• 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?


Democrats went on the record against surveillance without warrants, even just after 9/11. If this was just about proper technicalities and warrants (which Democrats have proved many times over is NOT what they actually care about), they would've taken a position more like yours.

Bush did forego warrants for wiretapping after 9/11. Most people were willing to accept this given the extreme circumstances, but liberals weren't. Let me know if I need to post their absolutist rhetoric to refresh your memory. Like I said, liberals want no more surveillance of terror suspects.

Did you miss the fact that 2 NY Times reporters called terrorist cells to warn them they were about to be raided?
 
galenrox said:
And once again, I disagree with them. But you claimed the democrats wanted to stop arresting them as POW's, which is clearly false, since they weren't being held as POW's in the first place.

And this minor discrepancy over terminology still has not one iota of bearing on the impact of the Democrats' action here, which was my point.
 


Maybe you could take some anger management classes so you can think more clearly then.

What evidence would it take? This would be like saying I can't assert that Asians are superior students simply because I've only given you 12 examples of Asian-dominated schools beating the crap out of us, of all the top academic awards going to Asians, and of Asians taking all the most sophisticated science jobs.

Eventually, the coincidences add up, and you simply have to admit they are better.

Coincidence can only explain so much away. 50 years (probably more) of Democrats siding with every enemy this country has, and with every conceivable form of criminal over society.

I think someone is in denial.
 
Is this the kind of evidence you need before you will accept that Democrats are the pro-crime party?...


"...Also Tuesday, committees [dominated by Democrats]in both the Assembly and Senate shot down bills that would have required lifetime monitoring of registered sex offenders and increased some sentences for sex offenses. The bills were introduced by Republican lawmakers in both the Senate and Assembly and were identical.

Called "Jessica's Law," Schwarzenegger supported the bills and is supporting an initiative that would enact the same new rules that may be on the November ballot.

Both measures were defeated in the public safety committees of both houses along party lines, with majority Democrats voting against..."

THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. January 11, 2006. Pg. B1. "SACRAMENTO;
Legislative panel votes to suspend executions; 2-year study on how to prevent wrongful convictions included." Mark Martin.

If so, I got plenty more where that came from. :mrgreen:
 
galenrox said:
Note the emboldened part. Since their is a qualifier, saying that they want to stop wiretapping is a lie. This isn't debatable, you lied.


Except for that little part where their actions prove that their rhetoric is bogus, that they don't want any more wiretapping.

I can't help but notice you are desperately clinging to this anal interpretation of a comment I introduced as "off the top of my head" as a calculated lie based on nothing more than the fact that you take Democrats at their word (convenient) and I look at their actions. Could it be that my disproving both your false plagiarism allegations against me has you obbssessed with tearing me down?

Just a guess.
 
galenrox said:
If you understood the logical process you'd know that this proves nothing. I explained it my last post.


So even showing that the vast majority of Democrats consistently side with criminals doesn't validate the label of pro-crime?

What could then?

Your unreasonable standard of proof couldn't even be met in a court of law. I am trying to have a serious argument here. And if you understood the logical process, you would grasp that I am not trying to claim 100% of Democrats always choose criminals over their victims, just that enough of them do it to warrant the label "the pro-crime party." This is no more illogical than saying Asians are superior students even though a thin minority of them aren't superior.

Also, in that last example of liberals siding with the "privacy rights" of child molesters over society, that same article goes on to talk about people having to be released from prisons early because of over-crowding. Republican solution: build more prisons. Democrat "solution": put more cops on the street so we can force more union memberships, thereby forcing more union dues, thereby forcing more Democrat campaign money (so much for freedom of assembly), thereby having more people to arrest more criminals...so they can be released immediately because the problem of prison over-crowding didn't get dealt with by Democrats...


Because Democrats are the pro-crime party.
 
galenrox said:
Clinging to an anal interpretation? You mean intepreting you saying that democrats don't want to allow any more wiretapping as you claiming that the democrats don't want to allow any more wiretapping?


Sure, Democrats aren't saying they want no more wiretapping period...and evangelicals aren't saying their efforts to ban partial birth abortion and to make it count as 2 counts of murder when you kill a pregnant woman ISN'T a gradual process by which to eventually overturn Roe vs. Wade.

My opinion, based on the Democrats' actions, is that they will throw a pity party for militant Islam, no matter what the circumstance.

To believe their rhetoric about themselves in light of all they have already done is simply naive, just as it would be with evangelicals and abortion.
 
galenrox said:
So what you're arguing is that I should accept your claim because it's too hard for you to prove? Fantastic logic!:roll:


If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that what I am doing is correcting your misstatement of what I am trying to prove. My intent is not to prove that 100% of liberals side with criminals-THAT'S what you are treating my goal as.

It is to prove enough to warrant use of the general label.

By your conveniently anal standards of proof, you couldn't even say Hispanics speak Spanish, because some of them don't.
 
galenrox said:
Really? Do you have evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe it's a similar situation, or is this just another random claim you're making to try to make up for the fact you don't have a leg to stand on?

Hundreds.

-Liberals found excuses not to do anything about eight years of Al Queda attacks.

-They have rushed to the defense of the New York Times when they needlessly revealed the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program, and when they called two terror cells to warn them that the FBI was coming to raid them.

-100% of the terrorists who have hijacked American planes have been young, Arab, Muslim males. Yet liberals refuse to let anyone consider this when scanning for threats at airports.

I can write abook on all the ways liberals constantly side with militant Islam over their victims. It never fails. It is a sure thing.

THAT is why I roll my eyes when you tell me Democrats are merely trying to ensure the proper execution of the law when they crucify Bush for listening to the phone calls of terror-suspects just after 9/11.

I can write a book on the number of times Democrats have proved they don't care one bit about the law...unless it happens to end up on the side of militant Islam.
 



galenrox said:
Alright, **** it, I'm done talking to you. This is flat out preposterous, I've already adressed this point. If you still don't understand, then you never will. It saddens me that you vote.


By saying that it doesn't matter if I prove 99% of Democrats routinely side with terrorists, that doesn't mean it's ok to say Democrats side with terrorists.

You couldn't back up your point, because it cannot be backed up-it is illogical.

I'm sure it DOES sadden you that people who see things accurately (conservatives) vote.
 
About the wiretapping thing, from another thread...



Suppose a professor asked you to do, say, a media research project. Suppose they instructed you to find out how many outlets covered certain events one way verses another.

When performing a task like this, you end up doing hundreds of searches on data bases like Lexis Nexis, changing all the parameters around and seeing what you get.

This is similar to the way the NSA and British agencies are preventing further 9/11s. You look at emails and listen to phone calls to terror suspects that involve the words, for instance, "liquid," and, "planes," and see what you get. Then you adjust the search words, and continue on.

What liberals are demanding with warrants for wiretapping is the equivalent of making the media researcher stop, get up and find someone to authorize each and every search one by one, as if that wouldn't drastically slow things to a crawl.


Bottom line:

-Conservative anti-terror policies make sense, there is nothing illegal about them, and they are working...as Acorn has masterfully demonstrated here.

-Liberals tell us they just want to make sure the law is followed, and that that's the reason they can't let our government defend this country this time. But there is a reason the law leaves room for extenuating circumstances (like 9/11). There is nothing illegal about war time intelligence-gathering on the enemy here or abroad. There is no feasible explanation for this or the numerous other occasions on which liberals have sided with the enemy except that liberals care more about the comfort of the enemy than preventing the mass murder of our people.

-Liberals want effective anti-terror policies interfered with and over-regulated into a state of dysfunction. Liberals want to treat the enemy as a mere criminal, affording him the privileges and conveniences of ordinary citizens rather than treating him like a foreigner bent on mass murder (this is known as the "pre-9/11 mindset").
 


I've cited around 16 examples of liberals, across the board, siding with criminals. Like the entire Democratic party in California's congress rejecting a law to make monitoring of sex offenders mandatory.

Every time I TRY to present even more evidence, you act as if no amount of evidence could ever be enough. Your argument holds no water and I have overwhelmingly proved that. Good day.
 


There is NOT a large portion of Hispanics who speak Portugese. They overwhelmingly speak Spanish. It IS ok to say Hispanics speak Spanish, even though SOME don't.
 
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11289prs20000831.html

Here's just one of your lies exposed. It's free speech the ACLU is defending for NAMBLA...not sexual rights. Course, then you Right wingers don't care much for free speech...nor accurate for that matter. Look at your support of FOX and it's place of William's paid government endorsement of No Child Left Behind presented as a news release...and the government paid him to support it on his shows, too, to the tune of $240,000.

No, accuracy in media is not a trait the republicans support. I'll expose the rest of your lies tonite..unless you decide to spring a moral fiber and recant them yourself today....
 


Reasons this incredibly idiotic post warrants you being put on ignore by everyone here:

1) The ACLU is defending the fictional right of NAMBLA to go to conventions and teach each other how to avoid the police and get away with child molesting. According to our laws, that is a crime.

2) If you are going to challenge that, and especially if you are going to call someone a liar for stating this commonly known fact about the "rape and escape" brochure and the conventions, you should really consider finding a source OTHER than the ACLU.

They might just be a non-objective source. Duh. Way to regurgitate programmed liberal rhetoric like a sheep. :lol:

3) Free speech = your right to dissent from the government. This has nothing to do with organized child molesting.

4) This has nothing to do with Fox.

5) This lie about Williams you are regurgitating from the far left group, FAIR, was already disproven in another thread. I posted proof that he worked for CNN, MSNBC, etc. It was not a FOX scandal. It was not even a scandal. You are knowingly perpetuating falsehoods.

Have some integrity and stop lying. :roll:
 

ROFLMAO-I can't think of a single LEFTWING speaker who was ever INTERRUPTED or prevented from speaking at say an Ivy League college in the last 30 years while conservative speakers-Coulter, Horowitz, AJ Clarence Thomnas, William Shockley, the South African Ambassador (I personally witnessed this at Yale, circa 1980) etc have all been attacked or had their speaches interrupted by leftwing "anarchists". In 1980, The Yale political Union-a non partisan debate forum hosted a debate on "resolved, affirmative aciton is discriminatory. Professor Earnest Van Der Haag was in the affirmative while noted Civil Rights icon Roy Innis was speaking in the negative. Black Yale law students attempted to prevent union members from entering the PU hall and then attempted to disrupt the debate. Current AAG and nominee for CJ Roberts former seat on the DC Circuit Peter Keisler was the parliamentarian for the PU and avoided what was close to being a violent situation by allowing a few of the affirmative action recipients to speak-where they were shredded by Van Der Haag
 

One more dispelled lie...you going to come clean on the rest of the lies and propaganda, or just wait to be exposed?
 
Muddy Creek said:
One more dispelled lie...you going to come clean on the rest of the lies and propaganda, or just wait to be exposed?


There are no lies here to come clean on. Nothing I've claimed has been disproved. A biased hysteric (YOU) has said it's not true...no proof.

BTW, here is proof that YOU are the liar:

Excerpt: "A Vermont judge, vilified after sentencing a man to
60 days in jail for sexually abusing a child, increased
the sentence to three to 10 years. Judge Edward Cashman
said he could impose the longer sentence because
the state had agreed to provide in-prison sex offender
treatment. Initially, the state had planned to start
treatment after Mark Hulett was released. Hulett, 34,
pleaded guilty to having sexual contact with a girl over
four years starting when she was 6.
Gov. Jim Douglas, who had called for the judge to resign,
said the new sentence is too lenient, but its certainly
an improvement. Hulett, who could have opted
for a trial, accepted the new sentence."

USA TODAY. January 27, 2006. 3A. W.Va. governor signs law on mine safety. John Bacon.

Want to come clean about any more of these lies you are regurgitating from far left groups or just wait to be caught.

You are out of your league. :lol:
 
Why liberals side with criminals... It's because liberals are spineless, inferiorly moral, and support evil. I thought everyone knew that anyone opposed to lieberalism has the moral highground, and that the only reason the democratic party exists is for the sake of the destruction of this country.

As easy as it is to group a wad of people of having identical beliefs and morals, doing so might detour meaningful debate, into a name-calling contest.
 


LOL!!!!!

You have created a straw man here which could actually be the rear side of a horse and covered it with manure.

When you present topics like this, do your really think they should be given the dignity of debate?:roll:
 
Perhaps a better story would be the Republicans ARE the Criminals.

http://www.robertsilvey.com/notes/2006/08/war_criminals_i.html


Committing crimes and then retroactively making laws that make them legal.



The indictment and trial of Tom DeLay

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/05/politics/main1098969.shtml


Money Laundering...makes him what? A thug I believe.

Oh, I'll go on if you'd like...the list is longer, however, than the site will hold open for me.
 
Nice psychobabble as to Bush being a war criminal. a sure sign of BDS but here is why the left and criminals are on the same page

1) both believe that the wealth of others is rightfully theirs. Not only do they seek to take the property of others, they arrogantly assume entitlement to the property

2) both (especially the leftwing minions-the followers) blame others for their lot in life. They argue that their misfortune is caused by others and thus others are responsible for making things right

3) Instant gratification is a hallmark of leftist and criminal "thinking". why wait until you have a job to pay for something-they want it now even if they haven't paid the dues to earn it.

4) leftist followers and criminals are envious of those who are better off then they. rather than honestly admit it is usually due to the fact that those more prosperous people have worked harder or made better life choices, they claim the system is unfair and the "winners" have cheated.

5) both loathe armed citizens. criminals are more afraid of being shot by homeowners than cops. That is why the robbery of occupied homes in the USA -even in gun "free" socialist paradises like DC are far lower than in places like the UK. Lefties hate guns for a slightly different reason (as well as not wanting their kindred spirits in the underworld slain)-mainly because they are either too stupid to realize that gun control doesn't affect criminals or because they despise guns reminding them of their own cowardice
 
Yes the Republicans have had their share……but so have the donkeys.


I’m still tryin to figure out how Clinton in his last day in office pardoned 140 criminals. One hundred and forty!!!!!

http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/02/clinton_money_t.php



Then He pardoned the Puerto Rican terrorists…….

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1106506/posts

http://www.virtualboricua.org/Docs/salon01.htm

And the cover-up…

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2001/printer_838.shtml


Interesting…..






Muddy Creek said,
“It's free speech the ACLU is defending for NAMBLA...not sexual rights.”


Not so fast. In the case of Jeff Hurley…the ACLU represented the two who raped and killed him.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/949422/posts

And for an organization who stands on their “free speech” tower…
They wanted a gag order placed on the case and the boys parents.

Guess they didnt want to give the parents free speech.

Can you just imagine having your son killed in the way those beasts killed Jeff........to sodomize, shove a rag soaked with gasoline down his throat.....and kill him......chop his body up and put in tupperware containers......and then keep your mouth shut?