• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

jamesrage said:
Criminal is someone who breaks the law.
Click to expand...

You would really know seeing how you've got Rove, Scooter, and Allen as examples.
 

Once again you make a post that is pure BS and I will not even comment.
 
Why is it that we go for two years without hearing of plots within the United states against american targets, and now a couple months before an election. we get hit with one plot after another. Maybe the real plot against America is coming from the far right? Bush should be careful, his Far Right Wing Radical buddies just might decide to do him in, in order to convict some Liberal of a fake crime. Historically the Right Wing is capable of anything. Look, at Mussolini, Franco, and Hitler. Becareful Mr. Bush. Watch out for your friends.
 
Originally posted by jamesrage:
Criminal is someone who breaks the law.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Thank you for having the balls to answer a very simple question. Now if you could teach this to aquapub...

So by definition, when aquapub asks his question about why Democrats side with "criminals", he's really saying "why do they side with all of us". Because we are all criminals. There isn't a single person in this forum above the age of 18 that hasn't committed a crime. Granted, it might have been changing lanes without signalling, or stopping past the limit line or cheating on your taxes. But were all in this boat.

Obviously, there's a difference between someone who commits an infraction and someone who commits a felony or a capitol crime. But were certainly not doing society a favor by demonizing certain groups while acting like our own s.hit don't stink.

Some of these guys in prison are demons. Some Democrats are demons. I think aquapub is a demon. But he probably thinks the same of me. The difference is, I'm not so willing to condemn him with the same zeal he does.
 
Picture this…


You just got home from work and you are beginning to take off your clothes. You walk into the bathroom and hear someone bust in your front door, you frantically step out into the hallway to see what’s happening when you are pounced on by a large man wearing a woman’s stocking over his head. He repeatedly beats you with a pistol while screaming every obscenity imaginable at you. He drags you to the basement, bounds, gags, and blindfolds you. He slashes your torso over a dozen times with a knife. The man jams his gun into your eye and then into your mouth and then tells you he’s going to hang you and watch you die. You offer him your valuables and your credit cards, but that’s not what he’s there for.

After 5 hours of torture, your fiancée comes home from work. The man drags her into the bedroom by her throat, cuts her clothes off, and savagely beats, rapes her for hours while you listen helplessly. After 12 hours, you finally manage to escape and run to your neighbors for help. By the time the police arrive, the assailant has discovered that you escaped and is fleeing. After leading police on a long and wild chase, the ordeal is finally over.

In the months after the attack, you find out that this man had already been convicted of attempted murder in one state, and then sent to prison in your state for life without parole for needlessly executing a groveling store clerk who he had already robbed. When you investigate how this man could have even been back on the streets to do what he did to you in the first place, your search leads you back to your state’s governor.

You find out your governor has been setting free numerous 1st degree murderers through a system designed to re-integrate prisoners into society. Within months, this governor is running for president, and his opponent uses your horrific ordeal in a campaign ad to demonstrate how unfit for leadership your governor is.

In no time at all, governor’s party, and therefore, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Boston Globe, and every other major media source starts smearing the crap out of the governor’s opponent for running the ad, portraying it as dishonest race-inflammatory propaganda (the assailant was black).

The media is utterly in bed with your governor and his party, and they will only run stories repeating the governor’s rhetoric. The media is hostile towards you and won’t run a single article telling your story-NOT ONE. The only way you can get anyone to air your account of what happened is to hold your own press conference-and when you do that, members of the media call you a racist.

Your governor ends up losing the election, but the Governor and his people see to it that his opponent’s outrage over your ordeal goes down in history as a perfect example of how to use dirty, racist tricks to win elections.


This really happened.


The victims were Cliff Barnes and Angela Miller. The savage criminal was Willie Horton. And the Governor who released him from prison was ACLU card-carrying Governor, Michael Dukakis. George Bush Senior ran the “Willie Horton” ad. The program Dukakis released Horton under was the now infamous, “furlough” program.

Bush was relentlessly vilified by the media. The basis of their attacks? DNC rhetoric-literally. They repeated every liberal talking point with no questions asked-it was disgraceful.

Accusation #1:
The ad was blatantly trying to use the notion of a black man raping the white woman to capitalize on mainstream prejudices.

Why it was a lie:
The ad never showed Willie Horton or in any way revealed that he was black.


Accusation#2:
Virtually every other state in the country also uses furlough programs and widely report success with them. The “furlough” was actually invented by a Republican.

Why it was a lie:
A Republican designed the furlough program which re-integrates prisoners gradually back into society. THAT program DID work quite well all over the country. But it was Dukakis-and only Dukakis-who extended the “furlough” to 1st degree murderers who were in for life without parole, which is idiotic, considering the point of the program was to prepare inmates to rejoin society.

These are THE two excuses the media perpetually attacked Bush Senior with.

There was precisely one mainstream media source that lived on planet sane and sought to expose the outrage that was Dukakis’s version of the “furlough.” It was actually just one reporter (Susan Forrest) at a paper called The Eagle Tribune. This woman was from the town where Willie Horton committed his first murder. And before she was done being the sole voice of reason bringing down Dukakis’s program, the liberal Governor set free 82 1st degree murderers, 184 2nd degree murderers, and 287 sex offenders.

Liberals astonishingly broke from tradition and awarded her the Pulitzer Prize-even though her work was ACTUAL journalism. But the Left’s relentless hysteria and personal attacks against her important public service finally led her to retract her work and apologize for ever having gotten involved. This is how it works in liberal America.

Not that liberals side with criminals or anything.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by aquapub:
This is how it works in liberal America.
Click to expand...
That's how that worked. I'm wondering why someone would set up a program to release convicted murderers when they could have just released drug users. There's got to be something you haven't told us. There's something wrong with this picture.
 
I have posted over a dozen examples proving that Democrats regularly side with criminals. Their ideas are always this repulsive to Middle America.


-it's why liberal books nearly always bomb.

-it's why liberal radio fails.

-it's why the most important seat in the Democrat world is the Senate Judiciary seat...the Judiciary is where the will of the people can be usurped.


I welcome anyone to address the evidence I've posted that Democrats side with criminals. I am eager to demonstrate to you that Democrats are the pro-criminal lobby.
 

I appreciate that someone in here is finally willing to have the integrity to admit and try to defend the obvious-that liberals Do side with crime.

Also, it isn't just about justice. Those 287 sex offenders Dukakis set free went on to hurt people-many people.

It's about public safety too.
 
Originally posted by aquapub:
I have posted over a dozen examples proving that Democrats regularly side with criminals. Their ideas are always this repulsive to Middle America.
Click to expand...
You're a criminal! Why are you lobbying for people to stick up for you?
 
Enough with the lousy :spin: aquapub. That's a broad brush statement and will not be tolerated.:mod
 


I'm not losing any sleep over criminals not having the right to vote. But I am in agreement with you that someone's rights shouldn't be disregarded entirely just because, for example, they got caught with some pot.

My primary concern are with these particular criminals:

murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drunk drivers, etc. I am all for building however many prisons we have to to get these threats to society off the streets for good.

And I do think it is valid to portray, for instance, Dukakis, as soft on crime because he, for example, used the furlough system-which was designed to gradually re-introduce light offenders back into society-to set free pedophiles and murderers who were in for life without parole.

This demonstrates a total disbelief in justice and total disloyalty to public safety. Whatever excuses he comes up with HE is soft on crime-and he is far from alone being on the Left.
 
Blitz said:
Enough with the lousy :spin: aquapub. That's a broad brush statement and will not be tolerated.:mod
Click to expand...

umm... your not an admin
 

Funny, one would think you would be concerned with harder felony charges before drunk driving.
 
Caine said:
Funny, one would think you would be concerned with harder felony charges before drunk driving.
Click to expand...


I think murderers, rapists, and pedophiles ARE "harder" criminals than drunk drivers.

But the reason I grouped drunk drivers in there is because they need to be locked up for good too-after 2, maybe 3 offenses.

1st offense: $10,000, loss of license for 5 years.

2nd offense: $25,000, loss of license for a decade.

3rd offense: Life, no parole.

If you kill someone on any offense, you get a minimum of 15 years. If you ever re-offend, life without parole.
 

So... the guy who pulled away from the bar just over the legal limit and still was not impaired, but happened to get caught (because he was speeding), three times in a 15 year period should jump from monetary fine and loss of driving priveledges to life in prison???? Is this the philosophy of corrections?

I think thats a big step.
 
Caine said:
umm... your not an admin
Click to expand...

Yeah but that is one kick *** smilie, isn't it? :mrgreen:
 
Aquapub,

I agree that liberals side with criminals. What you miss, however, is that at this point in history, criminals are the good guys (those who harm children excluded--or I suppose anyone who is genuinely psychotic or something). Crime ought to be encouraged; it's the only way we're going to survive.
 

We do not need to incarcerate drunks for life. That is ridiculous. We do not have the room in the prison system to house all of the drunks in this country.

Liberals do not side with the criminals; that is a lie told by the morons on the extreme right who believe Americans need to be RULED rather then governed. Liberals simply oppose the total and complete lack of respect that far right has for the constiution and individual rights and liberties. This is not a bad thing; in fact, EVERYBODY should oppose individuals, politicians, political parties, or anybody else who fails to adhere to the constitution or the individual rights and liberties of each American citizen.

:2wave:
 


It was a general template. But I don't really care about the mitigating factors like that. There has been too much carnage. If you take that chance, YES, you should be that severely punished.
 
galenrox said:
By no means are all liberals too weak to do what's neccisary. I'd say there are just about as many liberals who are too weak to do what's neccisary as there are conservatives who are
Click to expand...

I respect your position because you are one of the few genuine, non-posturing debators here, but I have just spent my entire life watching one side help criminals and the other side stand up to them. The evidence is just overwhelming.

I do maintain that this is an (nearly) exclusively liberal problem.
 
galenrox said:
So to say that liberals are soft on crime is just as fair as saying that consevatives are bloodthirsty people who care about revenge more than actual justice and public safety. This is a case of correlation not proving causation.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing causation, just that if you take any given crime-related issue and look which side liberals are on, it is ALWAYS the criminal's side. The more liberal people are, the more they side with criminals. That is my observation and my belief.

And Republicans aren't out for revenge. Revenge is just usually an enjoyable side effect of getting justice.
 


I agree that just because more Democrats are soft on crime doesn't mean Republicans are better criminal justice administrators, just tougher ones.

And I agree that Republicans sometimes go too far...Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for anyone and everyone involved in drug rings...great example.

But it isn't propaganda to point out that with Republicans, voters are, at worst, being too tough on criminals (which most Americans aren't going to lose any sleep over), whereas with Democrats, they are, at worst, enabling innocent people to get raped, molested, and murdered.

BTW, for the record, I DO support Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for child molesters.
 
I think being pro-criminal is synonymous with being liberal because “pro-criminal” is just a more frustrated way of saying “prioritizes (the Left’s constitutionally illiterate notion of) civil liberties (to the detriment of public safety).”

Liberals constantly get innocent people killed/hurt/violated by pursuing these unreasonable counter-intuitive, purist crusades.

Example: 3 ways liberal absolutism on “civil liberties” enabled 9/11:

1) They made it illegal for the FBI, CIA, and police to talk about terrorism.

2) They identified many of the hijackers as high threats who were illegally here (Able Danger), but didn’t want to engage in what could be perceived as racial profiling, so they did nothing.

3) Al Gore developed an algorithm that detected several of the hijackers upon their arrival at the airports as high risk…and all they would do is make sure they took their luggage on board with them.

If someone’s doing something that utterly defies common sense and neglects the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, you can almost guarantee that person is a liberal.

And I think it’s entirely valid to say that liberal = pro-crime for the same reason it is valid to say blacks are a violent, criminal segment of the U.S. population…even though not all blacks are violent criminals.

Last time I checked, blacks made up about 11-12% of the population and committed over 80% of the violent crime. It isn’t a crowd-pleaser point to make, but it is fair to characterize them the way I did-and they don’t ALL have to fit that for the general characterization to be valid.
 
Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

Well, they hardly have a choice, since you'll notice, in the Senate, the two political parties are sitting side by side. The Dems have to sit by criminals.
 

Surely this is a biological matter right? There is a 'violence gene' in blacks that whites don't contain?

Or is it economic? Surely the inner city schools are given the same funding as suburban schools are, right? The funding for after school programs should be uniform in cities and suburbs, right?
Employment programs?

Let me ask you this, if Dems are 'pro-crime' as you so intelligently put it, why is it that our republican governor in Mn has cut public safety funding which directly resulted in the loss of cops, which many are blaming our rising crime rate on?


http://www.allianceforabettermn.com/news_detail.aspx?id=4

Who's really 'soft on crime', Aquapub?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…