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 (684046)	11/9/2012 11:15:24 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583476

>> you want those SOB's voting? Or you want that SOB I just mentioned in my prior post in congress? I'm sure I wouldn't, but that hardly justifies the position. The question is why should something we call a fundamental "right" be taken away from someone -- often for life, because they commit a crime for which they have "paid their debts" to society? One can then logically question why such a fundamental right should be taken away for committing a crime at all? What is the nexus between the crime and the taking of the right? Again -- if a person is convicted of a felony, say drug possession, what logical reason can you give for disallowing that person to vote AGAINST the law he/or she may not support? Some have argued, rationally, that there is a moral imperative to break laws they disagree with as a form of protest. The argument is that if people just accept insane laws (like those against marijuana use) there is no way to change them. But if you're going to take away people's right to vote for breaking them, there is LITERALLY no way to change them. I understand people disagree on this; however, voting is a right not a privilege; as such, it should not subject to removal at the whim of judiciary.