aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html
2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.
But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).
5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.
And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.
6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp
Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.
danarhea said:I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.
So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :roflaquapub said:But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
shuamort said:So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :rofl
I'm elucidating aquapub's hypocritical point. Please follow.M14 Shooter said:You will find very few pro-2nd amendment people who support felons regaining their right to arms -- if any. Straw, man.
shuamort said:I'm elucidating aquapub's hypocritical point. Please follow.
Feel free to deciminate it with debate instead of just "saying so". Aquapub is accusing democrats of doing something that republicans do as well. I've pointed that out. Your argument has thus far been nonsense like usual.M14 Shooter said:You mean that's what you're trying to do.
You picked a poor example with which to do it.
shuamort said:So, as a republican, do you believe violent ex-felons should have 2nd amendment rights? If not, does that make you siding with the democrats? If so, does that make you siding with the criminals. Doesn't seem like you can win there. :rofl
You're the helmet-wearing, short-bus riding, retard that brought up the point to support your lame point. Can't have it both ways buck-o. If you condemn the dems for doing the thing you, yourself, support, why point it out as a negative?aquapub said::rofl ????? Youve got to be kidding. Please stop devastating me with your rapier wit. :roll:
That point is completely irrational.
That point would stand on its own logic if I were the one asserting that violent felons SHOULD ever be trusted. I consider violent crimes an automatic forfeiture of all but the most basic rights. Unlike Democrats, I am not contradicting myself here.
Democrats can see that the judgement of violent felons is not to be trusted in every way EXCEPT the one that happens to give Democrats a voter base-violent felons having the right to elect our representatives.
Democrats don't even seem to care about the inconsistencies like this in their "logic." It seems all they care about is power, regardless of truth.
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
1) A gigantic spotlight has been shined on two liberal judges in Vermont and Massachutes (largely due to Bill O’Reilly) who recently sentenced one man to 60 days and the other to NO TIME at all, both for child rape. One judge explained his decision by saying he does not believe in punishment anymore. Spoken like a true liberal. These cases are FAR from isolated, but they are the most infamous right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181214,00.html
2) It is common knowledge that criminals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. This is why Democrats keep trying to give violent felons the right to vote. In Election 2000 they claimed Al Gore would have won if only violent felons (you know, the people who have proved themselves to have horrible judgment) were allowed to help determine who our representatives were. Of course, Democrats claim that it’s racist to prevent so many blacks from voting-with no mention of the fact that no one forces blacks to commit the violent crimes. Like many, many other things, Democrats play the race card to distract from the appalling reality of what they are advocating, and to camouflage their calculated, self-serving, partisan intent.
But of course, Democrats would never trust a violent ex-felon’s 2nd Amendment rights because…they’ve demonstrated how horrible their judgment is…but we can trust their judgment to pick the leaders of our country.
3) In addition to fighting for the rights of sex-offenders to not be tracked and registered; in addition to arguing in a Kansas City courtroom that a 15 year old boy has a Constitutional right to sleep with grown men; in addition to fighting Jessica’s law; in addition to fighting mandatory minimum sentences for molesters, the ACLU (backed and funded by Democrats-and tax dollars) has now decided to represent, in every single state, NAMBLA-the pro-molestation group-free of charge, in trials all over the country, at a MAXIMUM expense to taxpayers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
4) It is overwhelmingly well-known that those who oppose the death penalty are almost always Democrats (and Bill O’Reilly).
5) Democrats have whined, moaned about and opposed EVERY SINGLE ACTION the president has taken to prevent further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, wiretapping terrorist phone calls, taking out a genocidal terror sponsor in Iraq and giving the terrorists a VOLUNTEER MILITARY target instead of a Lower Manhattan CIVILIAN target….EVERY SINGLE THING.
And they haven’t just opposed these things, they’ve used them to incessantly smear Bush and compare him to Hitler. Republicans actually DO something about foreign threats. None of it has been unconstitutional, and the American people overwhelmingly have supported most of the president’s national security decisions-because they are things we should have been doing for the FIRST decade in which Bin Laden was attacking us with impunity. But at that time, we had a criminal-friendly Democrat in office, so we spent that time further tying the hands of the FBI and the CIA instead.
6) Democrats are the ones who made it so that ILLEGAL aliens could come to this country and face no consequences. They are also the reason ILLEGAL aliens qualify for welfare benefits and free healthcare at our expense.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
7) Perhaps if sleazy, ambulance-chasing, economy-raping trial lawyers weren’t such a huge source of campaign contributions to Democrats, Democrats wouldn’t constantly give the clients of trial lawyers everything under the sun at taxpayer expense. Trial lawyers give almost exclusively to Democrats.
http://www.triallawyersinc.com/healthcare/hc07.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/copland200411080818.asp
Now that we have preemptively put to rest any potential attempts to blur the issue, let’s have an honest discussion about why liberals side with criminals.
aquapub said::rofl ????? Youve got to be kidding. Please stop devastating me with your rapier wit. :roll:
That point is completely irrational.
That point would stand on its own logic if I were the one asserting that violent felons SHOULD ever be trusted. I consider violent crimes an automatic forfeiture of all but the most basic rights. Unlike Democrats, I am not contradicting myself here.
Democrats can see that the judgement of violent felons is not to be trusted in every way EXCEPT the one that happens to give Democrats a voter base-violent felons having the right to elect our representatives.
Democrats don't even seem to care about the inconsistencies like this in their "logic." It seems all they care about is power, regardless of truth.
That should be a state issue...Kelzie said:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
cnredd said:That should be a state issue...
Depending upon the state, that "20 years" is a variable...don't know the maximun a certain state has though...I don't know if any state has "forever"...
I'm not sure if I can handle your liberal attitude.Originally posted by Kelzie:
Several do. Fourteen states in fact will not allow ex-felons to vote for their entire lives. "20 years" was an arbitrary number to show how ridiculous it is to basically strip someone of their citizenship for a crime they committed when they were young and stupid and have already paid their debt to society for.
shuamort said:You're the helmet-wearing, short-bus riding, retard that brought up the point to support your lame point. Can't have it both ways buck-o. If you condemn the dems for doing the thing you, yourself, support, why point it out as a negative?
Kelzie said:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
aquapub said:The Constitution in no way involves itself in issue. And we are talking about violent felons here , not jaywalkers.
aquapub said:I know the usual Democrat apologists will try to deny that liberals constantly side with criminals over middle America, so let’s put that one to rest right now…
Kelzie said:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revoking a CITIZENS right to vote because he committed a crime 20 years ago is deeply unconstitutional. They've paid their debt to society. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
debate_junkie said:In Pennsylvania.. as the law stands now, felons' right to vote is restored when they've completed their jail time, but still on probation. There is legislation being proposed.. A) to require ID being shown at all polling places, and B) that felons have completely served their time.. probation included.
I don't see how it makes a difference WHEN the right to vote is restored. The states need to be free to decide this for themselves. And furthermore... felony convictions are usually the worst of the worst in crime's. What "debt" do you speak of? Would this even be an issue of said felon's had conducted themselves in the manner of the law to begin with?
I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.Originally posted by easyt65
I found it interesting how year after year there had been reports on how the DNC continually practiced driving convicted felons to the polls to vote. True or not, the news story broke several months ago that several Democrats tried to push through legislation that would strip states of the right to decide if felons could vote or not and make it legal for them to do so anyway. Hillary clinton was even part of that team that submitted the legislation for a vote. The bill never made it to the floor for a vote, as someone with half a brain figured out that S*** would hit the fan with the public if they ever heard about politicians trying to finally make their perceived past practices legal by stripping states of their rights!
I could make the truly partisan joke, answering the question of why Dems always seem to side with criminals, by reminding everyone that their last President IS a convicted Felon for his perjurous testimonyunder oath before a grand jury...but I won't go there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?