Click the Pic
End Freepathons!
Sheesh!! Do It Now!
Donate today
SIR! MONTHLY, SIR!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/16/2012 9:23:33 AM PST by detective
I watched this segement on tv last night.
His statement has been mischaracterized.
He described a process by which a felon could APPLY to have his rights restored.
Each person’s case would be different and handled differently depending upon the person’s offense, sentence served, and behavior since their release.
He pointed out he was supporting the law that is already on the books in South Carolina.
To insinuate he simply wants all felons to be granted voting rights is simply not true.
I remember Chuck Colson commenting on his voting rights being retored after serving time for the Watergate scandal. I’m glad that Chuck Colson can vote again.
There are so many laws on the books, the justice department cannot even give an absolute number of ways in which you can be prosecuted. There’s over 10,000 Pages. So many laws, the lawmakers have lost count.
Here’s a link to Amazon for a book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556
And (while searching for the book link), I found that there’s an organization for the topic. (Note, I have not yet reviewed the website).
http://threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
congratulations...you’ve allowed yourself to be swayed by disinformation.
When are republicans ever going to learn - you have to go to the horse’s mouth before believing a campaign ad?
Look up footage of Santorum’s own response...his ENTIRE response, before you decide Romney or Obama should run our country.
Santorum shouldn’t even be talking about this. Regardless of how cogent his explanation may be, the headline gets to be “Santorum wants felons to vote.”
The RINO establishment is out to divide conservatives to support their lover Mittens.
I don't appreciate your personal insults. Read my previous posts if you want to see my opinions.
Like I have stated in post #1, I had thought Santorum was the best candidate though I did not think he was perfect and I do not agree with all of his positions.
Check my previous posts before making stupid accusations.
“I can’t help but wonder how many people genuinely believe that convicts sit in prison dreaming of the day they can get out and vote democrat.”
How many convicts believe they were rightly convicted and are deserving of punishment and must pay their debt to society and are ready to embrace its basic governing values upon their release?
IMO, very, very few. Most believe they are victims of “da Man”, were “screwed by the system” and aren’t really guilty because “this is an unjust society”. Recidivism rates are very high and remorse extremely low.
Why shouldn’t convicts be hankering to vote for the party that itself regards most of them as “victims”?
“If we let 99% of the people now in prison commit any crime they wanted and let them know they had no fear of punishment what do you think our country would be like?”
I cannot answer that because it’s not what I said, and it doesn’t make sense.
I never said people shouldn’t be disciplined/punished, I said that prison wasn’t helping anything. If you are a parent, and evey time your kid did something bad you locked them in their room, you’d be an incompetent parent. Looking someone is perhaps the very least effective form of anything there is (unless the person is so mentally unstable they can’t be rehabilitated from their violent tendencies). Most of the prisoners are not even violent, but on drug related charges (which is an entire other argument), and a great many had not committed a crime against another person.
In any event, I’ve responded to the ridiculous notion that people shouldn’t be punished/disciplined. Prison today is a money making enterprise, and actually, a criminal training ground in many cases, don’t think of it as anything else, because it’s not.
The true rub on this particular vote was that Santorum was only one of three Republicans to vote FOR it, the others being his pal Arlen Specter and Dewine from Ohio. Plus this particular amendment was sponsored by Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, and Arlen Specter, not exactly the cream of the conservatism.
Me, I don’t care one way or the other. I don’t support Santorum for a variety of other reasons.
I bet everyone here is a felon who hasn't been caught. I bet 99% of those here are felons or ex-felons and don't even know it.
I like Gingrich-—he’s my 2nd choice. But I admire Santorum’s aggressiveness and I just think he’s better than Newt.
“To insinuate he simply wants all felons to be granted voting rights is simply not true.”
I appreciate your response. If the article is untrue I am willing to look into the issue further. Do you have additional information?
My understanding is that your second refusal of Obammy Care Individual Mandate is an automatic FELONY. That is currently still in effect and coming at us fast.
Anyone care to speculate what the feds will come after first when that happens?
The money or your guns?
.
Actually, no.
Senator Harry Reid, one of the three sponsors of the amendment, said on the floor of the Senate, “Basically what this amendment does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, should not be denied their right to vote.”
Sure, they can APPLY if they want, but they can’t be DENIED.
“Crazy times here at FR.”
Not for those of us who got shouted down when Dubya’s big spending ways were pointed out. It’s only more entertaining as the bots are worshiping different princes this time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.