Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

[Pacridge]

I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.

Not sure he was addicted to coke, but he was a drunk driver.

In several states that could be a felony, so in some he might never be allowed to vote...ever. If you can't vote can you run for office?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Pacridge:
Not sure he was addicted to coke, but he was a drunk driver.

In several states that could be a felony, so in some he might never be allowed to vote...ever. If you can't vote can you run for office?

That's one of the few things I like about George Bush. When he was asked about his DUI by reporters, he told them it was so long ago that it was none of their business.

That's something I would of said in a similar situation. My DUI happened so long ago, it's off my record now.

 

[easyt65]

I found it interesting that the Republicans elected a coke addict.

When did the GOP elect Marion Berry? :shock: :rofl

 

[debate_junkie]

That's only in Pennsylvania. Fourteen states permanantly remove a felon's right to vote.

And it's not the worst of the worst. I have a friend charged with a felony. She shoplifted, which in and of itself isn't a felony, but she took the tags off to get it out of the store. Which is. Now, I'm not saying what she did was right, but never being able to vote for something you did when you were 18?

At 18, was she not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong? Shoplifting is a crime, period. Don't want to be convicted of a crime.. don't commit one. Being 18 makes no difference. She knew what she was doing was wrong, and did it anyway.

 

[easyt65]

Its not that Democrats side with Criminals, its that Democrats stand up for Constitutional Rights that apply to all.
.

:rofl THAT was a good one!

Let's look back, shall we. Let's go back to the Hanging Chad BS election in which the Democrats, citing the need for EVERY vote to count, demanded a re-vote in Florida. The GOP brought up the fact that all the military absentee votes could not be re-cast and make it back in time, to which the Democrats responded, "Oh well - we'll have to press on without them!" I guess what the Democrats meant was 'Every Vote, except the military's who usually vote GOP because of stunts like this, must count!' I may be wrong, but I don't think this was a case of the Dems standing up for Constitutional Rights that apply to all.

Wait, there's more:
The last election, the Green Party gets the appropriate number of signatures required by Constitution/law to be added on to ballots, guaranteeing Americans their right to representation as per the law. The Democrats, standing up for Constitutional Rights that apply to all, send out an army of lawyers who file wave after wave of challenges against the Green Party, which has to be addressed in court before they could be allowed to be on the ballots, in order to bury their efforts in red tape and keep them off the ballots! The Democrats ROBBED Americans of their legal right to choose their own leaders. The lead Attorney for the Democrats in this effort actually declared on TV during an interview that "There is only room enough for a 2-Party system here in the United States, and it is our job to ensure that it stays that way!" Well, Thank you Democratic Party for electing yourselves King in this country, foregoing the law and stripping people of their Constitutional rights to representation.
-- The result was that the Green Party was not able to get on the ballots in most of the states where they legally qualified. The good news is that not only did they finally win their cases (or the Dems withdrew them after the election), but the Green Party members saw the Dem's way of 'Protecting Constitutional Rights that apply to all' and voted GOP -- Bush goes in for a second term!

Defending/Protecting Constitutional rights?! :spin: :rofl

The ONLY thing the Dems are interested in protecting are their own best interests!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by easyt65
When did the GOP elect Marion Berry?

Good comeback! I like when he said he was "...ridding the streets of coke, one gram at a time."

 

[jamesrage]

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.

I think it is their insanity and years and years of drug use why they do these things such as supporting criminals.

 

[aquapub]

Congratulations on contributing nothing positive but keeping the country split with ideological labeling! At least O' Reilly does it for money! What's your excuse?

It's called Truth.

I see Democrats screwing over the little guy, aiding terrorists, defending NAMBLA and other child molesters, etc. and I seek to make sure people realize what pieces of crap they are for it. :smile:

 

[aquapub]

And so what? They go to jail and serve their debt to society. Exactly what would make them incapable of voting?

I will concede that there is a gray area to this, my point about this is: doesn't it say something when, with all the people who need help out there, Democrats pick violent felons to stand up for?

There may be some legitimate arguments to legalizing criminals voting, but that's one hell of a crusade to pick. Democrats are contradicting themselves when they say that criminals can't be trusted with Constitutional rights, but they should be trusted to pick our representatives. It is clear that this is about votes. Democrats own the criminal vote. That too should tell people something.

 

[jamesrage]

It's called Truth.
I see Democrats screwing over the little guy,

I remeber one time my grandpa told me that the democrats were the party of the poor working man when he was little.Of course the democrat party of today loves open borders which keeps the poor poorer.

 

[Kelzie]

At 18, was she not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong? Shoplifting is a crime, period. Don't want to be convicted of a crime.. don't commit one. Being 18 makes no difference. She knew what she was doing was wrong, and did it anyway.

And so she should lost the right to vote for the rest of her life because of it? What is your rational exactly?

 

[aquapub]

And so she should lost the right to vote for the rest of her life because of it? What is your rational exactly?

It is usually violent felons who are banned from voting though, if that makes any difference.

 

[Kelzie]

It is usually violent felons who are banned from voting though, if that makes any difference.

It doesn't. I don't see the logic in denying people the vote when there is no reason to. And in a few states it's all felons.

 

[Synch]

Liberal opinions side with the poor.. per capita blacks are more poor..

blacks do more crime per capita, so if criminals are allowed to vote, it would benefit Democrats more, and if criminals got off more easily, it would also benefit Democrats... poor people tend to do more crime.... and poor people usually side with democrats over tax, welfare, and medicare...

they need votes, and will do anything to get them.

It doesn't. I don't see the logic in denying people the vote when there is no reason to. And in a few states it's all felons.

credibility, history shows that they are not adequate in making correct decisions, I doubt you would let a licensed child molestor baby sit your kids.

in your resume you have to include your criminal history if you have one, it will decide whether your employer can trust you, and influenceds whether the person gets the job, why don't we make all criminal records private? You say robbing someone or molesting children doesn't affect their ability to vote, well it doesn't affect their ability to make coffee, get donuts, or diliver mail either. How about making criminal history only public in certain jobs???

 

[Kelzie]

Liberal opinions side with the poor.. per capita blacks are more poor..

blacks do more crime per capita, so if criminals are allowed to vote, it would benefit Democrats more, and if criminals got off more easily, it would also benefit Democrats... poor people tend to do more crime.... and poor people usually side with democrats over tax, welfare, and medicare...

they need votes, and will do anything to get them.



credibility, history shows that they are not adequate in making correct decisions, I doubt you would let a licensed child molestor baby sit your kids.

in your resume you have to include your criminal history if you have one, it will decide whether your employer can trust you, and influenceds whether the person gets the job, why don't we make all criminal records private? You say robbing someone or molesting children doesn't affect their ability to vote, well it doesn't affect their ability to make coffee, get donuts, or diliver mail either. How about making criminal history only public in certain jobs???

Your criminal record in no way affects your job. It does affect your co-workers though. It in no way affects your ability to vote. They are still citizens of the US. As such, they should have a voice in it.

 

[Pacridge]

Your criminal record in no way affects your job. It does affect your co-workers though. It in no way affects your ability to vote. They are still citizens of the US. As such, they should have a voice in it.

What do you mean you're criminal history in no way affects your job? Are you saying it doesn't affect your ability to do your job? If so I'll agree with that. But it certainly can affect your ability to obtain and maintain a job. Many employers not only do a criminal history check prior to hiring but they'll run your credit report as well.

 

[Kelzie]

What do you mean you're criminal history in no way affects your job? Are you saying it doesn't affect your ability to do your job? If so I'll agree with that. But it certainly can affect your ability to obtain and maintain a job. Many employers not only do a criminal history check prior to hiring but they'll run your credit report as well.

Yeah that's what I meant. My bad. :2wave:

 

[aquapub]

In 1981, pleading for the release of convicted killer, Jack Henry Abbot, Norman Mailer (Pulitzer Prize-winning liberal “intellectual’) inspired liberals around the world to pull strings for this murderer due to his brilliant gift for writing. Never mind justice or public safety, the allegedly enlightened Left came out in one unified, resounding voice and argued that “culture is worth a little risk.”

It worked.

He was paroled early due to their efforts, and went on to become this adored Manhattan darling among liberal elitist snobs. Six weeks after he got out, Abbott got into an argument with a 22-year-old waiter and stabbed him to death. At his trial, prosecutors read a passage from the literary genius’s latest book, where he described the stabbing in graphic detail without remorse.

Where were Norman Mailer and his chorus of “enlightened” liberal sheep who threw this psycho (and many, many others) the gigantic pity party that got him released? They were there by his side once more requesting leniency for him.

Mailer, for one, told a reporter that he hoped Abbott wouldn’t get a life sentence because, “it would kill him.”

After the trial, Susan Sarandon and Tim “war is never the answer, and I’ll physically attack anyone who says otherwise” Robbins named their newborn baby Jack Henry.

This criminal is only one of many the Left has overwhelmingly sided with. More recent examples include the cold-blooded executioner who founded the Crypts in California, and other delightful saints like Mumia Abu-Jamal who killed a Philadelphia police officer.

 

[aquapub]

Ms. Ann has something to add to this discussion...

"Frederica A. Massiah-Jackson of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court was known for shouting obscenities from the bench and identifying undercover policemen in open court. Bill Clinton nominated Massiah-Jackson to be a federal district court judge in 1997. Among other notable rulings, Judge Massiah-Jackson sentenced the brutal rapist of a 10-year-old girl to the statutory minimum and apologized to the rapist, saying: "I just don't think the five to 10 years is appropriate in this case even assuming you were found guilty." She refused to allow the district attorney to present a pre-sentence report or victim impact statement, saying: "What would be the point of that?" After his release, the defendant was rearrested for raping a 9-year-old boy.

Massiah-Jackson wasn't some random nut nominated by Clinton by accident, likeJanet Reno or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a liberal heroine. The New York Times was in high dudgeon when Massiah-Jackson withdrew — and not because Massiah-Jackson had sneered atAIDS victims and rape victims ... The Times was in a snit because of the "judicial mugging" the Senate had put her through. Massiah-Jackson, the Times said, "now returns to the state bench, battered but with her honor intact. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Senate.'"

 

[PeteEU]

So with the present incosistant laws across the US, if you get a trafic ticket you could possibly be banned for life to practice the most basic democractic act... to vote.

And people dont see a problem with that?

One could also ask, why right wingers in the US are so bent to destroying the basic fabrics of a democratic society?

 

[Kelzie]

So with the present incosistant laws across the US, if you get a trafic ticket you could possibly be banned for life to practice the most basic democractic act... to vote.

And people dont see a problem with that?

One could also ask, why right wingers in the US are so bent to destroying the basic fabrics of a democratic society?

Well, no, it has to be a felony. But it's still not right.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, no, it has to be a felony. But it's still not right.

Actually it is right and constitutional, one can not be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process, but criminals can justly be deprived of their liberties once they have been granted due process, if you can't do the time or if you don't want restrictions put on your rights then don't do the crime. And even when felons are prevented from voting they do have means by which to regain the right to vote.

 

[Kelzie]

Actually it is right and constitutional, one can not be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process, but criminals can justly be deprived of their liberties once they have been granted due process, if you can't do the time or if you don't want restrictions put on your rights then don't do the crime. And even when felons are prevented from voting they do have means by which to regain the right to vote.

First off, no they don't.

Second, the right to vote does not fall under life, liberty, or property. You certainly can't justify it by that route. In addition, a jail term has come to be looked at by our legal system as paying their debt to society. Once they have done so, there is no logical reason to deny them the right to vote.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First off, no they don't.

Second, the right to vote does not fall under life, liberty, or property. You certainly can't justify it by that route. In addition, a jail term has come to be looked at by our legal system as paying their debt to society. Once they have done so, there is no logical reason to deny them the right to vote.

Umm how does it not fall under the liberty category? Prison terms are just part of the punishment there are many punishments which are given to criminals after they have already finished their sentences IE sexual predator lists, the revocation of drivers licenses, and the like. One logical reason for revoking voting rights is because it's a punishment if they can not function in society then they have no entitlement to the same liberties enjoyed by functional members of said society.

And secondly yes they do they have to petition the clemency board to restore their full rights once they are released:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/florida-lawmakers-aid-felons.html

 

[Kelzie]

Umm how does it not fall under the liberty category? Prison terms are just part of the punishment there are many punishments which are given to criminals after they have already finished their sentences IE sexual predator lists, the revocation of drivers licenses, and the like. One logical reason for revoking voting rights is because it's a punishment if they can not function in society then they have no entitlement to the same liberties enjoyed by functional members of said society.

And secondly yes they do they have to petition the clemency board to restore their full rights once they are released:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2006/florida-lawmakers-aid-felons.html

Liberty does not equal voting rights under any interpretation of the constitution, no matter how imaginative.

And congrats, Florida does it. Now howbout the other dozen or so states that deny ex-felons the right to vote?