|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 23, 2006 20:24:29 GMT -8
It varies by state, but in California for example, you can vote as long as you are not currently in Prison or on Parole. I'm not aware of any state that bars all criminals. Some won't allow Felons to vote. The truth is that the system isn't set up to really catch it so many people vote that shouldn't.
But that wasn't my point or even what I said. I pointed out that criminals are democrat by majority and that doesn't make the Democratic party necessarily the "Criminal Party". I never even talked about them voting (although they do).
The reason is that the Democrats are known to be soft on crime and are the ones that support the "Prisoners bill of rights" and other complete bullsh*t like that (against 3 strikes, against Victims bill of rights). It's one of the many reasons that the Democratic party has lost so many seats and failed to win the Presidency. Not to mention that people in the party act like....well....Democrats (IE. Kerry, who contradicted himself so many times, no one knew what the heck he stood for).
I still fail to see this as a debate about religion. Maybe you read the liberal Canadian news? Try watching Fox where it's real, fair and balanced.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 23, 2006 20:46:14 GMT -8
ok ill conceed the flawed generalization that all republicans are christians and white. They do have a few token races in their national conventions. And they probably do have other religions represented.
compared to american media I would say that canadian media is more liberal to a slight degree. The one large difference is that our news actually is far less sensational than the major US news networks. It relies more on facts that guess work.
As for fox news, I've only seen occasional clips of it since I don't get it on my cable package, just because it would cost extra and I would laugh to hard watching it.
Here's an article from imdb.com
Even Fox News Channel itself is not likely to boast that its coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speech to the U.N. last week was entirely "fair and balanced." The TVNewser website today (Friday) cited a number of questions posed by the cable news network on the lower-third of its screen following the address. They included: 7:16pm: "Pres Chavez: Narcissistic personality disorder?"; 10:54am: "How dare Hugo Chavez blast the United States?"; 11:02am: "Should we stop buying Chavez's gas from [Venezuela-owned] Citgo stations?"; 11:59am: "Chavez insults U.S.: Where is the outrage?"; 12:29pm: "Should U.S. continue to fund U.N. after applause for Chavez?"; 12:54pm: "Will leaders pay the price for supporting Chavez?"; 1:26pm: "Is President Chavez becoming a threat to U.S. national security?"; 4:06pm: "Taking cheap oil from Hugo Chavez: Act of treason?"; 5:34pm: "NY audience gives Chavez standing ovation... Why?" Also, the comment: "U.S. giving U.N. $5 mil a day to get insulted."
|
|
dxlightning
Platinum Membership
[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 1,246
|
Post by dxlightning on Sept 23, 2006 21:14:58 GMT -8
As proven by Dave Chapelle's racial draft.
|
|
|
Post by dpgunit on Sept 23, 2006 21:24:07 GMT -8
It varies by state, but in California for example, you can vote as long as you are not currently in Prison or on Parole. I'm not aware of any state that bars all criminals. Some won't allow Felons to vote. The truth is that the system isn't set up to really catch it so many people vote that shouldn't. But that wasn't my point or even what I said. I pointed out that criminals are democrat by majority and that doesn't make the Democratic party necessarily the "Criminal Party". I never even talked about them voting (although they do). The reason is that the Democrats are known to be soft on crime and are the ones that support the "Prisoners bill of rights" and other complete bullsh*t like that (against 3 strikes, against Victims bill of rights). It's one of the many reasons that the Democratic party has lost so many seats and failed to win the Presidency. Not to mention that people in the party act like....well....Democrats (IE. Kerry, who contradicted himself so many times, no one knew what the heck he stood for). I still fail to see this as a debate about religion. Maybe you read the liberal Canadian news? Try watching Fox where it's real, fair and balanced. VERY well said.
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 23, 2006 21:35:16 GMT -8
Um, it's an article from TVNewser. You just proved my point about getting your news from the Liberal Media. Need help? Visit: www.thenationaldebate.com/blog/archives/2004/08/has_tvnewser_cr.htmlThere you will find five links to information that discredits TVNewser which is a Liberal news source. Liberal news is almost always bullsh*t. Ever watch 60 minutes? The Liberals can't get anywhere with the truth so they always end up lying, starting false rumors or phony up some document and try to pass it as authentic. Not too many examples I can think of where a Conservative source has ever done that. Interesting..... Which party would *you* rather be associated with? One that has to rely on lies to get people to agree with them? ok ill conceed the flawed generalization that all republicans are christians and white. They do have a few token races in their national conventions. This is too easy. You just *might* want to check the facts before speaking out of turn. A "few token races"? Here is a racial breakdown of those that voted BUSH in 2004: 58% of White's 11% of Afro American's 44% of Latino's 44% of Asian 40% of Other That sure looks like more than a "few token races". Here is the breakdown by Religion: 59% of Protestant 52% of Catholics 25% of Jewish 23% of Other 31% of NONE Although I guess you already admitted to this one. 36% of those that have never been to church voted for Bush 45% of those who "attend only a few times a year" voted Bush
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 23, 2006 23:00:31 GMT -8
See this is why I prefer debates when you join them Chal. You actually use facts and whatnot.
My mindset on republicans was focused on those in elected offices instead of the average voter. That's why I mentioned the national conventions where you see the token's being showcased around and then never hear of these guys until the next election.
It could be also that I see a political party as the people running the party instead of those voting for the party.
But if that's the breakdown of voters, then I'll believe you, even without seeing a source. I know I don't always show mine either since it can be tiresome.
For the Fox News stuff I got the news of a movie database that happened to reference a "liberal" site. I go looking for news on movies and just stumbled upon that.
As for those national debate columns(all 5) they seem to be attacking keith olberman by proxy by attacking a site(TVN) that mentions him. For the record I've never actually heard or watched any keith olberman shows all I know is his reputation for being the anti(or reverse) Bill O'Reilly.
And yes it would appear that TVN allegedly changes time stamps etc. so they are a poor source. But saying fox news is fair and balanced is a blatant lie. They are just as biased if not more than any liberal media outlet.
As for O'reilly i have watched him on shows and read parts of his books. My conclusion, he's a jerk at best, scum of the earth at worst.
But anyways, I'm getting off track a bit. We can go back to non-religious statements of fact concerning politics instead.
So how about George W. Bush wanting to re-write the Geneva Convention(Or at least the US' interpretation of it) so that torture and secret CIA prisons are deemed legal and the torturers free from any prosecution for their currently illegal acts that they are likely already comiting?
Even former "Yes" man Colin Powell is against it.
If I read a report correctly there have been changes to the bill, only because it was defeated in congress or the senate(not sure which) and that a pissed off Dubya had to concede something(s).
I may have to stop writing long posts with tons of points since the average poster fails to read them and forces me OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again to repeat myself to repeat myself.
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 24, 2006 0:51:38 GMT -8
I believe the whole thing on religon started with this: Liberalism= ;D , I based on perhaps the ACLU for the most part, wanting to ban christianity in ALL schools of America and claiming that God in our national anthem is unconstitutional. Did i mention before that children can be expelled from public schools for merely praying at the lunch table? Whatever happened to the 1rst Amendment: FREEDOM OF SPEECH? That means EVERYONE has the right to speak their opinions, including christians! This country was CREATED ON CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION BASED ON THE WORD OF GOD FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF ALL MEN WHO ARE CREATED EQUAL. Yes hawk, it IS an all out war because the ACLU is LIBERAL. Though you say you believe in God which is "fine and dandy" but your lack of faith in Jesus Christ explaining Him as a mere man, instead of a Holy man and Son of God just shows how border-line liberal you are, especially your topic on homosexuality. Your even going against Genesis on that one, man. There is no "tolerance" in these to the true christian, but that does not mean i'm going to kill everyone that i don't find right with God, if that were true then i'd have to kill myself(no thank you). Chalupa is using more facts simply because he implies more resources than I, all i have is the bible, and if needed I will start using scriptures to prove my point. Ever heard of "conviction"? I am here to bring the good news of the Gospel: Jesus loves ALL who have fallen into sin. When He died, our sins died with Him and all is forgiven, but when you focus on SIN and FORGIVNESS in themselves , then you tend to forget the simple love of Him who bestowed you with the Holy Spirit(Ghost). "Why do you turn from Me", He asks.
As a little word about crusade, the popes back in medieval times mis-used crusades for power and money. And since they were in constant war all of the time it was only "natural" for them to try and overtake the "holy land". The term crusade was I believe originally susposed to "slay the spirit" of man, which would mean conviction of the soul, not to slay the actual body of man.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 24, 2006 1:41:02 GMT -8
mortal, you're a day late and a dollar short.
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 24, 2006 1:46:43 GMT -8
FAITH= The substance of all things hoped for. It's never to late hawk, think about it.
|
|
|
Post by rabidgecko on Sept 24, 2006 8:45:43 GMT -8
mortal you should stop preachin to techno, you already got owned in this debate, time to step outside the ring. chalupa and techno seem to have something going here
|
|
PhoenixFlare500
Diamond Membership
I like chocolate[ss:LostPeon's Gray][ss:LostPeon's Gray]
Posts: 896
|
Post by PhoenixFlare500 on Sept 24, 2006 8:48:20 GMT -8
On a side note that I have to get out: rabid_gecko's avatar does not look like a gecko at all. In fact it looks more like a seal with legs or something.
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 24, 2006 9:52:17 GMT -8
Gotta love them spectators, oh, and thanks for the seizure again, rabid. By the way, no comment on crusades now?
|
|
|
Post by Chalupa! on Sept 24, 2006 10:04:16 GMT -8
See this is why I prefer debates when you join them Chal. You actually use facts and whatnot. My mindset on republicans was focused on those in elected offices instead of the average voter. That's why I mentioned the national conventions where you see the token's being showcased around and then never hear of these guys until the next election. It could be also that I see a political party as the people running the party instead of those voting for the party. But if that's the breakdown of voters, then I'll believe you, even without seeing a source. I know I don't always show mine either since it can be tiresome. Sorry for not putting a link to these numbers. I guess I just figured it was pretty easy to find if anyone didn't believe me. Here is a link to a CNN source that verifies these numbers through exit polls. I think everyone would agree that CNN is Liberal: www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.htmlI'm not an O'reilly fan, and btw, he doesn't support either party. In fact, I believe he is an independent. www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-15-bush_x.htm - Usa Today article Some parts are very vague and he wants it to be very clear what is okay and what is not. Nothing wrong with that. Not everyone agrees with Bush as this is a very touchy subject. My personal opinion is that the Terrorists are NOT following the Geneva convention (like when they chop off prisoner's heads) and not only won't follow any rules, they resort to such barbaric tactics that make even some of the most harden criminals squirm. Then there are Liberals that cry when they think a Terrorist is not getting fair treatment while in custody. Everyone has their own opinions on this, but I'm more concerned with civilians that have done nothing wrong being killed by Terrorists than the supposed "unfair" treatment of these terrorists in order to find information and prevent the loss of innocent lives. It's kind of like how Liberals want to protect Criminals in this Country at the expense of innocent victims. For some reason, I just disagree with that. Let me put it to you this way. Let's say a Terrorist captured someone you love. Make it your parent, brother, sister, whoever. What if one of them was captured and the information they had would mean getting your loved one back unharmed. If they did NOT give you any information, then your loved one would have their throat sliced and would be tortured to death on TV. Would you follow the rules if it meant losing the person you loved? Or would you want to beat that persons butt in order to get the info you needed to save your loved one?
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Sept 24, 2006 22:41:05 GMT -8
Note to Mortal, the rest of us have gotten back ON topic. If you wish to join in an intelligent dispursment of facts and opinions concerning politics please join us. Otherwise start a new religious thread or something. In my opinion you have lost your arguments here.
And I am probably on the low scoring side of this against Chalupa, which I will at least attempt to force a tie or win. =)
Thanks for the poll links(I did actually believe you and wasn't trying to be sarcastic)
As for bush's terror bill I have the same concerns as Senator McCain states in the article
McCain, who spent six years in Vietnam as a prisoner of war, has been a strong supporter of Bush's anti-terrorism strategy. But he said the administration's proposed rules for interrogating suspects would essentially rewrite the Geneva Conventions and invite other countries to weaken the treaty's ban on humiliating, cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners.
Now as i stated when I answered the questions that began this thread, I do not believe in giving criminals or terrorists more rights than their victims.
But the accused should have a chance at a defence where IF(and only IF) they were actually innocent(ie no technicality defense) they get released instead of being put to death or torture.
As for the family question. It is a hypothetical that I could rewrite to fit my own agaenda as such.
What if your loved one who is totally innocent and has zero connection to any crime; gets arrested by your government and detained without charge. They would not be allowed to contact you, you would not know where they are, and they are routinely tortured for information that they do not have(and since they don't have any info it's more likely they'll continue being tortured)The next time you hear about them is after they have been charged and convicted and put to death. AFTER all of that you spend years fighting to find out the truth and eventually clear your loved one's name of all wrongdoing. But your loved one is dead and your country has wasted years of time and millions of dollars on their case against your loved one. Money and time that could have either helped detect real criminals and terrorists.
The answer to your hypothetical is that I would do anything to get my loved one back, including intimidation and probably torture.
However, it's a fantasy that anyone knows that the person they're torturing has the information until AFTER the torture. So I could torture this suspect but not ever find out where my loved one is and possibly be on the wrong track altogether.
The problem with a hypothetical like that is that it assumes facts not in evidence and uses those assumptions to allow for torture to then possibly prove the assumption. And since the law could be rewriten to allow it, any mistakes can be easily hidden/covered up since those being tortured in a secret prison "Don't exist."
On a slightly similar topic. Since you don't believe that criminals should have more rights than the victims(an opinion with which I concur),
Do you believe that companies and/or hospitals/care centers should have more rights than the patients/workers/dependants that get mistreated by those companies. ie the attempts by republicans to prevent people injured or killed or mistreated by a company/hospital/care center from suing for compensation. Specifically when it IS the company's fault?
ie A hospital amputating the wrong appendage due to either overworked or undertrained medical staff. But NOT a fat person suing McDonald's for being fat.
|
|
|
Post by mortalcry on Sept 25, 2006 15:46:57 GMT -8
Nothing like contradiction.
|
|