Red Mosquito

Next you'll be telling me that the entire BurtReynolds schtick is a Trump Republican trying to convince himself that he's not like those other guys.

McParadigm wrote:Question, Burt:

Spoiler: show

perhaps I need better search terms?

Just like me on match.com

McParadigm wrote:Question, Burt:

Spoiler: show

perhaps I need better search terms?

Did he say something similar? He stole it from me if he did.

My understanding is that felon rights is a passion of yours

The funny thing is that these drones think that the rules will still apply when a candidate capable of winning the presidency is barred from running. We're in open war at that point.

Maybe that's the plan.

"B-But it's against the rules!"

McParadigm wrote:My understanding is that felon rights is a passion of yours

Oh gotcha. Never said I was pro-democracy.

So is the answer yes. I just "thought" this in the thought thread and didn't really want to think/research it myself.

Burt

what's this really about?

FOMO for not being there to invade the capitol?

there will be other chances to leave an upper decker in pelosi's toilet

there are other ways

96583UP wrote:Burt

what's this really about?

the man has his own television studio in his house

elliseamos wrote:So is the answer yes. I just "thought" this in the thought thread and didn't really want to think/research it myself.

I think felons and criminals should be allowed to vote and run for office. Taking away the right to do either is a stupid punishment that can be easily abused.

BurtReynolds wrote:

elliseamos wrote:So is the answer yes. I just "thought" this in the thought thread and didn't really want to think/research it myself.

I think felons and criminals should be allowed to vote and run for office. Taking away the right to do either is a stupid punishment that can be easily abused.

I didn't ask your opinion. I asked if the people that are being rounded up will lose there vote. It's ironic.

They shout "we only want legal votes counted!" Then go out and commit a crime making any future votes on their part illegal.

They might.

If they pass a domestic terrorism law, then it will definitely happen in the future.

Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Higgs wrote:Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Right, but aren't these federal crimes? They crossed state lines to commit a crime in DC (not Maryland).

Side note: I don't support this policy, but find it ironic.

elliseamos wrote:

Higgs wrote:Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Right, but aren't these federal crimes? They crossed state lines to commit a crime in DC (not Maryland).

Side note: I don't support this policy, but find it ironic.

State lines? Again? What is it with you people?

It happened in DC, thats whats relevant.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Higgs wrote:Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Right, but aren't these federal crimes? They crossed state lines to commit a crime in DC (not Maryland).

Side note: I don't support this policy, but find it ironic.

State lines? Again? What is it with you people?

It happened in DC, thats whats relevant.

In one case my understanding was the kid brought a gun from one state to another where it wasn'tlegal for him to do that. I think that has now been proven false, so it's moot.

In this case, crossing state lines was part of the crime in that some of the rioters brought people with them who would otherwise not have been a part of the riot.

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Higgs wrote:Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Right, but aren't these federal crimes? They crossed state lines to commit a crime in DC (not Maryland).

Side note: I don't support this policy, but find it ironic.

State lines? Again? What is it with you people?

It happened in DC, thats whats relevant.

In one case my understanding was the kid brought a gun from one state to another where it wasn'tlegal for him to do that. I think that has now been proven false, so it's moot.

In this case, crossing state lines was part of the crime in that some of the rioters brought people with them who would otherwise not have been a part of the riot.

I'm fascinated to learn what relevant laws are implicated here.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

Higgs wrote:Here's what wikipedia has to say regarding the US 'Felony disenfranchisement' laws - it's all a state-by-state thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_di ... nchisement

Right, but aren't these federal crimes? They crossed state lines to commit a crime in DC (not Maryland).

Side note: I don't support this policy, but find it ironic.

State lines? Again? What is it with you people?

It happened in DC, thats whats relevant.

In one case my understanding was the kid brought a gun from one state to another where it wasn'tlegal for him to do that. I think that has now been proven false, so it's moot.

In this case, crossing state lines was part of the crime in that some of the rioters brought people with them who would otherwise not have been a part of the riot.

I'm fascinated to learn what relevant laws are implicated here.

I don’t pretend to know, ss, I just always thought it raised the stakes (penalty) if you committed a crime and then left the state where you did that crime.