Why Do Democrats Keep Siding With Criminals?

[aquapub]

And I agree there needs to be more leeway with it, considering you don't always know who the foreigner is calling, and you can't expect an 11 person court to approve thousands upon thousands of warrants.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that you said democrats want "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)." This is a lie, plain and simple.

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?

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

Yeah, cause God forbid someone address the complexities of the illegal immigration issue.

In a way that rewards crime, yes.

 

[aquapub]

I get enraged that you call the Democratic party pro-crime when you've presented no evidence that they're pro-crime. Would you consider evidence of a few out of the millions of republicans out there being sympathetic towards abortion clinic bombings as evidence that the Republican party was pro-abortion clinic bombing? Of course not, because there is no reason to generalize the actions and beliefs of a few to the whole without evidence that it should be done. You call it a natural conclusion, and I say that you call it that because you can't actually prove your 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.

 

[aquapub]

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:

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

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.

 

[aquapub]

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. .

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.

 

[aquapub]

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").

 

[aquapub]

Exactly, and to proove that you can generalize first you must provide evidence that your evidence can be generalized. You haven't done that. You've cited a few examples of liberals being soft on crime, but you've provided no evidence that these examples can be generalized. .

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.

 

[aquapub]

Hispanics, as a whole, don't speak spanish. There are large portions of the Hispanic population that speak Portugese. You could say a large portion of Hispanics speak spanish, and evidence that that's fair to say is that many large Hispanic nations are spanish speaking, but to ignore nations like Brazil would just be goofy.

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.

 

[MSgt]

It saddens me that you vote.

Bwahahahahaha!

 

[Muddy Creek]

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....

 

[aquapub]

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:

 

[TurtleDude]

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....

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

 

[Muddy Creek]

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


This has been disputed across the nation with information demonstrating the total amount of time the judge sentenced this man to was 25 years. More spin and lies. Seems to me your party has quite a "Read My Lips" reputation this country.







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.

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

 

[aquapub]

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:

 

[liberal1]

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.

 

[Muddy Creek]

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.

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:

 

[Muddy Creek]

Perhaps a better story would be the Republicans ARE the Criminals.

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

George Bush and Dick Cheney are afraid they will be charged with war crimes, so they want to change the law. They're in a hurry, because the Republicans are likely to lose control of Congress after the November election. R. Jeffrey Smith reports in the Washington Post:

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments.

Officials say the amendments would alter a U.S. law passed in the mid-1990s that criminalized violations of the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties governing military conduct in wartime. The conventions generally bar the cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment of wartime prisoners without spelling out what all those terms mean.

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

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen reports the decision is good news for DeLay because it narrows the scope of the case against him and other defendants. By kicking out the conspiracy charge but keeping in place the money laundering charge, it makes it tougher, but not impossible, for prosecutors to gain a conviction because it requires them to focus more in specific DeLay acts, Cohen said.

In asking that the case be thrown out, DeLay lawyer Dick DeGuerin argued that one of the charges — conspiracy to violate the Texas election code — did not even take effect until September 2003, a year after the alleged offenses occurred.

Prosecutors, however, said the crime of conspiracy was already on the books, and could be applied to the election code even though such uses were not explicitly in state law at the time.

The judge was unpersuaded by that argument, and dismissed the conspiracy charge. But the judge upheld charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Those charges involve an alleged attempt by DeLay to conceal the source of the campaign contributions by funneling the money through his own political action committee and then an arm of the Republican National Committee.

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.

 

[TurtleDude]

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

 

[doughgirl]

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…..

”

Bill Clinton issued 457 in eight years in office; Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, issued 77 in four years in office; Ronald Reagan issued 406 in eight years, and Jimmy Carter issued 563 in four years. Since World War II, the largest number of pardons and commutations — 2,031 — was issued by Harry S. Truman, who served 82 days short of eight years.”

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/16/328035-bush-pardons-17-minor-criminals

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?

“Among many other things they’re asking the judge to do is issue a “gag order” on the boy’s parents and to suppress a large training manual issued by NAMBLA on how to molest children. Why doesn’t the ACLU want the public to hear about the manual?”

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/aug%202001/801sight.htm