Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

[Captain America]

Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?



What are you saying? Democrats are now voting for republicans? :mrgreen:

 

[Captain America]

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.

George Bush is liberal?

 

[Caine]

George Bush is liberal?

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHa....

Good one !

 

[aquapub]

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

Actually, the reason American blacks have this problem and other blacks don't is that only American blacks have self-serving Democrats leading them down the path of paranoid bigotry and professional victimhood.

"Nothing's my fault." :roll:

 

[Caine]

Actually, the reason American blacks have this problem and other blacks don't is that only American blacks have self-serving Democrats leading them down the path of paranoid bigotry and professional victimhood.

"Nothing's my fault." :roll:

Thats a pretty poor opinion you have there.

But to each his own.

 

[aquapub]

Anyway, judging by the fan fair spewed forth by the Left (and not just by Hollywood) on behalf of Tookie, I would say the Left IS enthusiastically on the side of criminals.

This is like pro-abortionists trying to call themselves pro-choice because they know that the abortions they make possible are not something they want to be identified with.

If you fight to legalize drugs, you aren't "pro-the choice to do drugs." Nothing in politics works that way except abortion. You are pro or anti-drugs. You are pro or anti-abortion. And you are pro or anti-criminal.

The only people who object to this intellectually honest, consistent straightforward wording are the ones who don't want to be associated with the things they enable and support.

Democrats ARE enthusiastically supportive of criminals. They are pro-criminal. Criminals vote almost exclusively for Democrats. That's why Democrats work so hard to give violent felons the right to vote.

I know Democrats come up with all kinds of smokescreens to make it feel like it isn't simply siding with criminals, but it is. They justify it through class hysteria, race hysteria, or anything else that makes it ok to root for criminals.

 

[aquapub]

Thats a pretty poor opinion you have there.

But to each his own.

I know. It's based on straight forward realities of human nature (make excuses for people, tell them they are victims, and that everything is about racial persecution and they will continue to fail at school, to commit violent crimes, and to be a general drain on society).

I'm sorry I don't have something people like you find more compelling like nifty, "Sharpton lies, black kids die" slogans, conspiracy theories, or shiny objects, but basic truths about human nature is all I felt like using (and it's all I SHOULD need).

 

[aquapub]

But how about we stop fixating on my controversial analogy for a second and get back to whether or not/why Democrats side with criminals.

 

[Caine]

I know. It's based on straight forward realities of human nature (make excuses for people, tell them they are victims, and that everything is about racial persecution and they will continue to fail at school, to commit violent crimes, and to be a general drain on society).

I'm sorry I don't have something people like you find more compelling like nifty, "Sharpton lies, black kids die" slogans, conspiracy theories, or shiny objects, but basic truths about human nature is all I felt like using (and it's all I SHOULD need).

Well, as far as fools like Sharpton are concerned, you go right ahead and say all you want, he is a racist anyways.

But, As for your first paragraph, I believe that comes more from their parents more than it comes from Politicians. Do you really think a gansta thug on the street paid ANY attention to politics?

 

[Caine]

But how about we stop fixating on my controversial analogy for a second and get back to whether or not/why Democrats side with criminals.

Its an opinionated blanket statement. That is all. No debate here folks, move along.

 

[Muddy Creek]

This thread was based upon a faulty premise....Democrats have never sided with Republicans...they have proven they are the only criminals thus far under this corrupt administration...:roll:

 

[aquapub]

And it's the fact that people won't lose sleep over the abuse of criminals' rights that is misleading about pointing this out.

You've admitted that it is important to uphold criminals rights, and that if we are to be at all a just society we need to protect their rights too. Yet you are demonizing democrats for being on the unpopular side of this.

My point is that while Republicans are tough and err on the side of caution, sometimes being more tough on certain criminals than I see necessary, liberals egregiously, fervently, aggressively err on the side of releasing child molesters, enabling terrorist attacks, and getting amnesty for murderers.

Call it demonizing if you want, but I have provided over a dozen nauseating pro-crime movements the Left has engaged in just on this thread alone.

And BTW, I'm still waiting for that wrongfully executed inmate to be discovered.

 

[aquapub]

They are equal because essentially equal amounts of Democrats and Republicans have good understanding of criminal justice

Tell that to the families ruined by Dukakis's extension of the furlough to murderers and child rapists.

The facts are overwhelming. Democrats don't get it. I simply cannot agree that they both equally understand criminal justice while one is constantly enabling further crime, getting horrific people off just to serve a purist notion of "civil liberties," and the other is getting them imprisoned (God forbid) or even executed.

 

[aquapub]

I would like to see some sort of proof, evidence, or even a theoretical explanation that could possibly justify generalizing 1 action by 1 democrat to all democrats all of the time.

I knew you were going to pull that. That's why I keep pointing out that I have posted around a dozen examples to make this case ON THIS THREAD. That Dukakis example is FAR FROM the entirety of my case against the Left. I would re-post it, but you gave me a warning point the last time I re-posted my own work...because I was apparently plagiarizing myself. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

So what you're arguing is that there is a group of citizens, who've you've admitted to having rights, but their rights are of lesser value than those outside, to the extent that to fight for their rights is something that merits demonizing...QUOTE]


Stop right there. Fighting for fictional rights on their behalf, fighting for absurd things like extending furloughs (early release programs to help re-integrate prisoners into society) to people in for life without parole, and for child molesters, fighting for the right of child molesters to distribute "rape and escape" manuals to help undermine authorities, ALWAYS fighting for criminals AT THE EXPENSE OF civilization....THAT is what liberals do. THAT is what merits indignation and shame. But no one is demonizing, just objecting to factually provable betrayals of the people.

 

[aquapub]

I can't believe you still don't understand.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY ****ING EXAMPLES YOU HAVE!!!

Correlation does not prove causation, do you want me to ****ing spell it out for you? C-O-R-R-E-L-A-T-I-O-N (SPACE) D-O-E-S (SPACE) N-O-T (SPACE) P-R-O-V-E (SPACE) C-A-U-S-A-T-I-O-N!

Last time you did this, I pointed out that I wasn't arguing causation. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

I'm arguing that if you put Democrats in office, they will side with criminals at the expense of everything else.

Never have I argued that joining the Democratic Party mystically forces you to join forces with child molesters.

What I am arguing is that visionless absolutism, unrealistic purism and constitutional illiteracy leads people to the party that helps criminals.

 

[easyt65]

I completely agree with you. Proof of your argument is Hilary siding with Bush on Iraq.

BS - Hillary whored herself out for what she thought would get her votes, plain and simple....but nice try to divert any attention from the well-presented case supported by some pretty undeniable facts.....Proof that while Conservatives need only to rely on the facts, Liberals retaliate/respond with either 1) Smoke and mirrors/diversion, 2) shouting you down, 3) insulting you. To your credit, you only reverted to option 1.

 

[aquapub]

Funny, certainly seems that criminal's rights are pretty real, at least as long as you consider the Constitution real law...

I wasn't arguing that criminals have NO rights. Just that Democrats try to extend fictional, constitutionally illiterate rights to them.

Like the constitutional right of 12 year old boys to (the Constitution doesn't even MENTION children-see what I mean by FICTIONAL?) have sex with grown men.

 

[aquapub]

You keep claiming "THAT is what liberals do!" Evidence? You've shown me dozens of examples, do you consider that sufficient evidence to make such a sweeping generalization? If I could find dozens of examples of republicans bombing abortion clinics, would that be sufficient evidence that republicans bomb abortion clinics?

If that evidence was a mix of examples including numerous Republican politicians who openly supported and defended bombing abortion clinics, Republican columnists and pundits defending bombing abortion clinics, pro-abortion clinic bombing membership lists with overwhelming amounts of Republicans....

If THAT was the kind of evidence you had, YES, you could state that Republicans are for bombing abortion clinics. THAT is the kind of evidence I have on Democrats.

 

[easyt65]

Sorta like Hillary and her commrades finally trying to make their illegal voting practices legal a few months ago by trying to usurp the power from the states to grant felons the right to vote! THAT power is a state's , NOT the Federal Goverment's...but Hillary and her full-time politicians didn't care about that!

That was also why you saw DNC posters/stickers throughout the crowd during the 1st Illegal Alien marches, where the illegals carried signs calling for the burnbing of American flags, declaring they were not here to become Americans but rather to take the SW back as part of Mexico....yet the DNC was there signing up Illegals to vote in the next Presidential election! Then they'll b!tch about any American calling for a proof of identification, like a voting card with a picture on it. Its ok for a driver's liscence, but a voting card might actually deter illegals and ineligible voters from voting!

Whatever!

Just about all politicians are crooks these days, but the Liberals/Dems are some of the bigest immoral, unethical, and hypocritical SOBs I have ever seen!

(Alright you libs and dems, let the bashing and attacks begin!)

 

[aquapub]

I assume this is a platform of the Democratic party, right? I mean, if this is at all a relevant example, it would have to be! Otherwise it would seem you've allowed yourself to be reduced to throwing **** at the wall and hoping some of it sticks

Nothing painfully honest is ever put in the platforms. Platforms are advertising mechanisms. What's more telling is what Democrat politicians and pundits push for and complain about.

3 examples off the top of my head:

1) No more listening to the phone calls of terror suspects (as if foreigners or even citizens have some telephone privacy right that trumps preventing mass murder).

2) No more arresting terror suspects and holding them as POWs. We must give them lawyers and speedy trials, treat them as mere petty criminals, so they are less likely to confess, give us valuable information, be neutralized as a threat.

3) Amnesty for ILLEGALS. Of all the amnesty programs, the very LEAST responsible, LEAST accountable ones are the ones being pushed for by liberal pundits and politicians.

 

[Caine]

1) Smoke and mirrors/diversion, 2) shouting you down, 3) insulting you. To your credit, you only reverted to option 1.

Holy Shii'te Muslim Batman!!!!

This guy is Describing Bill O'Rilley, Dan Coultwhore, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage !!!!!

 

[aquapub]

Misrepresentation, they just argue for the use of warrants.

Even when it's not feasible to get one...hence, no more listening to terror suspect phone calls...at least not unless it can be done in a way that suits the ACLU.

 

[aquapub]

Also a misrepresentation, President Bush never saught to have them treated as POW's, because as POW's they would be subject to the Geneva Convention. Bush sought to keep them as enemy combatants, thus in a class where there is no law, so he could do what he wanted.

I believe you're right. It WAS "enemy combatant" instead of POWs, but this still has the effect I stated: "We must give them lawyers and speedy trials, treat them as mere petty criminals, so they are less likely to confess, give us valuable information, be neutralized as a threat."

 

[aquapub]

Evidence? I assume that there is some objective evidence that shows that these programs are the LEAST responsible, LEAST accountable ones, cause I couldn't imagine you ever macarading opinion for fact

LEAST responsible, LEAST accountable means the ones that require the least amount of work, least amount of abiding by the law, etc. This is a factual claim. Nothing subjective about it.

As spelled out by the New York Times, Democrats want to let illegals stay and "help" (i.e., rape) our economy and get amnesty by working through a "path to citizenship" that entirely disregards the fact that they broke the law and cut in front of those doing it the legal way.

''There's going to have to be a path to citizenship,'' Senator Charles E. Schumer (D).

The New York Times. May 27, 2006. Section A; Column 1; National Desk; Pg. 9. "House Negotiator Calls Senate Immigration Bill 'Amnesty' and Rejects It." By RACHEL L. SWARNS


The Senate has more Democrats (almost 50%), so their immigration reform bill was drastically more lenient on illegals (and yes, being an illegal DOES make you a criminal).

And yes, Bush has broken ranks with his own party on this, but he is unmistakably the exception. Republicans want the law enforced and respected, Democrats want it tossed aside.

Get it? It's like this on one issue after another, but you continue to act outraged any time I draw the natural conclusion-that Democrats are the pro-crime party.

Guess what? Asians are superior students to everyone else. Are there exceptions? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate saying that Asians are superior students, because OVERWHELMINGLY, they are. And Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-crime.