Party or conservatism?

Quote:
Yes, the term "liberal" does mean open to change or progress, and conservative does mean tending to preserve established traditions or institutions and to resist or oppose any change in these.

By your explanation though, you’re implying that not only are the conservatives opposed to all change, but also that the liberals are open to all change. That simply is not the case. The terms merely represent that, generally, the liberals are open to change in certain areas and the conservatives are opposed to change in those areas.
Gotta give him that, Skin. You are out on a limb here.

Quote:
Here you’re implying that President Bush didn’t already agree with their stances and merely changed his opinions and actions to garner their support.
And you're implying that that's somehow less a problem?

Quote:
Specifically, what do you believe he lied about that has led you to believe that he should be fired?
I'd take a guess at WMD and the Geneva Conventions, respectively.

Quote:
On the topic of “Bush Bashing”:

People in the John Kerry thread(s) come in and give excuses and reasons for his responses and actions. Why is one different from the other?
Kerry's supporters happen to do a little research, and happen to be able to tell a trustworthy source from an untrustworthy one.

Quote:
You’re implying that people who don’t agree with President Bush’s politics wouldn’t “bash” him at all without just cause. Simply disagreeing politically, or even religiously, is enough for some people to respond hostilely towards not only the President but anyone else as well. When people have differing opinions they can try and find things to complain about whether there is factual basis for it or not.
We can count the insults and unfounded accusations if you want. The count won't turn out in favor of your position.

Quote:
I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they?
A narrow-minded viewpoint. Terrorism can - and should - be fought with a wide array of tools. Single-minded focus on warcraft is not a viable option.

Quote:
The justices of the court were the one’s who decided the recounting, as the Democrats wanted it to be done, was unconstitutional. Not Bush’s brother.
Bull****. Those judges were instated by dubya's old man ten years ago... You know, the guy who tried to take credit for the fall of the USSR...

Quote:
The justification for the whole recount thing was also based on a margin of error for the counting machines. Both Bush and Gore stood to loose votes because of a margin of error, but it's not like the machines would favor one over the other.
Wrong. With dubya's baby brother in charge, the predominantly democratic districts were getting the shoddy ballot machines, meaning that the original count was biassed in favor of dubya.

Quote:
Challenging his intelligence makes a convenient target for them rather than just focusing on the issues.
Or maybe it's just that he can't seem to form a coherent sentence, much less a coherent strategy for running the country. Always assuming, of course, that you exclude 'make as much of a mess as possible in the shortest time possible'. But I'm ranting, and I'm gonna log off now.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2004, 12:39 PM   #45
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
I don’t remember the context of that statement specifically, but I believe he was saying that if someone doesn’t support the war on terrorism they would be for the terrorists, wouldn’t they?
---
A narrow-minded viewpoint. Terrorism can - and should - be fought with a wide array of tools. Single-minded focus on warcraft is not a viable option.
I don't support the war on terror, i don't support the terrorists.
Ooops, i've just disproved his view in one sentance.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The White House is blowin it...

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.