Disgusting Democrats Demonstrate Deviant Devotion.

from JoeUser Forums
Democrats led by Harry Reid again proved their unwillingness to address real problems in the United States Senate.

They have blocked a critical child predators protection bill, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which is designed to give law enforcement and parents better tools to combat child predators and keep young people safe.

Introduced by Senator Hatch, this bill has 33 bipartisan cosponsors and was unanimously passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s also supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Boys and Girls Club of America, to name a few.

Dems won't allow floor action on this bill because it would make the GOP look good in an election year to pass this bill.
Only way dems will agree to a vote on this bill is if GOP agrees to a bunch of gay hate crime laws.

Only dems could make sexual predators a partisan issue. Only dems could say we won't have a vote on this bill without blackmailing you.

Apparently Reid conferred with ted Kennedy on the strategy to this.

I am sick of these traitors to this country.

Kennedy and Reid keep putting their pathetic party before the children of the united states.

More good news from the party of the 'PEOPLE" I guess kids do not count since they don't vote.

Democrats? you disgust me!"
6,909 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know it is just politicing, but sometimes what comes out of their mouths for their excuses is just plain stupid garbage!  What is even more astonishing, is how many people buy the hog wash!  I thin kthey had to check their brain at the door in order to gain entry to the liberal ranks.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
#1 by Dr. Guy
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


I know it is just politicing,


but it's politics as usual AT THE EXPENSE OF our children,,,, shame! shame!! democrats.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think they had to check their brain at the door in order to gain entry to the liberal ranks.

They had to empty the common sense from their souls in exchange for some $$$ in their wallets.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
2 by little-whip
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


God rot his soul, if he even has one.


he has no soul, to play politics with this subject shows that.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Modman, you say you know the motivation for blocking the bill.

Do you have any evidence that this is the motivation?

What reasons have the blockers themselves given, to justify the blocking?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
#4 by singrdave
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


think they had to check their brain at the door in order to gain entry to the liberal ranks.

They had to empty the common sense from their souls in exchange for some $$$ in their wallets.


this is beyond money, it's about votes.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
6 by stutefish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


Modman, you say you know the motivation for blocking the bill.

Do you have any evidence that this is the motivation?

What reasons have the blockers themselves given, to justify the blocking


nope I do not say i KNOW THERE MOTIVES, OTHERS DO... look around some, read.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Modman, you say you know the motivation for blocking the bill.

Do you have any evidence that this is the motivation?

What reasons have the blockers themselves given, to justify the blocking?
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
#9 by stutefish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


Modman, you say you know the motivation for blocking the bi


You asked the same question in post 6, my answer has not changed.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Modman, you say you know the motivation for blocking the bill.

Do you have any evidence that this is the motivation?

What reasons have the blockers themselves given, to justify the blocking?


As legit as the question is can you give any good reason for blocking it? Just curious. Since you question MM if he actually knows why, I would like to know if you do.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
11 by Charles.C
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


Since you question MM if he actually knows why, I would like to know if you do.


I do know the reason and will post it later, it's a one word answer.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can anyone give a good reason for blocking this, besides for political reasons?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do know the reason and will post it later, it's a one word answer.


You know the question wqas for stutefish
right? Just making sure.

BTW, why are you making us wait for why?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
#14 by Charles.C
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


BTW, why are you making us wait for why?


I know it was for stute.

I am making you wait because I am an evil republican!


The secret word is... politics. period.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
#13 by Charles.C
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


Can anyone give a good reason for blocking this, besides for political reasons?


oops, for many from the RIGHT AND LEFT politics is more than a reason, it's a way of life.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're misinformed about this bill, mod. This bill was introduced to create a national registry for child abusers, not necessarily sex offenders. Part of the problem I have with it is that it would put parents who have NOT been found guilty in ANY criminal court of law of any wrongdoing on the registry because of their involvement with CPS. It's a very bad idea, and until it is strictly restricted to CRIMINALLY CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS (and not including "sex offenders" such as a 19 year old who got his 17 year old girlfriend pregnant), it SHOULD be shot down.

So, even though it was for the wrong reasons, it was the right result.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
#17 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


You're misinformed about this bill, mod. This


I am only reporting what I have read gid, but if I am reporting from several sources wrongly I stand corected.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, here it is as O'Reilly reports it: Link


It's entirely possible O'Reilly's reporting could be wrong. I don't know. And there are some important legal issues I have with the bill. If we're talking about a registry for CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS, I have no problem with it.l But there's a legal differentiation even between a sexual predator and a sexual offender, and I think that should show up in the bill.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
#19 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


It's entirely possible O'Reilly's reporting could be wrong. I don't know. And there are some important legal issues I have with the bill. If we're talking about a registry for CONVICTED sexual PREDATORS, I have no problem with it.l But there's a legal differentiation even between a sexual predator and a sexual offender, and I think that should show up in the bill.


is this semantics gid? What exactly is a sexual ofender? how does it excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I just read your link and although that IS NOT where I got my info from, it's right on the money.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
is this semantics gid? What exactly is a sexual ofender? how does it excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink?


I'm not saying that it should excuse a 19 year old from boinking someone not legal to boink, mod, I'm saying it is a ridiculous waste of time and resources to track that 19 year old the rest of his life with the same fervor we would track a sexual PREDATOR (someone who is a habitual pedophile rather than a stupid teenager caught up in a preventable mistake). Make that 19 year old pay the price, and certainly don't wipe that record clean quickly, but don't treat him with the same heavy hand that you treat animals like the one that killed Jessica Lunsford (who should, by the way, never even see the light of day again, in my opinion).

But the O'Reilly report indicates that it would create a registry for ALL alleged abusers, including those who are "convicted" by the kangaroo court of CPS, and NEVER have been afforded due process. This would mean we'd track the mother whose utilities were shut off because her minimum wage job couldn't pay the bill with the same intensity as we rightly track sexual predators. There's a HUGE difference here, mod, and if we create such a sweeping net, we stand in danger of letting a lot of the real criminals slip through because we're too busy pursuing red herrings.

97% of the families whose children are removed because of alleged abuse or neglect are NEVER criminally proven guilty of that, moderateman. And many CPS advocates readily concede that over 70% of their cases are entirely unfounded. Are we really ready to throw those millions of innocent Americans on a list that includes the worst of the worst?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
One other note, Mod. I know you oppose the death penalty on the pretense that it is wrong if even one innocent person is put to death. Isn't this registry equally wrong when thousands (possibly millions) of Americans could be wrongfully imprisoned and denied basic liberties because of false allegations?

It's simply too much authority to give our federal government, in my opinion.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
#22 by Gideon MacLeish
Wednesday, May 03, 2006


I aM NOW IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GID, YOU HAVE EXPLAINED AND i HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THANK YOU.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I aM NOW IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GID, YOU HAVE EXPLAINED AND i HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. THANK YOU.


I second that. Thanx for the explanation Gid. That's all I asked that that's what I got.

Now you see, that wasn't so hard to do. If only we could get Col to do the same maybe he would get thru at least some of his opinions...... Nah.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
In other parts of the world, and even HERE not long ago, these "children" were getting married and starting families in their mid to late teens. My own maternal grandmother was only 13 when she married, and my parents were only 16 when they tied the knot.


True, and I found some things out that I didn't know because of a blog I'm working on. I didn't realise how young some girls were allowed to get married in some states! Some really, really too young. Times have changed so the laws should really be revised.


I think the statutory rape laws need to be revised, perhaps making it a crime only if the age difference is greater than say...three years or something like that.


I agree under the circumstances that your nephew was in. And a few other people who happened to be one or two years older than their girlfriends.


These Democrats should not forget that the parents do vote, even if they are in the same party, this doesn't sit well with me at all!