Ann Coulter on Jeff Gannon

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
See the spin here

I'm loathe to give Ann any more publicity that she desperately craves but I thought her arguments were amusing.

Here's a tip, Ann: It's not about him changing his name; it's about him using an alias to gain access to the White House. Had this been a liberal reporter under Clinton, she would be calling for his head by now. Shrill, ignorant hypocrite.

Edit: fixed the link
 
Funny, I've heard a lot more attention in the mainstream media about the website than the alias and access. Like Ann, says, are we supposed to like gays now, or not? Is it expressing himself, being himself, or is it just him being a pervert? And does the fact that he is a Republican have anything do to with that?

There may indeed be an issue with how easy it is to get press passes. Ann makes a good point about the difference between Day or Permanent passes; I haven't ever gotten either one, and I haven't seen any research on what sort of security or identification is required to get one. It could be that those standards need to be tightend up, but again, most of the MSM buzz about this has been about Gannon and his personal life [which was supposed to be off limits], not about the security of the White House.
 
It's not about bashing Gannon because he's gay either. It's because of the hypocrisy of a gay man working as a shill for a very gay-unfriendly administration. Personally, I think you could drop the whole gay angle and this would still be a very interesting story to follow. But sex sells, so the press keeps throwing it in there. We're supposed to like gays just as much as everyone else - not just when they are lobbing softball questions at the POTUSA.

That however doesn't excuse that Gannon was apparently a prostitute. Gay or straight, that's still illegal and immoral to our religious right folks.

Gannon was abusing the Day Pass system. He had already been refused a pass to cover Congress because Talon was not a legitimate news source. Consequently he would not have qualified for a permanent pass at the White House. The Day Pass is supposed to be temporary for a journalist who is there to cover a specific event. They are supposed to show why they need to be in the press room for this event rather than outside the gate. Gannon was getting daily Day Passes for 2 years. A man with no journalistic credibility and a fake name who was pimping himself to gay men on the internets was allowed into one of the most secure buildings on the planet for 2 years because he would ask Dubya-friendly questions to a White House that hates the press. Please tell me how that isn't cause for a scandal.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']It's not about bashing Gannon because he's gay either. It's because of the hypocrisy of a gay man working as a shill for a very gay-unfriendly administration. Personally, I think you could drop the whole gay angle and this would still be a very interesting story to follow. But sex sells, so the press keeps throwing it in there. We're supposed to like gays just as much as everyone else - not just when they are lobbing softball questions at the POTUSA.

That however doesn't excuse that Gannon was apparently a prostitute. Gay or straight, that's still illegal and immoral to our religious right folks.

Gannon was abusing the Day Pass system. He had already been refused a pass to cover Congress because Talon was not a legitimate news source. Consequently he would not have qualified for a permanent pass at the White House. The Day Pass is supposed to be temporary for a journalist who is there to cover a specific event. They are supposed to show why they need to be in the press room for this event rather than outside the gate. Gannon was getting daily Day Passes for 2 years. A man with no journalistic credibility and a fake name who was pimping himself to gay men on the internets was allowed into one of the most secure buildings on the planet for 2 years because he would ask Dubya-friendly questions to a White House that hates the press. Please tell me how that isn't cause for a scandal.[/quote]

I love how you claim the press could drop the gay angle, then you bring it up in your final paragraph there. I really do think the press is placing too much importance on the fact he was gay. Especially in some political commentary coverage it seems like some are implying that a person can't possibly be gay and sit on the right instead of the left. Anyways, overall this may be grounds for a scandal I guess, I mean the prostitute thing is illegal, but in reality I don't think the White House having a plant in the Press Room is far from new. The biggest problem with this guy is he made it too frakin' obvious.
 
Perhaps the Republicans are a lot more tolerant than the Democrats. While many of them don't like homosexuality, they don't necessarily dislike 'homosexuals.' Hate the sin, not the sinner, is the quote. Isn't tolerance and acceptance supposed to be the buzzwords of Democrats, but now that here's a gay man who's not being reviled for being gay, oh, well, it's hypocrisy?

I didnt' go to his site, and I'm not going to browse too much news for it now [at work], but if he was a prostitute, you're right, that is illegal and immoral to many people. I think it's illegal, I don't know if Ithink it's immoral--it's a lot less immoral than many other things. Again, we have Hillary Clinton wanting to grant felons [there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'] the right to vote, since she's being forgiving and tolerant [or is she just shilling for votes?], how is it hypocritical when a Republican does it?

Assuming the White House uses the same press pass system as Congress, and assuming your last paragraph is accurate [I'm taking it for face value, because I don't feel like researching it right now], I agree, that is an issue. Scandal? No more so than how 9/11 terrorists got green cards after they were already killed, or how they were able to get multiple legitimate drivers licenses.

A man with no journalistic credibility
How so? Because he reports for a small, little-known website? Whereas Dan Rather is the pinnacle of 'credibility' and honesty, simply because he's on a big network?

and a fake name

What sort of fake name? An AKA, alias, pen name? Is he in the process of changing his name? Did he just change who he said he was each time?

who was pimping himself

Assuming he was actually selling sex, that's an issue--but that doesn't necessarily mean his journalism is worthless. Then again, as a Republican, I look to the whole person, and realize some good people do bad/wrong things, and vice versa, rather than being an intolerant Democrat, who thinks, since someone does something that some people is wrong [even though I support it], that means that nothing else he says is worth listening to.

to gay men

Irrelevant; or even if not, this should be a bonus point.

on the internets was allowed into one of the most secure buildings on the planet for 2 years because he would ask Dubya-friendly questions to a White House that hates the press.

Unlike all the dubya-friendly or neutral,"'Do you still beat your wife?" type questions the mainstream media asks. And, hey, like you guys say, we have freedom of speech, the WH is allowed to hate the press.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Perhaps the Republicans are a lot more tolerant than the Democrats.[/quote]

Excuse me while I pause to laugh at that statement.

[quote name='dtcarson']Again, we have Hillary Clinton wanting to grant felons [there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'] the right to vote, since she's being forgiving and tolerant [or is she just shilling for votes?], how is it hypocritical when a Republican does it? [/quote]

I'm not familiar with Hillary wanting felons to vote and I don't really have an opinion on it one way or another. It depends on the felony.

[quote name='dtcarson']Assuming the White House uses the same press pass system as Congress, and assuming your last paragraph is accurate [I'm taking it for face value, because I don't feel like researching it right now], I agree, that is an issue. Scandal? No more so than how 9/11 terrorists got green cards after they were already killed, or how they were able to get multiple legitimate drivers licenses. [/quote]

Green cards and driver's licenses were handed out by low level civil service employees. Access to the White House is supposed to be controlled by the Secret Service. Big difference there.

[quote name='dtcarson'] A man with no journalistic credibility
How so? Because he reports for a small, little-known website? Whereas Dan Rather is the pinnacle of 'credibility' and honesty, simply because he's on a big network?[/quote]

Because according to some reports, Talon News didn't even exist until 2 months after Gannon began reporting from the White House. It's also virtually a front for GOPUSA.

[quote name='dtcarson']and a fake name

What sort of fake name? An AKA, alias, pen name? Is he in the process of changing his name? Did he just change who he said he was each time? [/quote]

The alias is only relevant to the security question. You're supposed to sign in using your legal name at the White House for clearance purposes.

[quote name='dtcarson']who was pimping himself

Assuming he was actually selling sex, that's an issue--but that doesn't necessarily mean his journalism is worthless. Then again, as a Republican, I look to the whole person, and realize some good people do bad/wrong things, and vice versa, rather than being an intolerant Democrat, who thinks, since someone does something that some people is wrong [even though I support it], that means that nothing else he says is worth listening to. [/quote]

If you truly mean that, I'm afraid you are the exception to the rule in the GOP. John Kerry was tarred and feathered for speaking out against Vietnam. John McCain was knocked out of the 2000 primaries by a smear campaign about his "brown" daughter. Howard Dean yelled at a political rally. Max McClelland was unfairly ridiculed for not being tough enough on terrorism.

[quote name='dtcarson']to gay men

Irrelevant; or even if not, this should be a bonus point.

on the internets was allowed into one of the most secure buildings on the planet for 2 years because he would ask Dubya-friendly questions to a White House that hates the press.

Unlike all the dubya-friendly or neutral,"'Do you still beat your wife?" type questions the mainstream media asks. And, hey, like you guys say, we have freedom of speech, the WH is allowed to hate the press.[/quote]

Bush gets tripped up by the easy questions. You don't have to ask a hard one to make him look stupid.

And he is free to hate the press. But it doesn't reflect well on his character when he has run one of the most secretive and press-shy administrations. And no White House has tried to subvert the press as much as this one with fake news reports and payoffs to columnists to push their agenda. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Rove was behind getting Gannon in the press room.
 
Gannon/Guckery wrote a few anti gay screeds so yeah I say his orientation is relevant.

BTW he double dogged dared people to dig up dirt on him, what did he expect?
 
there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'

Uh people who served their time and paid their debt to society are usually considered ex-cons, are you trying to make some philosophical argument how its like they never really left jail at all .

BTW felons and former felons not being allowed to vote goes all the way to back to English Common law when a person was banished to the forest. Not allowing ex cons to vote for the rest of their lives is silly and it is perfectly acceptable and rational to want to change laws from a 1000 years ago.
 
Wasn't there a recent post here about some Bush film from years ago where he said he refused to bash gays...or something to that effect.

I think the administration is unfairly targeted by the gay/liberal media whenever it can.

Just because Bush has a pro-family agenda does not make him anti-gay.

btw- I like to spank to Ann Coulter...she is HOT.


EDIT: Found that thread:
http://www.phpbb.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=135383&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=gogaia&start=75

On one tape, Bush explains that he told one prominent evangelical that he would not "kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"
 
Wasn't there a recent post here about some Bush film from years ago where he said he refused to bash gays...or something to that effect.

Apparently he was lying because he had no problems having his surrogates focus on gay marriage to energize his base. But it depends on what his position of the day is.

I think the administration is unfairly targeted by the gay/liberal media whenever it can.

BS, pretty much this whole entire quote is a joke. unfairly targeted my ass and lets not get into the so called Gay/Liberal media .

Just because Bush has a pro-family agenda does not make him anti-gay.

Well you got Republicans like Alan Keyes who kicked his daughter out of his house and cut off all financial assistance because she was a Lesbian. On the other Bush backed banning even Civil Unions so yes pro-family seems to mean anti-gay, or anti gay-family.

btw- I like to spank to Ann Coulter...she is HOT.

For one thing she is a tranny (Look at the hands and Adams Apple) two she is like 50 and three she looks like Skeletor.

Id rather stick my member in a cheese grater.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I love how you claim the press could drop the gay angle, then you bring it up in your final paragraph there. I really do think the press is placing too much importance on the fact he was gay. Especially in some political commentary coverage it seems like some are implying that a person can't possibly be gay and sit on the right instead of the left. Anyways, overall this may be grounds for a scandal I guess, I mean the prostitute thing is illegal, but in reality I don't think the White House having a plant in the Press Room is far from new. The biggest problem with this guy is he made it too frakin' obvious.[/quote]

A gay man shilling for Bush is like a Jew voting for Hitler. You're really surprised that this is big news? I thought you were smarter then that, Duo.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']I love how you claim the press could drop the gay angle, then you bring it up in your final paragraph there. I really do think the press is placing too much importance on the fact he was gay. Especially in some political commentary coverage it seems like some are implying that a person can't possibly be gay and sit on the right instead of the left. Anyways, overall this may be grounds for a scandal I guess, I mean the prostitute thing is illegal, but in reality I don't think the White House having a plant in the Press Room is far from new. The biggest problem with this guy is he made it too frakin' obvious.[/quote]

A gay man shilling for Bush is like a Jew voting for Hitler. You're really surprised that this is big news? I thought you were smarter then that, Duo.[/quote]

Well I never claim to be smart in the least, but sorry I let you down. Actually though, I'm not suprised by the fact that it's getting so much attention, after all like I said it is a scnadal and the press (and America really) do enjoy a scandal, especially in polictics.

But I am a bit surprised that people and the press are making such of big deal out of his sexual orientation. I mean I don't think it totally impossible that a gay man would be a big republican supporter and of course I still think that just about every adminsatration for the past 3 decades or so has probably had a plant or two in the press room.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']But I am a bit surprised that people and the press are making such of big deal out of his sexual orientation. I mean I don't think it totally impossible that a gay man would be a big republican supporter[/quote]
What makes it a big deal is that he's written several anti-gay articles, including one in which he accused Kerry of being a homosexual 'shill' pushing the 'gay agenda' (whatever that may be.) He's also written several articles praising Bush's push for a gay-marriage ban Amendment in order to protect America from the evil gay people who want to destroy family values. The fact that he acted as a mouthpiece for anti-gay rhetoric makes his sexual orientation a valid question. There are gay Republicans, but they _usually_ don't go around accusing gay people of trying to destroy America.

and of course I still think that just about every adminsatration for the past 3 decades or so has probably had a plant or two in the press room.
Maybe so, but there were clearly far, far more competent about how to hide it. The Bush administration doesn't seem to be particularly competent about anything, actually.
 
Msut77 about the Gay thing this just PROVES they need something to HATE, someone to persecute. Also the truth behind this is it isn't as much Gay women but men. This scares Evangelical MALE Christians because technically Gay male sex is the very reverse of regular male sex, they question their masculinity if they do it or perhaps accept it.
What's really funny about that Keyes thing is she was selling herself out backing him for the Senate in Chicago.
Btw, Keyes and Clarence Thomas, can someone name me a BLACK Republican who isn't a hard line Conservative besides maybe Colin Powell? It seems to me Republicans use Blacks or minorities to get their hard RIGHT views pushed in. You see, when a Democrat calls them on the nominee than they say they're racist and it goes on, as if the Republicans really give a damn about said person except to get their view in.
Ann Coultier is not that hot. I use to hear about how hot she was and I thought after hearing her "She better be hot because I can't STAND her!" then I saw her and didn't understand what the big deal is. Personally I think she's a BITTER woman who really needs some sex. Personally I think she's all hot and bothered over Clinton with how much she talks about him regardless of what she might say. I say she should let him nail her and get it over with.
Oh and don't give me that Liberal Media crap. If the media was Liberal and all that shit I think a lot more good would be happening and more Corporations would be being called out than expected so seriously don't give me that. Also GOD forbid Gays should be treated with respect by some of Mr.Bush's constituents.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'

Uh people who served their time and paid their debt to society are usually considered ex-cons, are you trying to make some philosophical argument how its like they never really left jail at all .

BTW felons and former felons not being allowed to vote goes all the way to back to English Common law when a person was banished to the forest. Not allowing ex cons to vote for the rest of their lives is silly and it is perfectly acceptable and rational to want to change laws from a 1000 years ago.[/quote]

Definately agree. Once one has served their time, they should earn the full rights that they carried before going in. A sentence should not carry an after-effect.
 
[quote name='Drocket']

Maybe so, but there were clearly far, far more competent about how to hide it. The Bush administration doesn't seem to be particularly competent about anything, actually.[/quote]

Except Cheney. You know he's the mastermind behind it all. Reminds me of Dr. Claw
 
[quote name='defender']

Just because Bush has a pro-family agenda does not make him anti-gay.[/quote]

But it doesn't hurt. Hey, just because there's a pro-German agenda doesn't make us anti-Jew (ok, it was a cheap shot).

btw- I like to spank to Ann Coulter...she is HOT.

Ohhh, how nasty. That bitch would need a jar of lube, it chafes! Damn!
 
[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']
there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'

Uh people who served their time and paid their debt to society are usually considered ex-cons, are you trying to make some philosophical argument how its like they never really left jail at all .

BTW felons and former felons not being allowed to vote goes all the way to back to English Common law when a person was banished to the forest. Not allowing ex cons to vote for the rest of their lives is silly and it is perfectly acceptable and rational to want to change laws from a 1000 years ago.[/quote]

Definately agree. Once one has served their time, they should earn the full rights that they carried before going in. A sentence should not carry an after-effect.[/quote]

heard that argument before and it really doesn't fly with me, break the laws and you pay the consequences, that includes losing certain rights. If you can't live you life by the laws of a nation, then you have no business with voting to help shape the laws of this nation.
 
break the laws and you pay the consequences, that includes losing certain rights.

Forever? Like you could commit some stupid crime when you are 18 get out when you are 20 21 and be 90 years old and still not be able to vote, thats messed up. Thankfully its not like that everywhere its an outdated archaic custom.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'] Shrill, ignorant hypocrite.
[/quote]

Yeah but her books are great fun to read. :)
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Msut77']
there's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'

Uh people who served their time and paid their debt to society are usually considered ex-cons, are you trying to make some philosophical argument how its like they never really left jail at all .

BTW felons and former felons not being allowed to vote goes all the way to back to English Common law when a person was banished to the forest. Not allowing ex cons to vote for the rest of their lives is silly and it is perfectly acceptable and rational to want to change laws from a 1000 years ago.[/quote]

Definately agree. Once one has served their time, they should earn the full rights that they carried before going in. A sentence should not carry an after-effect.[/quote]

heard that argument before and it really doesn't fly with me, break the laws and you pay the consequences, that includes losing certain rights. If you can't live you life by the laws of a nation, then you have no business with voting to help shape the laws of this nation.[/quote]

But if you go to jail for 1 year, you are still paying the price for the rest of your life. I can see maybe "2 years prison, 10 years without voting" or something like that, though I still wouldn't agree.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
break the laws and you pay the consequences, that includes losing certain rights.

Forever? Like you could commit some stupid crime when you are 18 get out when you are 20 21 and be 90 years old and still not be able to vote, thats messed up. Thankfully its not like that everywhere its an outdated archaic custom.[/quote]

Everyone makes the the one slip up argument, but the majority convicted felons are repeat offenders for one reason or another. They have more than one mistake, they have several. If you killed someone while driving drunk that's still one mistake and you could get out at say age 30, but IMO you should never be allowed to vote. The person's whose life you took can never see their firneds or family again, let alone vote. Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']

But if you go to jail for 1 year, you are still paying the price for the rest of your life. I can see maybe "2 years prison, 10 years without voting" or something like that, though I still wouldn't agree.[/quote]

Well now you're changing the conecpt, before it was all convicted felons, now it's just certain ones. The problem with something like a suspension is voting occurs at a federal lever and criminal court cases are handled by the states. Also sentecnes for the same crime are sometimes not the same , which could create a bit of a paradox. I get sent to jail for 5 years for stealing cars, never did anything else but steal them. Yet a guy who took part in a murder of two people could plea out to only 5 years for giving up the other 2 killers, but we lose the right ro vote for the same amount of time. I don't think that to be very fair either. I mean it could be a case by case basis in sentencing but then you have certain judges telling us who can vote and who can't. In my mind niether option seems very fair, and we'll probably never find a fair option either, but the one we have right now is about as even handed as it will get IMO.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']

But if you go to jail for 1 year, you are still paying the price for the rest of your life. I can see maybe "2 years prison, 10 years without voting" or something like that, though I still wouldn't agree.[/quote]

Well now you're changing the conecpt, before it was all convicted felons, now it's just certain ones. The problem with something like a suspension is voting occurs at a federal lever and criminal court cases are handled by the states. Also sentecnes for the same crime are sometimes not the same , which could create a bit of a paradox. I get sent to jail for 5 years for stealing cars, never did anything else but steal them. Yet a guy who took part in a murder of two people could plea out to only 5 years for giving up the other 2 killers, but we lose the right ro vote for the same amount of time. I don't think that to be very fair either. I mean it could be a case by case basis in sentencing but then you have certain judges telling us who can vote and who can't. In my mind niether option seems very fair, and we'll probably never find a fair option either, but the one we have right now is about as even handed as it will get IMO.[/quote]

I wasn't changing the subject, I was giving an example where removing the right to vote (in my mind) clearly is not a good punishment. It was an argument against removing votes for all ex cons. If I was arguing that I, personally, believed some should have the vote removed that would be different, but I believe that once out of jail the right to vote should be restored for everyone.
 
Everyone makes the the one slip up argument, but the majority convicted felons are repeat offenders for one reason or another. They have more than one mistake, they have several. If you killed someone while driving drunk that's still one mistake and you could get out at say age 30, but IMO you should never be allowed to vote. The person's whose life you took can never see their firneds or family again, let alone vote. Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.

Then fine make it a Universal rule in all 50 states dont hold some to an archaic law while other dont have to worry about it.

Then you wonder why we have such a high rate of recidivism in this country we keep on reminding these people how they are outcasts not fit to consort with normal people.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Everyone makes the the one slip up argument, but the majority convicted felons are repeat offenders for one reason or another. They have more than one mistake, they have several. If you killed someone while driving drunk that's still one mistake and you could get out at say age 30, but IMO you should never be allowed to vote. The person's whose life you took can never see their firneds or family again, let alone vote. Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.

Then fine make it a Universal rule in all 50 states dont hold some to an archaic law while other dont have to worry about it.

Then you wonder why we have such a high rate of recidivism in this country we keep on reminding these people how they are outcasts not fit to consort with normal people.[/quote]

No offense, but it'd be much easier to reply to you if you used puncuation. Anyhow, you keep calling it an archaic law, but keeping certain people from voting is not the same as banishing them to some forest and seeing as how the process to vote has essentially stayed the same throughout America's history why is there a need to change it now?

Also, I'm well aware of the reasons for recidivism in our justice system. I'm also well aware that not being able to vote is not at all high on that list of contributing factors, if it even makes the list. In reality, most convicted felons don't pay much attention to voting prior to any felony convictions. Did you ever break your parents' rules when you were a kid? If they caught you, it meant a certain amount of trust was lost even if they didn't say it. It's the same in society, break the laws of society you lose a certain amount of trust or in other words rights. As hard as that may be it's part of the consequences of people's actions, consequences they are compotent of before breaking the law.

Sorry if it sounds heartless, but you make it sound as though felons are exactly like everyone else in society. Are felons really the same as everyone everyone else? The answer is mixed, sure they are just like everyone else in 99% of most aspects of life. Yet, there's that 1% difference that they commited a major crime that most others have not. Everyone in society breaks the law at somepoint, I know I have, but the majority of society does not commit felonies. Then again, I'm just expressing my opinions and I can't say I speak for anyone else so I don't how society feels about all this. I'm just peddling my feelings on the subject.
 
Are felons really the same as everyone everyone else?


Yes, unless of course you are making the assumption they were experimented on in prison or something to make them less human.

And spare me your ridiculous attempts at comparing it to someone punishing a child. Those punishments do not last forever.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']

heard that argument before and it really doesn't fly with me, break the laws and you pay the consequences, that includes losing certain rights. If you can't live you life by the laws of a nation, then you have no business with voting to help shape the laws of this nation.[/quote]

You've also set a limit of time in which the debt is paid in full. A criminal who has served their full sentence has fulfilled their agreement and has returned to society. I thought we were past the days of scarlet letters.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='Msut77']
Everyone makes the the one slip up argument, but the majority convicted felons are repeat offenders for one reason or another. They have more than one mistake, they have several. If you killed someone while driving drunk that's still one mistake and you could get out at say age 30, but IMO you should never be allowed to vote. The person's whose life you took can never see their firneds or family again, let alone vote. Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.

Then fine make it a Universal rule in all 50 states dont hold some to an archaic law while other dont have to worry about it.

Then you wonder why we have such a high rate of recidivism in this country we keep on reminding these people how they are outcasts not fit to consort with normal people.[/quote]

No offense, but it'd be much easier to reply to you if you used puncuation. Anyhow, you keep calling it an archaic law, but keeping certain people from voting is not the same as banishing them to some forest and seeing as how the process to vote has essentially stayed the same throughout America's history why is there a need to change it now?

Also, I'm well aware of the reasons for recidivism in our justice system. I'm also well aware that not being able to vote is not at all high on that list of contributing factors, if it even makes the list. In reality, most convicted felons don't pay much attention to voting prior to any felony convictions. Did you ever break your parents' rules when you were a kid? If they caught you, it meant a certain amount of trust was lost even if they didn't say it. It's the same in society, break the laws of society you lose a certain amount of trust or in other words rights. As hard as that may be it's part of the consequences of people's actions, consequences they are compotent of before breaking the law.

Sorry if it sounds heartless, but you make it sound as though felons are exactly like everyone else in society. Are felons really the same as everyone everyone else? The answer is mixed, sure they are just like everyone else in 99% of most aspects of life. Yet, there's that 1% difference that they commited a major crime that most others have not. Everyone in society breaks the law at somepoint, I know I have, but the majority of society does not commit felonies. Then again, I'm just expressing my opinions and I can't say I speak for anyone else so I don't how society feels about all this. I'm just peddling my feelings on the subject.[/quote]

Actually, in Kansas, there isn't much to do in the farmlands. It wasn't that uncommon to borrow a truck for a little joyriding. Harmless fun in my opinion (perhaps you need to be from the area to understand). Technically, it's a felony. But I think should I have been caught, and been sentenced, I don't think it should haunt me for the rest of my life. I mean, to not be able to partake in the very process that determines my standard of living for a mistake I made when I was younger? Nevermind the fact that I have served, and now live and work among everyone else. Do I not have a voice in the direction of our nation? Just an opinion, but in a society that relies on documentation, firm agreements, and laid out guidelines, it doesn't have a place for grudges.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.[/quote]

The system of law is not always right.

Prohibition was eventually overhauled by the sheer masses of people who refused to adher to it.

The same movement might be said of the current copyright to public domain laws.
 
[quote name='neopolss']

Actually, in Kansas, there isn't much to do in the farmlands. It wasn't that uncommon to borrow a truck for a little joyriding. Harmless fun in my opinion (perhaps you need to be from the area to understand). Technically, it's a felony. But I think should I have been caught, and been sentenced, I don't think it should haunt me for the rest of my life. I mean, to not be able to partake in the very process that determines my standard of living for a mistake I made when I was younger?[/quote]

Being bored is not an excuse to circumvent the law as you see fit. It's up to your vistim, local law enforcement and court officials to determine punishment for such a crime, but to answer your question, yes. You knew what you were doing was against the law, you should be able to accept the consequences, whatever they be.

[quote name='neopolss']Nevermind the fact that I have served, and now live and work among everyone else. Do I not have a voice in the direction of our nation? Just an opinion, but in a society that relies on documentation, firm agreements, and laid out guidelines, it doesn't have a place for grudges.[/quote]

If you served for a felony, then no sadly I guess you don't. You've dished out some unique scenerarios for everyone to chew but didn't give a solid reason about what can be done to change anything. For every sob story about a young mistake can easily be countered with a harsh story. You helped to point out the law gives us both, but the question remains how do fix something that is presumably unfair when there is no real fair solution to be had. My overall personal opinion is that way things are currently done is the best we can do thus far.

[quote name='neopolss'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Besides commiting one crime still means you have no respect for our system of laws.[/quote]

The system of law is not always right.

Prohibition was eventually overhauled by the sheer masses of people who refused to adher to it.

The same movement might be said of the current copyright to public domain laws.[/quote]

Never said it was, but if no one respected the law then we'd be left with a potentially chaotic society. Oh and prohibition wasn't simply repealed because people didn't adhere to it. Lots of people don't adhere to property crimes but they aren't not being repealed anytime soon. Prohibition was repeeled because it was a horribly planned law that accomplished nothing that it was originally intended to accomplish. It was meant to reduce crime and the stress on a prison system plus help lift a growing tax burden. Instead it foolishly created much more crime and even more organized crime, put even more stress on the prison systems, and made the governemnt lose out on a very good amount of taxable revenue. I dunno what you're getting at with copyright laws, but I'd say this thread has gotten so far off topic that it needn't go even farther.
 
Why are people making threads about ann coulter? That's like me making threads about dean and saying how radical he is. It's common knowledge that ann is a radical so what is the point of this thread?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Why are people making threads about ann coulter? That's like me making threads about dean and saying how radical he is. It's common knowledge that ann is a radical so what is the point of this thread?[/quote]

Sorry SK, nice try but you're getting called on it bigtime. Don't try and label Dean as a radical when you back a guy who can't read the Bible metaphorically and who is attempting to force our type of governement on the rest of the world.

I know I know, I shouldn't feed the troll but I just had to this time.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Why are people making threads about ann coulter? That's like me making threads about dean and saying how radical he is. It's common knowledge that ann is a radical so what is the point of this thread?[/quote]

Sorry SK, nice try but you're getting called on it bigtime. Don't try and label Dean as a radical when you back a guy who can't read the Bible metaphorically and who is attempting to force our type of governement on the rest of the world.

I know I know, I shouldn't feed the troll but I just had to this time.[/quote]

See camoor I would have gone down the it's nice to see ann coulter is a typical conservative radical because it's further proof of what lying bags of shit they are.

It just seems like he gave you a freebe and you decided to "feed the troll" instead, I must commend your bravery though.
 
Duo I guess we will just have to disagree on your contention that excons are subhimanoids unfit to be like the rest of society.

I really think you are wrong but there seems to be nothing I can say to get you off your twisted notion of revenge.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Duo I guess we will just have to disagree on your contention that excons are subhimanoids unfit to be like the rest of society.

I really think you are wrong but there seems to be nothing I can say to get you off your twisted notion of revenge.[/quote]

Hmm, Msut77 I'd love to ask you what your opinion is on this right after your car is keyed or your identity has been stolen.

Granted if someone is smoking pot or selling sex toys I don't think they should be subject to prosecution but that is more a question of changing the law, not appropriately punishing the true criminals.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Why are people making threads about ann coulter? That's like me making threads about dean and saying how radical he is. It's common knowledge that ann is a radical so what is the point of this thread?[/quote]

Sorry SK, nice try but you're getting called on it bigtime. Don't try and label Dean as a radical when you back a guy who can't read the Bible metaphorically and who is attempting to force our type of governement on the rest of the world.

I know I know, I shouldn't feed the troll but I just had to this time.[/quote]

You should remember that you're an anti-religion nazi piece of shit so just because someone believes in the bible doesn't mean they are radical. Not to mention your 'make peace and let the terrorits fuck us up the ass' strategy doesn't work.

Seriosly, stop commenting on relgion - you are not qualified in the least.

And what are you trying to do? Make up for the fact that Quack isn't here anymore by posting insane crap?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Duo I guess we will just have to disagree on your contention that excons are subhimanoids unfit to be like the rest of society.

I really think you are wrong but there seems to be nothing I can say to get you off your twisted notion of revenge.[/quote]

It's reasons like this and people like you that no one can argue with civility. I never once said ex-cons are less than human, but you want make me sound like some snarling beast who thinks we should shot them like rapid dogs. You take my words and twist them then put other in my mouth, while I've done nothing but try to present my points with civility here. I could post alot more in this forum, but it's seriously crap like this that makes me so fucking sick of posting in the vs. forum. You can't listen anyone elses opinions without twisting it into what you want to hear, not what's being said. You want to act like you have an open mind, but you honestly don't. I know full well I'm in the minority on this opinion, but that does mean you can just mold my opinions into whatever it is you think I said or wished I said. I presented most of my point above, with that said, I'm going to refrain from posting here after this til you or someone comes up with a valid and civil point to add.

The only contention I'm making is that they shouldn't be allowed to vote the same as every other citizen who has has tried to abide by the law. Granted like I pointed out earlier everyone breaks the law at some point, but there's a difference between smaller crimes, such as speeding or under age drinking, than there is felonies. We don't let lots of people in America vote and it doesn't make them any less human and the same applies here. We don't allow immagrants who aren't citizens and people under age 18 because we don't fully trust their ability to make a judge about our political system for one reason or another. I'm simply making the same point here based on the fact said person broke the law. I think like 15 states at most keep felons from voting after time served, but regardless felons forfieted a right that was given to them. It's not like the women's or african american sufferage movements or anything.

I'll openly admit there's another solution here, give them the right to vote same as other citizens and alot of states and people have chosen that option. I have no real issue with that I suppose, my position simplys fall on the other side. And there's really only two sides, anything in between would stretch over a huge gray areas that includes many traps. There's some court battles over this now, but if they made other crime specific rules I'd think it would only create more problems and court cases. I can respect the other sides opinion, but I don't exactly fully agree with it. However, I don't see where that makes me into someone you thinks of ex-cons as subhuman. You make think that voting is what makes someone human I guess, but I wouldn't agree with that at all. Voting doesn't make you human, if that were seriously true then certain groups of people (as I pointed out above) would not be human, citizens of some other countries aren't human, and about half of aMerica doesn't think of themselves as human (cuz they'd chose not to vote).

As for the revenge thing I don't know where this comes from. Revenege is motive and needs a catalyst. I have no catalyst, I've never really been a direct victim of a felony. Just because I don't think they should vote does not mean I wish current felons or ex-felons no ill will at all, I don't condone what they did, but it doesn't mean I hate them (except maybe rapists, but that's for a different reason and not something tha needs to be openly discussed now). I have my doubts about America's prison system's true ability to reform people, yet I do think many ex-cons can and do change and go on to live a perfectly successful, law-abidding life. And just because you don't vote doesn't mean you can't do that, millions upon millions do it without ever voting in their life.
 
It's reasons like this and people like you that no one can argue with civility. I never once said ex-cons are less than human, but you want make me sound like some snarling beast who thinks we should shot them like rapid dogs. You take my words and twist them then put other in my mouth, while I've done nothing but try to present my points with civility here. I could post alot more in this forum, but it's seriously crap like this that makes me so shaq-fuing sick of posting in the vs. forum.

I agree, but that's what this forum is all about: radical liberals who have no common sense and do nothing but attack, bash, demean and spew hate towards anything remotely conservative cause they have no voice in the real world and have to spew their garbage on here.

Seriously, did it take you this long to realize that having an intelligent discussion on here is impossible? How do you expect to have a civil discussion with idiots who hate christians, hate the US, love our enemies, want to give control of the US to the UN and think moveon.org is objective, factual news.
 
Seriously I am tough on crime, I want them punished for whatever they do.

But for forever even in cases not involving punishments like death or life in prison?

Are you kidding me?

BTW have had crap like that happen, still doesnt mean someones right should be taken away for all eternity.

And you are right there really was no chance for an honest conversation after you tried comparing parents punishing their kids, that was just insane because I never met parents who grounded their kids FOREVER.

P.s. I know what I said was a little extreme and a tad uncalled for but that is basically what you said.

The only contention I'm making is that they shouldn't be allowed to vote the same as every other citizen who has has tried to abide by the law.

Why? Most of these guys were punished according to the law and served their debt, there is no reason to basically make them a second class citizen unless either you think it would be a detterent or you really like rubbing someones face in their mistakes.

BTW SK if someone believes in a Literal Bible then yes they are a little batshit.

I have taken theology classes what are your qualifications to comment on religion?
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Scrubking']Why are people making threads about ann coulter? That's like me making threads about dean and saying how radical he is. It's common knowledge that ann is a radical so what is the point of this thread?[/quote]

Sorry SK, nice try but you're getting called on it bigtime. Don't try and label Dean as a radical when you back a guy who can't read the Bible metaphorically and who is attempting to force our type of governement on the rest of the world.

I know I know, I shouldn't feed the troll but I just had to this time.[/quote]

You should remember that you're an anti-religion nazi piece of shit so just because someone believes in the bible doesn't mean they are radical. Not to mention your 'make peace and let the terrorits shaq-fu us up the ass' strategy doesn't work.

Seriosly, stop commenting on relgion - you are not qualified in the least.

And what are you trying to do? Make up for the fact that Quack isn't here anymore by posting insane crap?[/quote]

Hey buddy, I'm not the neo-McCarthyist going around saying things like "support the troops or you are anti-USA, all hail Bush". I also am not making violent threats to people who I disagree with (unlike you and your sig)

I heard your hero Arnold on Stephanopoulos yesterday, saying that he does not govern by religion and that religion should have no place in the law and congress (the law makers) - because the laws of America pertain to all people, whether they are christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus, athiests, etc. Now that is the kind of moral leader I can get behind.

So I'll make you a deal SK, to end the culture wars. You get your christian god out of my government, and I'll stop pointing out the umpteen hypocrisies of the fundamentalists. As long as you want to put creationism in schools and not consider stem cells because you think that the bible told you so, expect me to criticize your opinions.
 
bread's done
Back
Top