Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Va. Supreme Court overturns Terry McAuliffe’s action on felon voting rights

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    Va. Supreme Court overturns Terry McAuliffe’s action on felon voting rights

    In a move with huge implications for the presidential election, the Virginia Supreme Court late Friday ruled against Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s effort to restore the voting rights of more than 200,000 convicted felons.
    In a 4-3 decision, the Court said it “respectfully disagrees” with Mr. McAuliffe’s position that he has the executive power to make such a sweeping move. The governor is a longtime ally of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who views Virginia as crucial to her election.
    [ ... ]
    The ruling said Mr. McAuliffe lacked the power to issue a clemency order “to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request.”
    Justice Lemons cited Virginia’s tradition of “cautious and incremental approach to any expansions of the executive power,” writing that the framers in 1776 were skeptical of “the unfettered exercise of executive power.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...y-mcauliffes-/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Good call.

    If Gov. McAwful would like to review individual cases and restore ALL rights including RKBA, along with voting, to those who don't pose a risk to society I would respect his decision. I'd be even more supportive if the Governor were to ask the legislature to consider a bill to reform prison sentences such that persons were held in prison until such time as they could be trusted to exercise all of their rights, and upon release, actually had all of their rights restored.

    But if these convicts cannot be trusted to own and carry personal firearms, I don't see how they can be trusted to help select who will get to have his/her finger on the nuclear arsenal of the United States.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  3. #3
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    IF the Gov is serious about restoring the voting rights of these 200K+ felons who have been released from custody all he needs to do is file individual notices of all 200K+ to the Va Legislature as the law provides.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Can't think of a reason for anyone to ever have their voting rights suspended, even if (or especially) while incarcerated.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristCrusader View Post
    Can't think of a reason for anyone to ever have their voting rights suspended, even if (or especially) while incarcerated.
    I find no right to vote in natural law, COTUS, BoR or even Article II of the current Constitution of the State of Virginia.

    Doesn't one think that so vital to democracy a right as voting would be as clearly set out as is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Second Amendment?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    IF the Gov is serious about restoring the voting rights of these 200K+ felons who have been released from custody all he needs to do is file individual notices of all 200K+ to the Va Legislature as the law provides.
    radio news on wtop said he plans to do just that. but I'm not sure whether that would be legal, either; it would have the intended legal effect, but I think it would be malfeasance in office, since the statutory scheme anticipates that he would exercises executive judgment regarding the merits of each case, and not just use robo-signing to mass produce 200K certificates (at taxpayer expense).

    What's funny, though is this: I've come to know a good many felons in the past thirty years, and they basically fall into two categories where voting is involved: one group will be too high or too lazy or too hung over to care about voting when the day comes, the other group (a much smaller group, to be sure) will be more conservative than any of us. You'd be surprised how many convicted felons are strong law-and-order advocates. They often figure that if they've been treated the way they have by the system, by God, they want the system to really work as advertised, no excuses.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    radio news on wtop said he plans to do just that. but I'm not sure whether that would be legal, either; it would have the intended legal effect, but I think it would be malfeasance in office, since the statutory scheme anticipates that he would exercises executive judgment regarding the merits of each case, and not just use robo-signing to mass produce 200K certificates (at taxpayer expense).

    What's funny, though is this: I've come to know a good many felons in the past thirty years, and they basically fall into two categories where voting is involved: one group will be too high or too lazy or too hung over to care about voting when the day comes, the other group (a much smaller group, to be sure) will be more conservative than any of us. You'd be surprised how many convicted felons are strong law-and-order advocates. They often figure that if they've been treated the way they have by the system, by God, they want the system to really work as advertised, no excuses.
    And how many of those crimes with felony penalties in of themselves should not even be a felony?

    In Ohio littering is a misdemeanor. The statute lacks any Mens rea. Accidentally dropping your water bottle is a crime and picking it up has no relevancy.

  8. #8
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    radio news on wtop said he plans to do just that. but I'm not sure whether that would be legal, either; it would have the intended legal effect, but I think it would be malfeasance in office, since the statutory scheme anticipates that he would exercises executive judgment regarding the merits of each case, and not just use robo-signing to mass produce 200K certificates (at taxpayer expense).

    What's funny, though is this: I've come to know a good many felons in the past thirty years, and they basically fall into two categories where voting is involved: one group will be too high or too lazy or too hung over to care about voting when the day comes, the other group (a much smaller group, to be sure) will be more conservative than any of us. You'd be surprised how many convicted felons are strong law-and-order advocates. They often figure that if they've been treated the way they have by the system, by God, they want the system to really work as advertised, no excuses.
    I have to second the bold, I have met many decent former law breakers who were good citizens. But they are punished for the rest of their life in most cases. Many are better citizens that those who are arrogant because they have never been caught.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    "I will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians."

    https://governor.virginia.gov/newsro...rticleId=16047

    I don't see anything about involving the legislature here.

    TFred

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    "I will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians."

    https://governor.virginia.gov/newsro...rticleId=16047

    I don't see anything about involving the legislature here.

    TFred
    Maybe he'll steal one of their pens (or a fist-full) from the assembly .. he's gonna need 'em.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Virginia, US
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I find no right to vote in natural law, COTUS, BoR or even Article II of the current Constitution of the State of Virginia.

    Doesn't one think that so vital to democracy a right as voting would be as clearly set out as is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Second Amendment?
    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” ~ Declaration of Independence
    No person has a right to govern another without consent.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ~ BOR
    Just because the 2A enumerates the right to keep and bear, doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to vote also.

    Practically speaking - if the govt should be so felony-happy as to adjudicate such a huge chunk of population out of their ability to vote against the abuse and peacefully seek change, then revolt will be the only recourse.
    Keep punishments fair and limited only to criminals that victimize someone, then that presumably small segment of populace's votes won't overturn the majority anyway.
    Last edited by ChristCrusader; 07-24-2016 at 03:35 AM.
    *I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare;2197387[SIZE=3
    ]I find no right to vote in natural law,[/SIZE] COTUS, BoR or even Article II of the current Constitution of the State of Virginia.

    Doesn't one think that so vital to democracy a right as voting would be as clearly set out as is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in the Second Amendment?
    +100

    Agreed!!

    No one has ever explained to my satisfaction the source of my alleged power to inflict coercive government on other peaceful equals.

    If I can vote to depute another (congressman, governor, city councilman) to inflict coercive government on another, then voting is necessarily a power, not a right. Nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction from where I would legitimately obtain such power.

    Now, please allow me to confess that I am neither historian, nor philosopher. So, what I am about to say is really just the judgment of a fellow who has read an awful lot, and listened to a lot of documentaries on English history.

    I think we've lost track of something. Once upon a time, the common fella was afflicted with government. The nobility bashed him in this direction. The monarch bashed him in that direction. The established church bashed him in another direction. "Hold it!!" "If I am going to be ruled, then by God! I will have a say in who is doing the ruling!!"

    Once upon a time, voting was claimed as a right. It was just an argument. It was an argument--accompanied by the threat of pitchforks and torches--to induce government to acquiesce a little bit. "Hey! We can alleviate some of the crushing BS inflicted by nobility, church, and monarchy if we can get them to grudgingly agree to let us vote some representatives. Maybe we can prevent or stall some of the BS they inflict on us."

    Voting was a defensive measure. It was claimed to be a right to legitimize that defense within the fragile framework of the government's own asserted legitimacy.

    Those days are long past.

    Voting is no longer used to mitigate the avarice of the nobility. It is no longer used to prevent the king from inflicting whichever taxes for whatever misadventure. Today, voting is used to inflict on other peaceful equals whichever social engineering the voter prefers.

    It was never a right. It was always a power. Even in its earliest days in English history it was a power. (Just because it was claimed as a right, doesn't mean it was not a power--the power to undermine the nobility's, the monarchy's, and the church's power to dictate.)

    Somewhere along the way, people lost track of that. And, actually came to believe they have a right--a right--to inflict their view of how society should function on other peaceful equals.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-24-2016 at 05:24 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +100

    Agreed!!

    No one has ever explained to my satisfaction the source of my alleged power to inflict coercive government on other peaceful equals.

    If I can vote to depute another (congressman, governor, city councilman) to inflict coercive government on another, then voting is necessarily a power, not a right. Nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction from where I would legitimately obtain such power.

    Now, please allow me to confess that I am neither historian, nor philosopher. So, what I am about to say is really just the judgment of a fellow who has read an awful lot, and listened to a lot of documentaries on English history.

    I think we've lost track of something. Once upon a time, the common fella was afflicted with government. The nobility bashed him in this direction. The monarch bashed him in that direction. The established church bashed him in another direction. "Hold it!!" "If I am going to be ruled, then by God! I will have a say in who is doing the ruling!!"

    Once upon a time, voting was claimed as a right. It was just an argument. It was an argument--accompanied by the threat of pitchforks and torches--to induce government to acquiesce a little bit. "Hey! We can alleviate some of the crushing BS inflicted by nobility, church, and monarchy if we can get them to grudgingly agree to let us vote some representatives. Maybe we can prevent or stall some of the BS they inflict on us."

    Voting was a defensive measure. It was claimed to be a right to legitimize that defense within the fragile framework of the government's own asserted legitimacy.

    Those days are long past.

    Voting is no longer used to mitigate the avarice of the nobility. It is no longer used to prevent the king from inflicting whichever taxes for whatever misadventure. Today, voting is used to inflict on other peaceful equals whichever social engineering the voter prefers.

    It was never a right. It was always a power. Even in its earliest days in English history it was a power. (Just because it was claimed as a right, doesn't mean it was not a power--the power to undermine the nobility's, the monarchy's, and the church's power to dictate.)

    Somewhere along the way, people lost track of that. And, actually came to believe they have a right--a right--to inflict their view of how society should function on other peaceful equals.
    Peaceful equals will (generally) agree on mutually beneficial constraints within which they will confine their activities, and these constraints generally become the laws of that society. However, there will always be non-peaceful equals (who perhaps see themselves as peaceful also) who won't agree to abide by these covenants who will attempt to impose their will on the peaceful. If the peaceful are in the majority and willing to oppose the non-peacefuls to protect what they have established, then there will be unwelcome impositions on some segment of that society. So which camp are you in?
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    Peaceful equals will (generally) agree on mutually beneficial constraints within which they will confine their activities, and these constraints generally become the laws of that society. However, there will always be non-peaceful equals (who perhaps see themselves as peaceful also) who won't agree to abide by these covenants who will attempt to impose their will on the peaceful. If the peaceful are in the majority and willing to oppose the non-peacefuls to protect what they have established, then there will be unwelcome impositions on some segment of that society. So which camp are you in?
    As long as I am responsible for my actions, I and I alone will decide the legitimacy of any actions I might take. I have the final say. End of discussion. Before I agree to inflict coercive government, and all the destruction and violence it embodies, somebody is going to have to do a very large amount of explaining.

    And, by "a very large amount of explaining", I mean triple-doctoral dissertation. And, not just an examination of coercive government and reasons to support it. I mean a super-thorough examination of alternatives with a solid, rational explanation of why each would not work. Lets face it. Many hold that government is the most important social institution. Well, then. If government is the most important institution, then it cannot possibly deserve less. Before I unleash such a monster on my fellow human beings, somebody is gonna have to give me a really, really, really good explanation.

    No one has ever explained to my satisfaction the legitimate source of a power for me to inflict coercive government on other human beings. You failed to address that. What is the source of the power to inflict coercive government on other peaceful human beings?

    Covenants are agreements. Coercive government bypasses agreement. Coercive government asks neither your agreement nor mine. It dictates what we shall do, and inflicts penalty for disobedience.

    Gentle readers, understand that when you decide it is OK to inflict coercive government on other peaceful individuals, in the same breath you are necessarily saying it is OK for him to inflict coercive government on you. You see how that works? Don't like liberals inflicting on you their idea of how society should function? Too late. You already said it was OK for them to do so--when you decided it was OK for you to inflict coercive government on them. Or, perhaps it was the day you accepted your high school teacher's explanation that coercive government was necessary.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-25-2016 at 06:57 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +100

    No one has ever explained to my satisfaction the source of my alleged power to inflict coercive government on other peaceful equals.
    That's to be expected because no one, including you--our leading anarchist proselytizer--has ever managed to explain the source of your alleged power to use force to resolve conflicts between individuals who both claim they are peaceful, but who both believe the other is not being peaceful.

    When two (or more) individuals or groups live near each other there will be conflicts that arise. It might be something as small as noise requirements. I don't believe one can make a principled case for Siesta schedule or traditional US schedules being better than the other. But put next to each other, they are not compatible. It might be as big as slavery or abortion. But if neither side will back down, then in the absence of an evil, "coercive" government to keep the peace, one side will make an appeal to force. And in doing so, that side will claim the moral and logical authority of merely defending their rights (or the rights of innocent third parties) against the violations of the other group.

    Some have grand visions of "non-governmental service groups" somehow altering this fundamental part of human nature. Utopian theorists have had such visions for at least the last 150 years. For all the good in human nature, there are some base instincts that have to be accounted for, until they truly are changed in enough people to form a functional society.

    The Amish have done that exceptionally well with their strict religious society by actually overcoming and altering some of human nature. The early Mormons did likewise for a period, but were unable to get it to stick.

    I don't believe anyone has managed to do that better in the secular realm than the Framers of our Constitution. Rather than relying on religious or moral instruction and strictly shared common values to overcome human nature, they formed a system of (evil, "coercive") government where typical human nature was accounted for and tends to work in favor, rather than against, good government. It isn't perfect. But with a nation of 320 million persons, covering the better part of the inhabitable part of a continent, with cities of 6 million, with tremendous diversity of cultures, races, social and religious values, it has worked rather well for over 200 years. And in the process, helped take this nation from a former British Colony to one of the leading world superpowers economically, militarily, and culturally/socially. It is no longer England that drives English to be one of the major world languages.

    The difference between theory and practice is that sometimes in practice, theory doesn't work. I'll take the imperfect, but proven track record of the US Constitution over the latest set of Utopian day dreams any day at least until someone can show me some significant success actually implementing it. I recognize that probably requires expatriating somewhere. But if the anarchists lack the ambition to do what generations before them did to seek a better life, then I can't put much credence into their day dreams anyway.

    If they agree with me enough on RKBA to work together there, and are mature enough to be civil (to treat me as an equal as they claim to be willing to do) despite our disagreements about anarchy, I'll happily work with them on RKBA. Far too many, however, lack the maturity and integrity to treat those who disagree as equals, instead, laying out as much contempt as they can get away with.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    Peaceful equals will (generally) agree on mutually beneficial constraints within which they will confine their activities, and these constraints generally become the laws of that society. However, there will always be non-peaceful equals (who perhaps see themselves as peaceful also) who won't agree to abide by these covenants who will attempt to impose their will on the peaceful. If the peaceful are in the majority and willing to oppose the non-peacefuls to protect what they have established, then there will be unwelcome impositions on some segment of that society. So which camp are you in?
    Whoa! Whoa!! Whoa!!

    Who is doing this mutual agreeing????

    I have never agreed. State and federal government have passed up thirty-four chances to ask my express individual agreement--tax returns.*

    I never mutually agreed. Did you? Did any other reader? When, exactly?


    *Oh, yes. On this most important social question--the most important social institution of all--government could not be bothered to ask my agreement--my consent. The federal government has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt they know exact who I individually am, and where I individually live: for years they mailed me my tax return in my name to my address with the individual, unique social security number they assigned me. Now, they could never find room on the tax form to ask whether I agreed to ruled. Oh, no. But, they could find room to ask whether I wanted one dollar or three to go to the presidential re-election fund. Oh, yes. They found room on the tax form to ask whether I wanted one dollar or three to go to re-electing the president, when the most important social institution of all was only one question away.

    So, who exactly is doing this mutual agreeing? And, how do they have standing to make mutual agreements for others who did not mutually agree?
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-25-2016 at 11:13 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I never mutually agreed. Did you? Did any other reader? When, exactly?
    And yet again, our leading anarchist proselytizer is inventing a standard never intended by those who penned the words, "...consent of the governed..."

    I can't get 5 of my best friends to agree on what pizza to order, but the anarchist suggests that government can be legitimate only by obtaining individual consent for every act, from every citizen? Obviously, by this standard, no government can ever be legit. Doubly so when anarchists retain the "right" (so claimed) to change their mind at any moment with nothing stopping them except what such a change of heart might do to their reputation. So today's individual "consent" could be revoked tomorrow when facing punishment for a crime.

    I suspect folks who put forth such nonsense as though it were serious political or social theory have never managed to keep a book club or Boy Scout troop working for more than a year. They can't defend their theories against any serious critique except to resort to personal insults, redirection, or claiming that anyone who won't read 1000 pages of their favored tomes is unworthy of receiving an answer. But they keep claiming their pet theory would actually work in a diverse society of 320 million persons. Talk about empty day dreams.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Northern Piedmont-Culpeper
    Posts
    176

    Trying to bring this back on topic

    http://www.fredericksburg.com/townne...71c27e255d0.ht

    Not trying to offend anyone, but when you folks start talking over my head (which is pretty easy to do), I gotta try to bring it back down to my level. This article just illustrates how arrogant and divisive the governor really is.
    "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

  19. #19
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    well scooter...that link died a horrible and tragic death and didn't quip back, DR Livingstone, i presume?

    ipse

    Element not valid


    The element requested is either not valid or does not exist.
    Last edited by solus; 07-26-2016 at 10:29 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Northern Piedmont-Culpeper
    Posts
    176

    Trying to bring this back on topic

    "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,866
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter348 View Post
    thanks watson...

    political media bravado for the start of the convention...he now has only four days to restore the 13K felon's rights...

    remember his EO to curtail reciprocity then his backroom hi jinks, then smiling all again in jan 16..

    but i do not believe these plays are new to this individual and he still got elected...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Northern Piedmont-Culpeper
    Posts
    176
    You are spot on about his political history solus, with one exception. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the reciprocity issue was brought about by the AG, Mark Herring. The backlash caused the governor to have to step in and "save the day" so to speak. Am I wrong?
    "Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    "I will expeditiously sign nearly 13,000 individual orders to restore the fundamental rights of the citizens who have had their rights restored and registered to vote. And I will continue to sign orders until I have completed restoration for all 200,000 Virginians."

    https://governor.virginia.gov/newsro...rticleId=16047

    I don't see anything about involving the legislature here.

    TFred
    I very recently talked to a young fella--about 25--who was a page for the General Assembly when he was fourteen. It was a budget session; so he got three months of "paging" instead of two.

    One of his assignments, along with two other pages, was to sign letters from a delegate to his constituents. Not him, but the other two--he was an envelope stuffer. That's right. Two pages were assigned to practice the delegate's signature (presumably until they could imitate the signature not-discreditably), and then assigned to start signing bulk-mailing letters to the constituents of that delegate. The point was to make it look like the letters were hand-signed by the delegate.

    Such a solution, if acceptable to General Assembly delegates, is surely acceptable to Terry McAwful.

    And, lets do some math. Lets say Terry really does intend to sign each one personally. Lets say somebody lays a stack of the orders in front of him. And, he signs one and sets it aside, then signs the next. Lets say it takes three seconds to sign each one and lay it aside. Thirteen thousand times three seconds divided by 3600 seconds in an hour equals a bit more than 10 solid hours of signing. That doesn't include meals, bathroom breaks, and plotting with Hitlery's minions. Lets say Terry splits it up across ten days. That's still a solid hour a day of signing.

    That is going to be on heck of cramp.

    And, that's just the first 13,000. There's still 187,000 to go.

    Yeah, right. Like I really believe he is going to individually sign each one. Suuuuuure.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter348 View Post
    http://www.fredericksburg.com/townne...71c27e255d0.ht

    Not trying to offend anyone, but when you folks start talking over my head (which is pretty easy to do), I gotta try to bring it back down to my level. This article just illustrates how arrogant and divisive the governor really is.
    <chuckle> Boy, do I know that feeling. When some of these college-educated guys like StealthyEliminator, SuddenValleyGunner, and Nightmare get going, my head starts to swim. Its all I can do sometimes to keep up with them. I've worn out two keyboards just googling the definitions of words they use. Nevermind the references they mention.

    But, in a way, that is kinda the cool part. They're "over my head" sometimes, heck, often. But, then I google the definition of a word, or check the link they provide, and mull it over. And, sometimes, suddenly it is not over my head anymore.

    Now, I agree Terry is divisive. He's an expert at divide-and-conquer. I recall that some of his out-gassings when he was chairman of the DNC were massively inflammatory--to the point that I considered them irresponsible at the time. My point in this thread was that McAwful's idea of "restoring" voting rights to felons proceeded from a false premise. (Scroll up and you'll see where I plus-one-hundreded something Nightmare said. Essentially, Nightmare said the same thing.) The rest of my posts along those lines are just explaining why I considered McAwful to be using an underlying false premise and explaining the premise I hold more accurate. And, then defending my premise.

    I guess my main point is that you need not consider it "over your head." It certainly is not intended to be.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151
    When I was a teenager I started reading Scientific American that was certainly largely over my head. I read every word on every page. At some point it came together to make sense.

    When SA started printing page after page of gene coding printed out, then I stopped insisting on every page. Shortly after the SA article on finding HTLV-III in mosquitos in Belle Glades, Florida was disappeared then I stopped subscribing. I think that was about 1986.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •