votes? Now we have Eric Holder wanting to give convicts the right to vote.
What a cesspool that will be. Murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. They already have living conditions better than some living on the outside and we the taxpayers help support their families. Now they want them to vote? Maybe someone up for life imprisonment will run for president? You think?
Sport Cases (Electronics)
PFD's (Life Jackets)
EZ Launch™ Kayak & Canoe
|Table of Contents|
|Messages in this Topic|
Actually, the man was referring to|
Posted by: ralph59 on Feb-14-14 3:07 AM (EST)
Answer to your first questions is, "Yes"|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-14-14 7:22 AM (EST)
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-14-14 7:42 AM (EST)
More intrusion into sanity.
Dems desperate? Are you kidding?|
Posted by: LesG on Feb-14-14 7:57 AM (EST)
It is the Republican party that is dying out. In large parts of the country they are irrelevant. California has had to go to open primaries and November runoffs because elections between Ds and Rs are no longer competitive.
The Republicans Are At War|
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-14-14 8:14 AM (EST)
With themselves. Yet a B&B crank thinks Democrats are desparate because Eric Holder is a far more compassionate person than she is.
Right. Schwartzenegger, Faulconer,|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-14-14 8:43 AM (EST)
Rohrabacker, Issa, Hunter, Valadao, Nunes, Swearingen, Tait, etc....
lose the Electoral College|
Posted by: acre on Feb-14-14 12:10 PM (EST)
Lets get rid of the electoral college and whoever wins the popular vote wins. It seems to me that the Republicans are more than willing to alter the electoral college so it works in thier favor but would never let the popular vote elect a president.
Actually, it is the Democrats who|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-14-14 5:44 PM (EST)
have pushed for reform in the Electoral College System, to the Congressional District Method, and away from the current winner takes all system.
The Dems would never go for that|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-14-14 10:03 PM (EST)
That would put several reliably blue states that haven't voted for a Republican in decades back into play. Once you get out of the metropolitan areas, New york and Pennsylvania, are pretty red. Same deal with purple states like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.
Really, despite evidence to the|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-14-14 10:21 PM (EST)
a few points|
Posted by: bignate on Feb-15-14 12:24 AM (EST)
1) What are the sources for your assertions regarding the intent underlying the electoral college? I've never seen anything that suggested that the founders were concerned about urban v. rural constituencies.
I suggest you go read the writings of|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-15-14 12:51 AM (EST)
Madison in particular, but several others. They didn't want the Industrial States (Read: Large Urban Populations) to have unfair influence over the Agricultural States (Read: Rural).
I suggest you re-read|
Posted by: bignate on Feb-15-14 1:09 AM (EST)
the writings of Madison.
You are taking their writings as of the |
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-15-14 5:17 AM (EST)
Posted by: AlbertG on Feb-15-14 9:09 AM (EST)
New York, Philadelphia, and Boston populations far, far outweighed the rural populations of those states in colonial times. Al's statements are exactly right.
Not to the extent they do now.|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-15-14 5:38 PM (EST)
In 1790, New York City had a population of 33,000 people.
This just keeps getting better...|
Posted by: bignate on Feb-16-14 11:06 AM (EST)
How do you know what the founders did or didn't envision with respect to the growth of cities? Are you conducting seances? There were most certainly men among the founders who anticipated that manufacturing and industry would play an increasing role in the country's future relative to agriculture.
I went and got a bowl of popcorn |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-16-14 11:20 AM (EST)
... from the beginning
Let me put it in simpler terms..|
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-16-14 5:48 PM (EST)
Eisenhower ordered built the Interstate Highway System.
Posted by: bignate on Feb-16-14 7:40 PM (EST)
There's really no possibility of meaningful debate when you completely refuse to address my arguments about what the drafters of the constitution actually did say in favor of re-regurgitating the same "common sense" speculations about what mighta, coulda, shoulda happened if only they had known what they didn't actually know.
You have provided nothing that |
Posted by: FishinYak on Feb-17-14 12:58 AM (EST)
the Founding fathers did say to support your claim. I have provided some of their sayings to support mine.
See now that I don't get|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-17-14 11:13 AM (EST)
Why not stick with and hone in on the rules of construction argument?
It's not as simple as that|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-14-14 9:46 AM (EST)
For the Dems to let their true radical flags fly, they are desperate for new voters who won't recoil at the prospect.
Neither is your caricature|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 11:22 AM (EST)
by your definition|
Posted by: dave54 on Feb-16-14 7:12 PM (EST)
dems are also irrelevant.
Someone who agrees|
Posted by: LesG on Feb-18-14 12:11 PM (EST)
That's a state issue.|
Posted by: Big_D on Feb-14-14 8:28 AM (EST)
It should stay that way. If it does, Eric Holder's desires are meaningless.
If their right to vote is upheld|
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-14-14 8:35 AM (EST)
There Was No Mass Media|
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-14-14 8:58 AM (EST)
Nor was there a global economy in the 18th century. Let's face it. Parts of our constitution are useless. Now we need public finanacing with no other contributions.
Posted by: Big_D on Feb-14-14 9:48 AM (EST)
There is a mechanism in the Constitution to amend those parts that become useless. If a part becomes useless, we change the Constitution accordingly.
And in the 18th century|
Posted by: Ayornamut on Feb-14-14 9:49 AM (EST)
white male freemen property owners voted.
there was a global economy|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-14-14 10:55 AM (EST)
Where do you think we got tea, coffee, markets for cotton, and many, many, many other goods we used every day.
No global economy|
Posted by: pirateoverforty on Feb-14-14 12:46 PM (EST)
In the colonial days. We need a hall of fame to enshrine some of these posts.
The US educational system failed you|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-15-14 1:12 PM (EST)
There has been a global economy since the Silk Road circa 206 BC.
You misinterpreted Pirate's post|
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 1:15 PM (EST)
I didn't read the previous post by SA|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-15-14 2:25 PM (EST)
I guess the educational system failed him instead of pirate. :)
There should be an application process|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-14-14 10:54 AM (EST)
in every state for convicted felons to apply to the to have their voting rights restored by the courts, BUT I think the there needs to be some sort of a hearing where there is consideration of the crime committed as well as their behavior while locked up.
Why "White-collar crimes"?|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-14-14 11:36 AM (EST)
Those that rob with a pen generally get a much bigger haul. they'd be the last folks I'd restore the right to vote to.
I said non-violent offenses|
Posted by: Yakfisher on Feb-14-14 5:28 PM (EST)
and white collar crime is a non-violent offense. The only people who really need to be behind bars are people who are a menace to society (i.e. rapists, murderers, robbers, etc.)
the only reason|
Posted by: raddog1 on Feb-14-14 12:12 PM (EST)
he thinks felons should eventually have their voting rights restored is that he believes they are another bloc of liberal democrat voters. He is probably correct. If they leaned right, not likely, he'd be as against it as he is against preventing vote theft.
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-14-14 12:19 PM (EST)
raddig, I think you hit|
Posted by: shirlann on Feb-14-14 12:21 PM (EST)
the nail on the head.
Holder is a Nazi|
Posted by: dogmatycus on Feb-14-14 12:28 PM (EST)
I'm not sure the dems are anymore |
Posted by: converse on Feb-14-14 1:54 PM (EST)
The unlikely voter pool is 80 - 90 M|
Posted by: ralph59 on Feb-15-14 2:30 AM (EST)
Both parties know exactly what they are doing and where their votes are. Imagine the outcome if a small portion of the millions who don't bother could somehow be persuaded to actually vote.
"Imagine the outcome if a small portion |
Posted by: clarion on Feb-15-14 8:36 AM (EST)
... of the millions who don't bother could somehow be persuaded to actually vote."
Funny! And we keep being told that|
Posted by: converse on Feb-18-14 8:01 AM (EST)
its voter identification requirements that stifles them from voting. Ever thought that voter suppression through the means of rejecting voter identification is much more an issue?
It ain't a river|
Posted by: LeeG on Feb-15-14 9:56 AM (EST)
You have a case of it bad
Nice try LaTourette|
Posted by: rWVen on Feb-15-14 2:52 PM (EST)
Don't take this at all personally but,|
Posted by: ralph59 on Feb-16-14 3:36 AM (EST)
in a way, I think it's sad that people know that. Sure, it's valuable information to consider at some point but, IMO, what I read was almost like calling a NASCAR race before it starts simply by counting the company logos involved. Follow my drift?
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-16-14 6:59 PM (EST)
Listen up dimwits! Trade routes aren't the definition of a global economy. Damn you righties are stupid.
Clinton embarrassed us!|
Posted by: tktoo on Feb-16-14 7:01 PM (EST)
i think your|
Posted by: radiomix on Feb-16-14 7:05 PM (EST)
Definition of global economy is the internet.
Posted by: SupremelyArrogant on Feb-16-14 8:08 PM (EST)
Until now I never realised you're a Republican.
Now you can take off your list|
Posted by: tktoo on Feb-18-14 9:46 AM (EST)
of things yet to be realized.