Ok. Now that i have youyr attention, it's not "that" dramatic, but it's still just as liberally-foolish.

----

Bill Would Help Voting Restoration For Felons

Posted: 2:09 pm PDT March 21, 2009Updated: 8:25 am PDT March 22, 2009
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.
The Associated Press reported that under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.
A measure to remove that payment requirement -- opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" -- has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate.
If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.
"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."
Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.
But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.

----

After you've served your sentence, it makes sense that you should be allowed to vote.  I would imagine it makes the same sense that all your other rights should be restored, too, since you're no longer a "bad guy".  Like your right to own guns. Right?  Telling an ex-felon they can vote but not have all their rights back is kind of saying two things, right?  Like: "We can trust you to choose our next President, but not to own a firearm." 

I don't want former felons who'd been covicted of a violent crime to have guns.  I don't want any "white-collar" felon choosing our president and other elected officials.  Politicians - particularly democrats, from whom much support is gleaned from the formerly guilty - want more votes.  Crooked politicians want crooked peers to vote them into office.

Now for the part that doesn't make any sense:

Saying the financial obligation that was part of their sentence isn't fair is ... stupid. It's part of their sentence! When they committed their crime, the financial consequence was one of the consequences of their stupidity, selfishness or evil. If you kill a person, you expect to be put to death or put in prison for life.  If you break into someone's house, rape a jogger in a park, hold up a convenience store or drive drunk, you know society is going to expect you to pay. You know you're going to be indebtecd with your time and your money and your reputation to pay restitution for your crime.

If a previously convicted felon can't afford his or her financial portion of the sentence, then they should get a job.  If that doesn't work, they can go back to jail, which is what happens when the financial portion of their prior sentencing is not met.

A person who intentionally committed a crime needs to fulfill their complete sentencing before they are granted the privileges given to good citizens.



sources:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/18983625/detail.html

Its funny how when people decide to deviate from normalcy, they raise a big stink when they hit a brick wall. 
It’s kind of like those people who ski in closed areas and then lose their life in an avalanche, or those who let their kids run loose on someone else’s private property & the kids get hurt, they sue the owner … or a small-time criminal who one day finds himself in jail. It’s all about  “accountability”,  it’s not exclusively a religious value.

People who choose a “gay lifestyle” aren’t “bad”, so we shouldn’t demonize them.  I don’t believe homosexuality is something we’re ‘born with’ any more than we’re born an alcoholic, a thief, or a politician. There may be some predisposition, but if we’re to believe evolutionists, it makes no sense that an abnormal gene that causes non-propagating behavior could exist in such high numbers.  Of my friends and past acquaintances who considered themselves ‘gay’, I don’t know of a single one who fits that ‘scientific mould’.  All those I knew made a choice at some point … out of desperation, out of experimentation, out of rebellion, out of loneliness … and found a fun ‘club’ that gave them parades, catchy stickers, a new stereotype to live up to, etc.  maybe there are some exceptions … but I haven’t met any.

Here’s my solution for people who want to be gay AND have all the benefits of the club (heterosexuality, religion, ‘breeders’) that they’re so against:  You don’t need the benefit of ‘civil marriage’ to get your little discounts & everything.  Insurance? Go to the ‘gaysurance’ website. They’ll hook you up.  Religious wedding? How about make a new religion that doesn’t use a Bible so you won’t have to worry about God calling your behavior an ‘abomination’. Gym membership?  Personally, I think the rates at Nampa’s Rec Center are way too high for what you get. You’d do better paying a similar amount at any of the other numerous gyms in the area. (The video indicates you’ve joined the local YMCA – funny, to all you ‘anti-religion’ bloggers, that a *Christian* association took in the “sinners”).

Here’s a better, more American (entrepreneurial, capitalist) way to solve your problem: Open an exclusively gay gym! If you’re really all about equality, you can make yours open to *any* kind of family, but we will forgive you if you don’t.

Response to: http://www.2news.tv/news/38024699.html#idc-container
Sources: http://www.nampaparksandrecreation.org/RecCenter/index.aspx