Ho-ly Shit. a veritable “money-shot” of democrat/liberal caricatures.
For the record (and I understand that some people have a hard time grasping this):
Being “Pro-Choice” is not exactly the same as actually relishing abortions and celebrating every time one is performed.
Being in favor of civil rights for everybody is not the same as demanding that rapists and terrorists be mollycoddled.
But your NOT
You’ve picked one news story, and blamed “liberals” for tough laws involving child molesters. And then say
So “liberals” are too soft on crime.
Could you please,
MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND !!!
It sounds like I have touched a nerve in an oversensitive do-gooder who supports efforts to manipulate the Federal government in any way possible to compel private citizens to bend to the collective will of a particular political viewpoint. Is there any particular reason why this discription of your view on this issue is inaccurate?
Furthermore, can you actually provide a defense of yourself and your views on this subject to demonstrate that you are not, in fact, a complete and total do-gooder hypocrite? Or is your only response more partisan blather?
Liberals are soft on crime? What would your reaction have been if these words came from a liberal, instead of your own mouth? What reaction would you have if you found out this guy was living next to you and your family, and not listed on a sex offender registry because he had “paid his debt to society”? I do believe that you are inconsistent here.
I happen to agree that a man who rapes women is not likely to fit the profile of one who molests children. But a man who (to quote you) “was convicted of was raping three adult women during a one night spree” can in no way be considered a victim of the miscarriage of justice. This was a violent criminal. Sex offenders can change their ways, but the odds don’t favor it.
Ahh yes, defending the Republican’s Terry Schiavo position. Impressive tactical move, Starving Artist. Everybody knows how well that worked last time. Give those liberals hell!
'scuse moi. I wasn’t the one who brought it up. Had I left it unanswered, I have no doubt I’d been accused of dodging the accusation.
Plynck, he damn sure can be considered a victim of a miscarriage of justice! Or is every sex offender now to lose his/her children? If not, then he is being singled out by – dare I say it? – impassioned do-gooders out to protect the world at any and all costs? And this is to say nothing of the of the mother in this case, and in any other possible case. Are women now to have background checks done on anyone they plan to marry in order to learn if there is a sex offense that will require forced forfeiture of their children?
crowmanyclouds, I’ve done nothing of the sort. You claim I picked one news story, and blamed “liberals” for tough laws involving child molesters. Not so, bucko!
What I did was offer an opinion to **Kimstu **based on my observation of the way liberals and their minions on the courts have operated during my lifetime as to why it is that the word “liberal” has come to have negative connotations to a great many people in this country.
I would also reiterate that this woman and her husband and child are not the victims of “tough laws” involving child molesters. The father was not convicted of any child-related offense, and furthermore the seizing of this child was carried out by an overly zealous government bureaucracy, peopled in the main, I have no doubt, by workers of the liberal persuasion, given that it is overwhelmingly liberals who are drawn to do this type of work in the first place. (And no, I’m not saying that’s wrong. Liberals do have their place. :eek: It’s only when they have too much power or influence that things get out of hand, as illustrated by this travesty.)
bizzwire, you said to me: “Being “Pro-Choice” is not exactly the same as actually relishing abortions and celebrating every time one is performed.”
Kindly provide a cite where I contended that being pro-choice meant “relishing” and “celebrating” abortions.
I merely said people of your persuasion seem to be oddly unconcerned about the plight of innocent lives lost (and lest this turn into an anti-abortion hijack, remember I said “late-term” abortions) but are determined to save evil ones at any and all costs. I mentioned it because this has always puzzled me.
Ravenman, the bait you cast is not worth swallowing.
You’re slipping, Starving Artist. I only counted six uses of the word “liberal” in that post. Remember the Limbaugh Lesson: if you’re going to demonize someone, you have to keep repeating their name ad nauseum. We all expect better of you next time.
Thanks. I must admit I’m pressed for time today and perhaps that is why I forgot Dean Limbaugh’s lesson. I will try to do better next time.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6724809&postcount=22
He’s the mean dean.
I apologize to all rapists, for confusing them with child molesters.
END SARCASM
Like there’s a fucking difference.
In point of fact, the bloom came off the rose for me where Limbaugh was concerned during the days of his televison show where he made a cruel allusion to the then 13-year old Chelsea Clinton that I thought was way beyond the pale. Then, to make matters worse he tried to pass it off as a mix-up on the part of his control room, despite the fact that he was chuckling amusedly through the entire episode.
Subsequent to that, I’ve come to feel that he really is too effective in fomenting dislike for the other side. Hatred is not good no matter which side it comes from.
I was merely going along with vibrotronica’s little jibe.
No, that’s not all we can come up with. You’ll note that my post 97, three above the quoted post, mentions Terri Schiavo, AND the drug war, AND blue laws. Is that not enough?
Okay then. How about those do-gooders who insist that we must teach Evolution as only a theory on par with Creationism? Now we’re up to four examples, three more than you noticed before.
You’re simply not politically honest. Were you honest, you would note that there are do-gooders on both sides of the political spectrum. But it appears that self-reflection is a foreign concept for you.
Daniel
I understand. When conservatives horn in on decisions lawfully left to a family, regardless of how much due process has occured, it’s good. When a agency apparently enforces laws on the books, and the government agency might be full of liberals, it’s bad.
In the words of Stephen Colbert, you’re a coward. Someone challenges you to explain your views, and you tuck your tail between your legs and run. But wait – you probably think that only liberal draft dodgers are cowards – so perhaps there’s a Republican spin term that describes conservatives who are too afraid or too lazy to do something. The term escapes me, so I guess I’ll have to go back and see how the RNC described Dick Cheney’s and Rush Limbaugh’s military service records, and then use that word to describe your ability to defend your views.
There’s a significant difference on several levels, not the least of which would be the impact upon the victims.
And thanks, by the way, for lending a flesh-and-blood example of the liberal mindset that I’ve been suggesting all through this thread. "That’s right…when it comes to sex, one crime is no different than the other and they’re all the ultimate evil. Rip their kids from their mommies and make it impossible for them to find housing and jobs. Perhaps even make 'em wear ankle bracelets for life… (A great way to manufacture criminals-for-life, IMO.)
Pat a kid on the rump (and don’t roll your eyes; there are people – even children themselves – being brought up on molestation charges by this very thing), or rape, terrorize and torture a grown woman, it’s all the same if sex is involved!..
and oh, yeah…quit being mean to those poor terrorist sympathizers and ‘freedom-fighters’ in Guantanamo."
Libs! :rolleyes:
Ravenman…yeah, whatever.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I just don’t have the time for a more lengthy rebuttal, but the above sums it up pretty nicely.
Daniel, I have to get back to ya later. My apologies.
You still haven’t come up with any actual evidence that these so-called “impassioned do-gooders” are Democrats.
In fact, if what you’re talking about is the case in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, the people of Schuylkill County are represented in state and county government mostly by Republicans.
And Judge Charles Miller, who prohibited visitation by the father in this case, is apparently a Republican, going by this 2001 reference to him:
Whether you personally do or don’t have doubt about something doesn’t constitute actual evidence. So far, you haven’t provided a shred of actual evidence about the political beliefs of anybody involved in this story. (And you’ve nonetheless continued to insist that it must be an act of “liberals”, despite the fact that the only identifiable liberals involved, the notoriously liberal ACLU, have spoken up for the rights of the father and against the seizing of the infant.)
So:
and yet you continue to insist that the fact that this happened is somehow the liberals’ fault.
You really don’t have a leg to stand on in this case.
I’m wondering if we ought to introduce him to Clothahump?
Daniel
OK…two can play at this game:
Starving Artist, kindly provide a cite showing that the death of innocents is generally “okay with liberals”
Not so obnoxious when the shoe is on the other foot, are ya?