Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

[Sir_Alec]

Criminal is someone who breaks the law.

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

 

[dragonslayer]

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.

Once again you make a post that is pure BS and I will not even comment.

 

[dragonslayer]

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jamesrage:
Criminal is someone who breaks the law.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aquapub:
This is how it works in liberal America.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

unless you wish to claim that commiting any crime justifies infinite punishment, you have to acknowledge that there is a limit on how much one deserves to be punished for a crime. Now this is a matter of opinion, and to paint it as anything other than that is deliberate misrepresentation. If there is a limit on how much one deserves to be punished, then it is also possible for someone to be overly punished, and thus once again, if you at all value justice you're required to take the side of that criminal.

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.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

You're a criminal! Why are you lobbying for people to stick up for you?

 

[Blitz]

Enough with the lousy :spin: aquapub. That's a broad brush statement and will not be tolerated.:mod

 

[aquapub]

I'm not claiming anything about liberals.

You are right that it is about public safety too, that was my mistake in omitting that.

All I'm arguing that siding with criminals does not neccisarily make someone weak on crime, being soft willed, or any of the other things people infer when they hear of someone siding with criminals. As criminals they have fewer rights, but that does not make their rights any less important than those of normal citizens, and thus standing up for criminals rights is just as important as standing up for normal citizens' rights, and people need to remember that (but instead, since we can vote, and they can't, we relatively law abiding citizens tend to see it as more of an us vs. them thing)

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.

 

[Caine]

Enough with the lousy :spin: aquapub. That's a broad brush statement and will not be tolerated.:mod

umm... your not an admin

 

[Caine]

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.

Funny, one would think you would be concerned with harder felony charges before drunk driving.

 

[aquapub]

Funny, one would think you would be concerned with harder felony charges before drunk driving.

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.

 

[Caine]

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.

 

[Kelzie]

umm... your not an admin

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

 

[ashurbanipal]

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.

 

[Vader]

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.

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:

 

[aquapub]

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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

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.

 

[aquapub]

See, you're missing the point. Republicans aren't out for revenge just as much as Democrats aren't about siding with criminals.

See, I know what you're trying to do, and that is to imply that democrats are soft on crime, weak willed, and don't have the stomach to run a system of criminal justice.

And there's something to be said that more Democrats are soft on crime than republicans, but that by NO means is proof that Republicans are any more or less capable of running a criminal justice system.

The simple fact of the matter is that a lot of people don't have the understanding of criminal justice to run a system based actually on justice and public safety. Some Democrats would sacrifice public safety to get something more resembling justice (for example, if there is a mandatory minimum law that is excessive, so the judge lets the criminal go), while Republicans are more willing to sacrifice justice in the name of what they perceive to be public safety.

Both sides are equally capable of being wrong, so establishing that one side is capable of being wrong while ignoring the other side's equal capabilities is simply an attempt to mislead people. It's propaganda.

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[Hoot]

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.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

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.

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?

This Governor has put Minnesota on the wrong track on public safety issues during the entirety of his term. In ways large and small, this governor has made clear that his loyalty is not to the safety of Minnesotans on the streets of our communities.

In addition to cutting local government aids to Minneapolis and other Minnesota communities by a whopping $491 million which led directly to the loss of police officers and other needed community services, this governor has consistently whittled away at vital public safety functions at the state level.

Between FY2003 and FY2005, general fund spending for the state’s Department of Corrections was cut by over $55 million including $1.7 million cut by the Governor using his emergency budget-cutting authority in 2003 and an additional $53.5 million cut in the FY2004-05 biennium budget.

In Fiscal Year 2004-2005, Pawlenty cut $5.49 million in crime victim assistance program grants and reduced crime prevention grants by $1.19 million. He also recommended eliminating violence prevention grants to save $3.7 million.

Not content with cutting prevention programs he also proposed cutting $1.2 million for criminal justice information systems and interagency agreements. The well-documented problems with federal law enforcement agency coordination that occurred right here in Minnesota, pre-911, have apparently not taught this governor a lesson.

Perhaps the most galling statistic is this: Governor Pawlenty also cut funding for police training and development activities by $590,000

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

Who's really 'soft on crime', Aquapub?