in response, blueoregon put a button for donations to democrats on the page. every time a good democrat was tempted to feed the trolls by engaging in their idiot debate rather than discussing important stuff like health care and the destruction of our military by republicans, they’re encouraged to instead make a small donation in the troll’s honor to democrats.

Your original thesis = ex-slave states are restricting felons and are controlled by Republicans

My comment = past 100 years dominated by Democrats

You = Not fair! Democrats were racists back then (because felons are only black?)

Me = since after Civil Rights Act (when racist Democrats became racist Republicans) states STILL dominated by Democrats

You = No, no, no! You can only look at the past few years! (No cherry picking there, eh?)

If we can only look at the past couple of elections in the South in order to find Republican governors, then you must be arguing that the South wasn’t dominated by Republicans until recently.

Who has been controlling these felony restricting ex-slave states? What racist changing event took place recently that made it necessary to only look at the past “fifteen years” in order to find Republican governors?

If you want to talk about today, which is, you know, what we’re talking about

No we’re not. When were these felony restrictions on voting put into place?

Remember, that’s the point you were attacking…how the eeeevil Republican leadership of ex-slave states was holding back the felons?

Unfortunately for your argument, these laws have been on the books for about one hundred years (which is why I initially used that figure — they weren’t “cherry picked”).

There has been a lot of time available for those non-evil Democrats to change the laws.

Many states have been revising their felony voter restriction laws in the past decade — including those with Republican leadership.

That racist-Republican-dominated-ex-slave-state of Alabama recently made it easier for felons to vote under — yep, you guessed it — a Republican governor.

And just to rub it in a little, that evil Bushitler, when he was governor of Texas, even ended the two-year waiting period before voting restrition for felons who had completed their parole.

As far as your quote is concered, while repugnant, it is quite accurate based on studies.

Are you seriously going to argue that many Democrats who recently began supporting easing voting restrictions for felons are NOT doing so because it would lead to more votes?

Politics is dirty and ugly. It is easy for us to sit on the sidelines and take the moral high ground (e.g. I personally think felons should be able to vote once they have served their sentences). But most politicians win races by being practical rather than moral, and they only take stands on issues that wll help them.

That being said, you have presented no facts to support your case that evil Republicans are to blame for felony restrictions in the south, while I have shown that Democrats have had lots and lots and lots of opportunities to fix any laws they deemed inappropriate.

Now that demographic studies have recently come out delineating how Republicans and Democrats would or would not benefit from various felony groups, we are seeing the parties take sides in their never ending struggle to hold power.

You know, the kind that counts five cold days in Poughkeepsie and pronounces global warming a fraud.

The kind that counts a billionaire’s million-dollar tax cut and 1000 other guys’ one dollar tax cut and concludes that the average American got a $2000 tax cut.

You start with a hundred years, then cut it down to forty. Why stop there?

If you want to talk about today, which is, you know, what we’re talking about, why not look at, say, the last fifeen years.

And if you want to be honest, look at years in office rather than number of governors.

In every one of those states, Republicans have been in charge more than Democrats:

MS: 11-4
TN: 8-7
AL: 9-6
FL: 8-7
VA: 8-7

In addition, 60% of those states (MS, AL, FL) currently have republican governors.

So have fun if you like cherry picking other numbers. You still won’t be able to come up with a single democrat saying something like this:

“As frank as I can be,” he said, “we’re opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”

Let’s keep it simple: all the states you mention were “red” in the last two elections.

Check the Governors…you know…the ones who actually help run the state.

Go back approx 40 years if you want (from when the Civil Rights Act began)…the stats are the same.

Are you trying to argue that these felon restrictions only recently appeared in all these states?

BTW:
Since 1967:
AL has had 3 Republican governors (8 Dems)

FL has had 4 Republican governors (5 Dems)

MS has only had 2 Republican governors (7 Dems)

TN has only had 3 Republican governors (4 Dems)

VA has had 5 Republican governors (6 Dems)

Soooo……

There have been more Democratic leaders in each of these states since after the Civil Rights Act.

Yet it’s the Republican’s fault that felons have voting restrictions.

Feel free to provide…oh, I don’t know…some actual data demonstrating how these are “republican-controlled ex slave-states”.

Is there some reason you want to trace things back 100 years? Is it perhaps because you know the following: 50 years ago most southern racists were democrats. Today, most southern racists are republicans. Yay GOP!

Let’s keep it simple: all the states you mention were “red” in the last two elections.

Read it and weep:

“Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors stated a bald truth: “As frank as I can be,” he said, “we’re opposed to [restoring voting rights] because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.”"

Is there any data?

The data has to be there…I just wonder if anyone has put it together. It seems like the military has an interesting social experiment going on.

I gotta say, I think so too. While I don’t think we should build an amry of Hannibal Lecter’s or anything (would you put that leg down, please?), I think the military would be a good start to breaking the cycle of recidivism.

Is there any data?

you have to have better psychological and background screening as well as better follow up monitoring

While I agree with your thought…

Do you have any data that shows that people with waivers are creating more problems than non-waiver enlistees?

Or are people just complaining about granting more waivers as the size of the military is being increased (by congressional mandate) because they want something to complain about?

but many states (especially republican-controlled ex slave-states) deny them the right to vote)

The states deny some or all felony cons (who have already fulfilled probation or parole requirements) the right to vote are:
AL, AZ, DE, FL, KY, MD, MS, NV, TN, VA, WY

AL, FL, MS, TN, VA were part of the Confederate South

AL has only had 3 Republican governors (26 Dems) in the last 100 years.

FL has only had 4 Republican governors (22 Dems) in last 100 years.

MS has only had 2 Republican governors (26 Dems) in the last 100 years.

TN has only had 5 Republican governors (19 Dems) in the last 100 years.

VA has had 5 Republican governors (22 Dems) in the last 100 years.

Sooooo……

Who are these “especially republican-controlled ex slave-states” to which you refer?

Would you care to use some facts to back up your claim?

I’d say “This is something that George Bush’s administration did, ergo…” (unlike you rebumplikins, I don’t blame the military for the incompetent leadership in Washington).

And I wouldn’t say that everything Bush did was prima facie wrong, I’d just say that based on the past six years of evidence it’s a good working assumption to start with.

And for Quaker and others, the issue is not allowing ex-cons into the military per se, its the increase in that practice between 2003 and 06.

Nice post, American Morning, but you’re speaking Urdu to Zulus.

Here’s Kevin Drum’s post on the subject:

I assume this is a bad thing, but I guess you never know. In the past, it was actually fairly common for young offenders to be given a choice of going to jail or joining the military. A cousin of mine did something dumb in his teens (this was in the late 40s, I think) and ended up getting “sentenced” to serve in the Air Force. I guess it must have shaped him up pretty well, since he’s been a solid citizen ever since and went on to become a millionaire doing something or other. I guess we can hope that the same thing happens to some of these kids.

Unrelated, there has been significant increase in Gang and Supremecist group activity in the military. Are these the guys you want trained in urban warfare?

Warehouse them?

Midderpidge brought up Green as a reply.

I pointed out that Green’s only legal trouble (for which he needed a waiver)was with possession of alcohol — not a felony.

Green is an example of someone who needed a waiver to enlist, but he does not provide an example of a felon needing a waiver.

Why does midderpidge think that Green is useful to bring up in response to Quaker’s comment?