Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (683930)	11/8/2012 5:33:45 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583396

>> and why should it be wrong. If it is the law for ANY felony it has to be the law for all felonies. you trey and sort them out and HERE is what you get: I can see withholding PRIVILEGES due to a felony conviction, such as a license to run a gaming or liquor establishment. I think my fundamental issue with it is sort of trivial in the overall scheme of things, but not really. Suppose I, as an American, oppose a particular law, and choose to break it, am convicted, and as part of my conviction, lose my right to vote. In that case I have no ability to influence the future of that law because I broke it in the past. That's ridiculous, almost a kind of conflict of interests. One could take the other view that, "Why should a murderer be able to vote to legalize murder?" but one has to assume such a law could not pass. But I do think, for example, drug felons and white collar criminals should not lose their right to vote, and I can see no reason that anyone convicted of a felony should give up that most basic right. It is an academic argument, mostly.