Liberalism - let all the criminals go, it's not their fault

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Note most of them are COPS.
COPS let him out.
Not liberals or conservatives.
COPS.

Your political polarizing of EVERYTHING is getting tired and pathetic.

Likwid, I read your post again, and it looks to me like one out of the seven was a cop. Does 1 constitute "most" of 7 to you?

I don't care if they were all former cops. I know plenty of cops who are liberals. Occupation is irrelevent. What's pertinent to this situation is the generalization (we can debate whether or not it's accurate) that liberals are more inclined to give these repeat offenders a second chance because they are not responsible for their actions.

One of the pillars of liberalism is that people who make mistakes (as long as they are anointed with "victim" status) should not be held accountable for their actions.

You had unprotected sex? Don't worry, just get an abortion.

You chose not to do any homwework in high school? Don't worry, those that work will provide you with welfare.

Can't find a job in 99 weeks? Don't worry, those that are killing themselves to stay employed will give you more of their money.

You bought a $700,000 house even though you make $40,000 a year? Don't worry, we'll tell the bank to lower the amount of your mortgage and your interest rate so that you can afford it. Meanwhile, those playing by the rules still struggle.

You don't want to work hard? Don't worry, elect liberals, and we'll give you a public sector union job with lifetime job protection and insane benefits.

You shot somebody while committing a crime? Well, as long as you claim that mommy was hard on you, it's not your fault, so we'll give you another chance.

What's tired and pathetic is your attempt at spin.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, I read your post again, and it looks to me like one out of the seven was a cop. Does 1 constitute "most" of 7 to you?

I don't care if they were all former cops. I know plenty of cops who are liberals. Occupation is irrelevent. What's pertinent to this situation is the generalization (we can debate whether or not it's accurate) that liberals are more inclined to give these repeat offenders a second chance because they are not responsible for their actions.

Their previous occupation has EVERYTHING to do with their current job no matter HOW much you want to scream and cry it doesn't and want to spin it pissing and moaning that its all the "liberal's" fault.

They are a group of people who should have known better, but let him out anyhow. Why? No clue, can't see the minutes of the parole hearing and what WAS published is nothing but hearsay and speculation.

One of the pillars of liberalism is that people who make mistakes (as long as they are anointed with "victim" status) should not be held accountable for their actions.

You had unprotected sex? Don't worry, just get an abortion.

You chose not to do any homwework in high school? Don't worry, those that work will provide you with welfare.

Can't find a job in 99 weeks? Don't worry, those that are killing themselves to stay employed will give you more of their money.

You bought a $700,000 house even though you make $40,000 a year? Don't worry, we'll tell the bank to lower the amount of your mortgage and your interest rate so that you can afford it. Meanwhile, those playing by the rules still struggle.

You don't want to work hard? Don't worry, elect liberals, and we'll give you a public sector union job with lifetime job protection and insane benefits.

You shot somebody while committing a crime? Well, as long as you claim that mommy was hard on you, it's not your fault, so we'll give you another chance.

More adderall.

What's tired and pathetic is your attempt at spin.

Spin? Unlike you, I hold people accountable, not "ideals".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Their previous occupation has EVERYTHING to do with their current job no matter HOW much you want to scream and cry it doesn't and want to spin it pissing and moaning that its all the "liberal's" fault.

They are a group of people who should have known better, but let him out anyhow. Why? No clue, can't see the minutes of the parole hearing and what WAS published is nothing but hearsay and speculation.



More adderall.



Spin? Unlike you, I hold people accountable, not "ideals".

Likwid, you claimed that ONE is most of SEVEN, and when I called you on that, you dodged.

Why does previous occupation have everything to do with it? I saw one cop, a bunch of probation officers (and probation officers know that the more criminals that are out on probation, the more job security they have), 2 district attorneys, and a criminologist. So what?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

More adderall.



.

OK, so after my list of ridiculous liberal positions, you threw out an insult instead of a response. That tells me, and everyone else here, that you know those positions (which are irrefutably part of the liberal agenda) are indefensible. So instead of debating me, you threw out a cheap insult.

I'll give you points for originality, at least you didn't call me a racist. That's what most of your liberal bretheren do when they want to end the conversation because they know they've lost the debate.

Instead of insulting me, how about telling me why either (1) those positions I listed are NOT part of the liberal ideology, or (2) if they are part of the liberal ideology, why are they good ideas?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, you claimed that ONE is most of SEVEN, and when I called you on that, you dodged.

Why does previous occupation have everything to do with it? I saw one cop, a bunch of probation officers (and probation officers know that the more criminals that are out on probation, the more job security they have), 2 district attorneys, and a criminologist. So what?

Their previous roles give them a much better view of criminals and the system than you or anyone else. They should be able to make educated decisions in a parole hearing better than damn near anyone else and not let emotions (stop sniffling and crying) get in the way.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so after my list of ridiculous liberal positions, you threw out an insult instead of a response.

Take some adderall, then we will discuss the primary topic at hand, I'm pretty sure you've whined about all those other things in pretty much every thread.

Seriously.

Adderall.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Their previous roles give them a much better view of criminals and the system than you or anyone else. They should be able to make educated decisions in a parole hearing better than damn near anyone else and not let emotions (stop sniffling and crying) get in the way.

Great, I'm sure that the previous work experience of the parole board will be of significant comfort to the family of the slain police officer.

Obviously, deciding who gets paroled and who doesn't is an inexact science, and unfortunately, mistakes will be made. As a society, I think (just my opinion) we should decide that if a mistake will be made, it's better to err on the side of public safety and keep these guys locked up.

Here in CT, we are in the middle of a home invasion trial for one of the most horrific crimes in the history of the country, a mother and 2 daughters were raped and burned to death by 2 career criminals who were out on parole. In my opinion likwid, the conservative view on crime is tougher on criminals than the liberal view, and I think it's time we lean more in the conservative direction on this issue.

However, even conservatives will let some criminals out on parole, and some of those guys will go on to hurt other people. I'm not saying conservatives would be flawless in this process. I'm saying the conservative approach would result in fewer innocent people being hurt.

[scottw]

someone is unusually obsessed with adderall must be jonesin'

[Fly Rod]

If you had viewed the video of his hearing you would understand that he difinetly corned the parole board with his mister nice guy, redeemed himself from crime and was very, very sorry for the harm he had done. After listening to him you would have taken out a hankerchief and wiped your eyes.

This guy should never had been let out. Martha Stewart had to serve her full time and she is not a criminal.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

someone is unusually obsessed with adderall must be jonesin'

You dropped something:



Stick to being Jim's little cheerleader without an original thought rather than trying to be funny, k?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by likwid

They are a group of people who should have known better, but let him out anyhow. Why?

.

liberals

shouldn't you have to complete at least one of your multiple life sentences before you get to have a parole hearing?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

One of the pillars of liberalism is that people who make mistakes (as long as they are anointed with "victim" status) should not be held accountable for their actions.

You had unprotected sex? Don't worry, just get an abortion.

You chose not to do any homwework in high school? Don't worry, those that work will provide you with welfare.

Can't find a job in 99 weeks? Don't worry, those that are killing themselves to stay employed will give you more of their money.

You bought a $700,000 house even though you make $40,000 a year? Don't worry, we'll tell the bank to lower the amount of your mortgage and your interest rate so that you can afford it. Meanwhile, those playing by the rules still struggle.

You don't want to work hard? Don't worry, elect liberals, and we'll give you a public sector union job with lifetime job protection and insane benefits.

You shot somebody while committing a crime? Well, as long as you claim that mommy was hard on you, it's not your fault, so we'll give you another chance.

Some of the core reasons we are where we are.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Some of the core reasons we are where we are.

Amen, and God help us.

May God's love guide us all into a wonderful new year in 2011. I was hoping to weasel my way into some fishing outings with some of you this year, but baby #3 is due June 1, at which point we'll have a 4 year old, an 18 month old, and a newborn, and very little free time!

I hope all here (regardless of political beliefs!) are as joyously excited about a wonderful 2011 as I am.

God Bless!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Amen, and God help us.

May God's love guide us all into a wonderful new year in 2011. I was hoping to weasel my way into some fishing outings with some of you this year, but baby #3 is due June 1, at which point we'll have a 4 year old, an 18 month old, and a newborn, and very little free time!

I hope all here (regardless of political beliefs!) are as joyously excited about a wonderful 2011 as I am.

God Bless!

congrats Jim !