Englebert

I'm not sure how Republicans or Democrats feel about convicted felons (or persons convicted of any crime) being allowed to vote. That is, I don't know what the party lines are. My personal thoughts are that anyone should be allowed to vote. I don't think you should be stripped of your right to vote because of some crime. Granted, I haven't thought about this topic much, so I'm definitely persuadable. In the same vein, I don't think a person convicted of a crime should lose their second amendment rights. I'm open to stripping that right if the crime involves the use of a firearm, but would definitely need to see the wording of the law (which would have to include measures to keep the law from being abused). My stance is that if you are stripped of your second amendment rights, you should necessarily be stripped of other rights, including the right to vote. If you are deemed deficient in the your ability to protect yourself, you should be deemed deficient in your ability to choose the people that represent yourself and others. What are your thoughts on this issue? Should a person lose his right to vote if convicted of a crime? If so, what crimes should be included? If you lose the right to vote, should you also lose your second amendment rights (and vice-versa)?

My point is...why is one considered oppression but not the other? Why are so many "undue burdens" perfectly acceptable for exercising one's second amendment right of self protection, but just the mention of identifying yourself at a voting booth is tantamount to extreme suppression of rights (according to the Liberal position)? Is having the ability to protect yourself not as important as the ability to select your representative?

Would this be considered voter suppression in your eyes?

So it is an undue hardship to have a person obtain an ID but not an undue hardship to actually make a person come down to a polling station to cast a vote? Is it an undue hardship to require an ID to obtain government benefits? I'm curious, should the government force a person to show ID to vote? Should a person be subjected to a background check in order to qualify to vote? Should a person be required to attend a mandatory education class on how to vote (and pay for privilege of taking the class)? Should a person be required to carry around documentation of this government sanctioned education course to exercise their right to vote? Should a person be stripped of their right to vote if found guilty of particular crimes? Should a person with mental disabilities be allowed to vote? If all/any of these things were to come to fruition, would you complain that the people's right to vote would be infringed?

Your sanctimonious position correct? Please describe these people that can somehow register to vote, find a way to a polling booth, but are incapable of obtaining an ID. Should these same people that are incapable of obtaining ID be allowed to exercise their second amendment right of self protection and buy a firearm without said ID?

An undue burden huh? So is it an undue burden for someone to show ID to receive welfare, money for which they depend on to live? Is it an undue burden to show ID to actually buy food, which is necessary to live on. How heartless is a government that will not give their needy citizens money to buy food without placing an undue burden on them? And secondly, how sanctimonious does one have to be to think that people are incapable of obtaining an ID?

Just simple regurgitation of Liberal talking points. (I know you know that, but just wanted to put it out there to exemplify UT Alum oft claims of the reverse.)

So, you can't debate. You can't even defend your own pathetic statements. You are too scared because you know how childish you will sound. It's probably best that you bow out now before embarrassing yourself even further.

Yes, you are pathetic. I get no rational argument from you...only attempts to bully. And it infuriates you when I respond in kind. Let that sink in. I counter in kind, but yet you get mad. And your analytical skills are on par with a 2nd grader if you think my responding in kind somehow signals I have thin skin. Why do you even try? But please, keep posting. Your lack of intelligence shows more and more with each pathetic post. It must be disheartening for you knowing you can't win at the only type of game you know how to play.

Who are you condemning as racist? What basis leads you to level that claim?

I guess you are another wanna be bully. Are you actually accusing me of being the instigator. Are you really that pathetic? What rational arguments did I fail to offer? Let's test your analytical skills. Can you backup your wild claims, or is your big talk really just immature bluster?

If I was enlightened, I would probably be arguing from that same side. I'm not sure I want to be enlightened just yet.

I got swung at, then chastised for swinging back. To top it off, I got accused of being the aggressor, and the aggressor portrays himself as the victim. So yeah, I guess a group hug is in order. Just a common occurrence in today's world. LOL.

You started it. Don't blame that crap on me. I have the audacity to challenge you on your obvious blunder, and you try to make me the "bad guy". You chose to engage in the pissing contest by challenging my comprehension skills, then want to play victim when confronted in kind. It's pretty sad when you can't own up to your own statements, and really ridiculous when you try to blame others for your childishness. I could have chosen the high road, but I no longer feel that does any good. Attacking probably doesn't either, so...

Maybe it's your comprehension skills. I started off with "I guess you feel" because that is what you said was the way you feel. I could have been blunt and direct, but considering your reaction... You said that Trump should act better towards people here. I asked why should he. You then blew up and tried to accuse me of inaccurately portraying your feelings...the feelings you put on full display all by yourself. Would you like to clarify how you think I inaccurately portrayed your comment or continue the deflection of your faux pas?

Wow, comprehension is not your friend. Let's try this one more time. I did not portray what you said inaccurately. You said Trump should treat people here better. I asked why should he, considering the way he is treated by them. What is so hard to understand about that? Considering your displayed lack of comprehension, do you really feel qualified to get into a pissing contest? I'm game if that is where you want to go.

So what was inaccurate about it? How did I embellish? All I did was clarify your own statement about how you, yourself stated you feel. You said Trump should act more respectful of others here. I remarked "Why should he", considering the way they treat him. And that embellishes or misrepresents your statement how?

No, it was very accurate. You said you wished Trump would show more decorum. I illustrated the "decorum" that has been shown to him does not deserve a respectful response. What part of that do you think is an inaccurate picture.

I'm guessing you feel that the members of Congress and others that regularly direct vile comments at Trump, call for his impeachment, analyze his motives as a wanna-be dictator, spew hateful rhetoric, etc, etc, etc...are deserving of tasteful and respectful adulation from Trump.

Like what? Can you give some examples?

Your choice of "evidence" of racism illustrates an over reliance and utter dependency on Liberal propaganda. But yet you will undoubtedly accuse us of blinding following Conservative talking points, even after you laughably coughed up these gems. Remind us again of who started the "birther" movement. Was it the same person that called half of America "deplorables"?

You are a pedophile. I don't have to back up my accusations, I can just levy them. And don't dare try to claim I'm lying or this is fake news. Sounds pathetically silly doesn't it.

The downgrade happened in 2011, three years into Obama's reign. Standard & Poors issued the downgrade because of the poor outlook of American policies and RISING debt, not the crash perpetuated by the housing crisis. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] What policies did Obama enact that kept the economy from burning?

I'll agree with Kountzer and UT alum on this one. I for one am still pissed about the rising debt (or any debt), but too many Republicans don't ever mention it when they have control. At least the Democrats don't try to hide the fact that they have zero fiscal responsibility. It's seems to be just all talk with the Republicans. The Republicans simply have no backbone. They are scared to cut pork spending because they are afraid the Liberal media will trash them for it. (And the media surely will.) That is one thing I like about Trump...he doesn't care what the media will say. I wish he would focus a lot more attention to government waste, fraud, and abuse. The problem though is that neither side is willing to do what needs to be done. Maybe he knows it is a insurmountable task due to unwillingness on both sides, but I sure would like to see him call out each and every fiscally irresponsible Congressman (all 99% of them). Then again, it would probably lead to his impeachment.

How about knocking yourself out with getting to the task of providing data that shows that Man is the main cause for so-called global warming. It's easy to see why you want to get bogged down in the "who's lying, who's telling the truth" antics, because that deflects from the main question of who/what is the cause. It deflects from the question of whether or not the so-called global warming is destructive, and totally ignores other causal factors. Again, you cannot provide one iota of evidence, but yet want to continually spout the crap that Man has to be the cause. How about focusing on the main questions. It's not a hard concept, but oh so hard to prove. If you can provide that evidence, then we can debate the truthfulness of your links.