Dems Worried About Election? No Problem, let Felons Vote

Well, there is a night and day difference between someone using prescription medications and street narcotics. I am quite amazed you fail to see the logical difference.

To start with, all prescription meds must undergo lengthy drug trials, then must be approved by the FDA.

Drug pushers can cook up or cut up any dangerous or lethal does on their kitchen tables.

All prescription meds must be prescribed and monitored by licensed medical professionals who are monitored and regulated by state and federal boards and usually carry liability insurance for when malpractice is found.

Drug thugs are allowed to run free by liberal democrats in their violent cities and control whole areas. They carry no insurance and could not give a rat's *** if anyone dies from an overdose.

If someone wants to down a whole bottle of prescription painkillers, or take a lethal dose of heroin, that is of their own stupidity/doing.

At least with prescription medications, the patients are given instructions and are monitored during office visits.

With street narcotics, let the buyer/user beware. I just have to laugh at the liberal squealing about lead in Flint's water supply, when the leaders of Flint have let drug gangs and narcotics kill thousands of their residents in recent years.

 

I'll admit I don't see the logical difference. Someone on TV tells a person to ask their doctor for drugs, they do, and some get high and addicted. There are billions of prescribed pills floating around and not everybody has a broken arm or broken brain. The real big drug dealers are pharmacy companies. You think pharmacy cos do the right thing, think again. Too many documentaries on this.

Regarding the statement I bolded, you are saying let people kill themselves if they are stupid enough to do so, yet you'll punish certain facilitators differently than others.

Regarding your last point, it's too difficult for me to counter.

 

Given that the inevitable irreversible change in demographics, the dems do not need felons to vote for them.

But here is the deal. Once a man pays for his crime, he should get his constitutional rights back otherwise its taxation without representation for he has no voice in who represents him.

This has been a great injustice to an American citizen, to have a right taken away by a crime, which is paid for by the person who commits it. It is against what this nation was founded upon. It is an incoherence, that should have never been passed by treasonous men.

 

The most basic freedom is the right to own ones own body. That GOPhers want own others, would see them as slave owners once upon a time, for they have that mindset.

If a man wants to put a substance in his body, to get high, to feel good for awhile, whether it be booze or another chemical, that is no business of yours. But you like owning another person, I reckon. Think it is your right to own the body of another. If that is not the most basic freedom, then all of the others can be taken away so easily. And have been. You guys are such dangerous minds. If the whole bunch of you, were to die off the face of the earth, the world would be a much freer and better place to live.

 

Look at all the constitution loving republicans just itching to disenfranchise American citizens. What a pack of hypocritical hacks.

 

This is a pretty fair point. Though while I'm thinking about it, drunk drivers kill thousands per year (almost 10,000 in 2014).

 

Who controls congress? Who has most of the governorships? Who has most of the state houses?

Democrats can win the presidency. Otherwise the party is dead.

 

You are big on the "Nanny State" concept. If someone wants to get booze, smokes, heroin, coke, weed or meth and use them to a degree that they kill themselves----so be it. But at least make the products difficult to obtain, certainly more difficult for children.

Did you not grasp how much more dangerous meth, coke and heroin are over alcohol? You glossed over all the hard data on these street drugs on addiction and death stats.

Certainly, if someone was selling a product that hooked about 90% of the people who tried it once, or killed most of the hard users within 5 years, then hard penalties need to be given out.

So, you are saying the same drug companies, and executives that make HIV drugs and painkillers should be fined and punished?

So the largest HIV medication manufacturer is Bristol-Myers Squibb.
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/DrugChart_10632.shtml

They also make painkillers, cancer and diabetic meds.

So---you would want to throw all the people under the bus that take a company's HIV, cancer, heart and diabetic meds just because they also make painkillers than get abused???

Wouldn't that be pointless?

 

What's my signature say????

Something about individual accountability?

Freedom comes with limits. If you wanted to do anything you wanted without government interference, then why not let pedophiles kidnap and rape children at their will?

Why not let gangs sell meth inside grade schools?

Also, most slaveholders were Democrats in the 1800's US. So if everything is about YOU and YOUR own body, then you must support the idea that unborn babies are the property of the mother. They are their slaves, their "Negros." The unborn, like slaves, deserve no civil rights. If you want to beat your fetus with a bat---like beating your slave for misbehaving---then that's okay. If you want to kill your fetus, like a slave that's done you wrong, then that's okay as well.

That is the liberal mindset.

 

And because you said so too, right? Did you use the magic 8-ball to divine the voting habits of people you've never met and never will, or did it write itself out for you in your bowl of alphabet soup? Maybe you stepped out of the shower and saw it written in the steam on the mirror? Maybe Jesus appeared on your pancake and told you? Could you call upon your psychic powers and give me some winning lotto numbers? I'll split it with ya 50/50.

 

I like how you say I'm big on the Nanny State right before you get all paternalistic with the phony "at least make the products difficult for children to get" bit. We both know kids are popping open medicine cabinets and helping themselves.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...ping-pills-prescription-drug-abuse-in-america

I get how dangerous drugs are. They are all dangerous, including alcohol. People forget that even if a substance like alcohol doesn't kill you right away, plenty have killed or harmed others during its side effects (e.g. drunk driving, rape, domestic violence). The difference is that it is glossed over because alcohol is legal.

I'm not saying anyone should be punished. I just wanted to see if/why there would be inconsistencies in punishment between different types of dope dealers. If street - level dope dealers had the same level of support the white-collar dope dealers get, their grade of drugs would improve. All in all, what I'm seeing is the government picking which dealers wins and which ones loses, hence the double standards.

 

Let's see if I understand this.

1. The voter suppression crowd are all in favor of having the states decide who can vote, the US Constitution notwithstanding.

2. Various states have differing rules as to who can vote and under what circumstances, to include felons, whether or not they have served their sentences or, indeed, are still doing time.

3. The voter suppression (VS) crowd is in favor of states restricting access to voting, even though their feeble and false justification is based on proven lies, lies they still repeat, BUT

4. The VS crowd is against the states deciding that voters the VS crowd perceive as probably voting against VS candidates - see #1 above (I remind you - their OWN policy, stated but not followed.)

5. This counts in their dishonesty and hypocrisy-encrusted and reeking universe as consistency.

They call themselves Americans while subverting our system of government.