T1B

AG Eric Holder wants some states to give convicted felons the right to vote after they have served their prison and or parole time. Currently 11 states bar 99% of felons from voting even after they have served their prison time and completed their parole or probation terms. Most states allow felons to vote once they have satisfied the terms of their release.

A separate debate can be had regarding which should felons be allowed to vote or not.

However, Holder, said some idiotic things in his speech regarding this topic.

Eric Holder wrote:"These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive. By perpetuating the stigma and isolation imposed on formerly incarcerated individuals, these laws increase the likelihood they will commit future crimes."

What? Because these individuals can no longer vote in some states, they are more likely to commit future crimes? Bull. They had the ability to vote prior to committing their first crime, but didn't stop them from committing said crime. Further if some states allow felons to vote, why wouldn't they move there then?

Further, a study of released prisoners found the 52% end up back in prison and most of those within three years of release date. So long before most of these felons would complete the terms of their release (and therefore eligible to vote in most states) they are back in prison anyway.


Eric Holder's DOJ also recently sent schools across the country a letter telling them that some school punishments are racist. First among its decrees: Schools should not strive to treat all races the same; rather, they should treat the races differently, levying weaker punishments when necessary, in order to effect equal outcomes among students of all races. IE, if one race commits more acts that deserve punishment than another, the race that commits more punishable acts should be punished less severely than the other race so as to equal out total punishment.

Eric Holder's DOJ wrote:“Schools also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race...Examples of policies that can raise disparate impact concerns include policies that impose mandatory suspension, expulsion, or citation (e.g., ticketing or other fines or summonses) upon any student who commits a specified offense — such as being tardy to class, being in possession of a cellular phone, being found insubordinate, acting out, or not wearing the proper school uniform.”

Read that bold underlined section again. When schools treat kids exactly the same regardless of the kids skin color, they are in fact racist.

This is absolutely crazy. Let's use tardiness as an example. The example school is 90% black and 10% white. This school has a mandatory detention for any student that is tardy to any class. For each tardy, the student has to spend 30 minutes in detention after school. On the example day 27 black students are tardy and 3 white students are tardy to a class. The black students are each given the standard 30 minutes of detention after school. In order to comply with the DOJ directive, the 3 white students are required to be given 4.5 hours of detention each.

This Eric Holder really is a dumb human.

It does illustrate how totally fucked up this so-called administration's priorities are, though.

Administration eases restrictions on asylum seekers with loose terror ties

The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called "deeply alarming."

The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided "limited material support" to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.

Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.

facially neutral policies? :?

Left Seater wrote: What? Because these individuals can no longer vote in some states, they are more likely to commit future crimes? Bull. They had the ability to vote prior to committing their first crime, but didn't stop them from committing said crime.

He is talking about people who have been doing better and are, hopefully, getting their lives together so your argument has no relevancy to the topic at hand. Who is the dumb one now?

Further if some states allow felons to vote, why wouldn't they move there then?

This is what is known as a fallacy. It's called a False Dicotomy. Who is the dumb one now?

Further, a study of released prisoners found the 52% end up back in prison and most of those within three years of release date. So long before most of these felons would complete the terms of their release (and therefore eligible to vote in most states) they are back in prison anyway.

A) Link?
B) He is talking about the "48%" not the people who don't term out their post release supervision. So again who is the dumb one?

Who gives a fuck what he's talking about? Is giving ex-cons the vote a genuine priority for anybody? I mean anybody other than a political whore trolling for votes.

mvscal wrote:Who gives a fuck what he's talking about? Is giving ex-cons the vote a genuine priority for anybody? I mean anybody other than a political whore trolling for votes.

Yea but you are a racist fuck that fucks black cock so what the fuck do you know about anything?

Moving Sale wrote:It's called a False Dicotomy. Who is the dumb one now?

That phrase clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

Hint: "di." Two.

Regardless whether I agree with either of you, he didn't offer anything close to an either/or scenario... which is the key element of a "false dichotomy." He said that if voting was important to a felon, they could move to a state that allowed it -- quite far from an either/or, it was an alternative... advice if you will.

So, it's irrefutable that no either/or was presented, which eliminates the possibility of it being a false dichotomy.

Which brings us to...

Who is the dumb one now?

Moving Sale wrote: He is talking about people who have been doing better and are, hopefully, getting their lives together so your argument has no relevancy to the topic at hand.

You pretend to know that he was talking about some subset of felons. Link?

Moving Sale wrote: A) Link?
B) He is talking about the "48%" not the people who don't term out their post release supervision. So again who is the dumb one?

http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/09/2 ... rceration/

Now you know another subset of felons to which he was directly referring. Link?

Dims,
He gave two choices. Live without voting rights or move to a state that has them. It's classic FD. As in, "American-Love it or leave it." He asked why dont they just move? He left out any other alternative. He completely dismissed the very possibility Holder was arguing for. I know you are kinda stupid but even you should understand something so simple.

LS,
He specifically said he was talking about post release felons. I don't know any way of making it any simpler.

Moving Sale wrote:It's classic FD.

Actually, it ended with a question mark. So even if you take liberty and infer the either/or, a false dichotomy becomes an impossibility.

Not only not "classic FD," it can in no way meet the definition of a FD. A FD is an avowal, and by definition, a question cannot be an avowal.

He asked why they don't move to a state than allows them to vote. He never suggest anything else (although I suppose one could really stretch things and infer that he meant that the another alternative was to "deal with it"), and he certainly didn't state or imply that those were the only two choices -- which if he had, and not posed it in the form of a question, then you would be right. But there's two necessary elements of a FD -- two choices (he merely offered an alternative to a situation), and avowal. His meets neither criteria.

OK, continue debating the moronic, traitorous AG.

There are only three opinions
A) Stay in state X
B) Move to state Y
C) Work to fix the law in state X
By dismissing the very argument Holder was making, that being option C, he situationally force the reader to answer a question that then only had two answers, A or B. That's the avowal. Nice try though.

As for Holder overall, he lied to me when he said he would not go after my Med Pot clients and then did just that. Fuck him.

As for Holder -- Some Oregon Congressmen are calling for a federal investigation into the jaw-droppingly flagrant grift going on with Cover Oregon (aka Coverup Oregon, the state health insurance exchange). Since our retread, do-nothing, incompetent, openly-corrupt (one party rule is a treat) is the biggest Obama knob-polisher on the planet (gunning for a cabinet position), good luck with that.

Some background -- Oregon jumped all over the federal grants to get an exchange website up and running early. They even shot for the moon, and decided to automatically enroll everyone in every assistance program they qualified for in one fell swoop. Grants started out at about $50 mil, give or take. If certain "benchmarks" of progress were reached, there was to be further grants.

Here's where it gets good...

They never really came up with a website. They created fake pages with mockups of what looked like a functioning website, to get more federal grants. The governor knew, but now claims he didn't (it's been proven otherwise). They're trying to toss Oracle, the main contractor, under the bus, but the state wanted it done with outdated software to save money, which Oracle recommended against (and they didn't get paid).

So, we're now sitting at about $200 million for a website that isn't online after 2.5+ years. Several web design companies have said they could have set it up for $2 mil, but after government hoop-jumping, might balloon to $10 mil on the extreme upper end.

Two hundred fucking million dollars... for a website that doesn't work.

And Governor Retread has announced he's running for another term... after spending $180 million coming up with a plan for a state-built federal bridge that didn't meet multiple federal standards... OK, they spent $160 mil -- $20 mil just vanished into thin air.

While the Oregon GOP has gone beyond a joke (they flirted with bankruptcy a few years ago), I love that they want the "perps" in jail. But going to Holder to achieve that end?

Good luck with that.

Sorry, I got to ranting.

Dins, see also California. Many states that jumped to set up their own exchanges based on promises from the Feds and now seeing those promises fall short. California is so concerned they just put $200 million in a reserve fund to cover Federal shortfalls promised for their exchange site.


But not to worry. The idiot in the White House just made another tax change without the support of Congress. He gave mid sized businesses a tax waiver so they don't have to comply with ACA til 2016.

The only good news for this action is that precedent has been set and future Presidents can change tax law at their discretion.

You called Holder dumb and then got your ass handed to you. Now you call the pres an idiot? What are the chances that you are dumber than dirt?

Moving Sale wrote:You called Holder dumb and then got your ass handed to you.

Link?


Just add that to the other link we are still waiting on.

The link is this thread you fat stupid fuck.

No sh!t it would be in this thread tiny.

I was asking you to link us up with the exact place. None of the rest of us saw you hand anyone anything. On the flip side you had a few things handed to you though.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: What? Because these individuals can no longer vote in some states, they are more likely to commit future crimes? Bull. They had the ability to vote prior to committing their first crime, but didn't stop them from committing said crime.

He is talking about people who have been doing better and are, hopefully, getting their lives together so your argument has no relevancy to the topic at hand. Who is the dumb one now?

Further if some states allow felons to vote, why wouldn't they move there then?

This is what is known as a fallacy. It's called a False Dicotomy. Who is the dumb one now?

Further, a study of released prisoners found the 52% end up back in prison and most of those within three years of release date. So long before most of these felons would complete the terms of their release (and therefore eligible to vote in most states) they are back in prison anyway.

A) Link?
B) He is talking about the "48%" not the people who don't term out their post release supervision. So again who is the dumb one?

You're welcome dumbass.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:Who gives a fuck what he's talking about? Is giving ex-cons the vote a genuine priority for anybody? I mean anybody other than a political whore trolling for votes.

Yea but you are a racist fuck that fucks black cock so what the fuck do you know about anything?

Now there you go midget boy. It took you that long to roll in here with a black cock blast ??? You are seriously falling down on the job.

Pull up your little stool that you use to be able to piss in the toilet like a real man, put it in front of the mirror, and repeat: " You suck black cock. " Repeat several times then waddle on your little short stubby sawed off midget legs over to the computer and pound out " You suck black cock". Hit enter and wait. Then go suck a shot gun barrel.

now you are posting your own ass kicking? Wow!

Left Seater wrote:now you are posting your own ass kicking? Wow!

Nice white flag you stupid fucking stewardess.

Moving Sale wrote: you stupid fucking stewardess.

I am neither female or a waitress. Try again midget.

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: you stupid fucking stewardess.

I am neither female or a waitress. Try again midget.

You are way too stupid to even understand how stupid that statement is.

Pot meet kettle.

Nice IKYABWAI. Moving to KC next?