Democrats hire rapists to go door-to-door

[Guest MikeSC]

Man, 'round these parts (Charleston metro), banging an underage girl without fear of at least attempted prosecution is impossible unless the kid as a completely dysfunctional family or something.

 

But you'll say "Oh, so it's ATTEMPTED prosecution, it's not REAL prosecution! You idiot. Make a real point. Stupid."

Do you have anything more than anecdotal evidence?

-=Mike

...Paranoia isn't the same as an actual problem...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Care to guess how often that is ACTUALLY prosecuted?

 

Why, ALMOST NEVER.

 

You see, this is called a red herring. When you have no point, you just throw it out there.

Oh?

 

Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review.

 

I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think.

 

[Jobber, now] I know the guy has raped girls for decades, sweetie. But I need to go to work and I'm sure he's learned his lesson by now. [/Jobber, now]

Door to door promotional is not the same thing as full-time babysitter.

 

I guess that explains the "Sex offenders" part.

I don't remember a damn thing about sex offenders with a minor. There was some vague part about sex offenders and some vague part that someone endangered a minor. These were seperate events.

[Guest MikeSC]

Care to guess how often that is ACTUALLY prosecuted?

 

Why, ALMOST NEVER.

 

You see, this is called a red herring. When you have no point, you just throw it out there.

Oh?

 

Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review.

 

I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think.

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

[Jobber, now] I know the guy has raped girls for decades, sweetie. But I need to go to work and I'm sure he's learned his lesson by now. [/Jobber, now]

Door to door promotional is not the same thing as full-time babysitter.

It CLEARLY was not just door-to-door promotional --- seeing as how some have been re-arrested for their behavior and all...

I guess that explains the "Sex offenders" part.

I don't remember a damn thing about sex offenders with a minor. There was some vague part about sex offenders and some vague part that someone endangered a minor. These were seperate events.

That you have no problem with EITHER group being involved is just pathetic.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The names of two ACT employees in Ohio matched the names of people convicted of murder and rape, but the AP was unable verify that they lived at the addresses listed by ACT in filings with the federal Election Commission. ACT has declined to verify the criminal backgrounds of any specific employees.

- Political Group to Run Background Checks on Employees

So far all we know the guy's name is John Smith...

 

I mean, if it turned out anyone who actually committed murder was doing this work, I'd agree with you. The problem is that none of these reports give nearly enough information to come to any solid conclusion.

[Guest MikeSC]

The names of two ACT employees in Ohio matched the names of people convicted of murder and rape, but the AP was unable verify that they lived at the addresses listed by ACT in filings with the federal Election Commission. ACT has declined to verify the criminal backgrounds of any specific employees.

- Political Group to Run Background Checks on Employees

So far all we know the guy's name is John Smith...

 

I mean, if it turned out anyone who actually committed murder was doing this work, I'd agree with you. The problem is that none of these reports give nearly enough information to come to any solid conclusion.

Wow. To be so naive at your age.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

Care to guess how often that is ACTUALLY prosecuted?

 

Why, ALMOST NEVER.

 

You see, this is called a red herring. When you have no point, you just throw it out there.

Oh?

 

Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review.

 

I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think.

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

Then why is Statuatory Rape, exactly what you wanted proof of, mentioned as one of the offenses five times in the document?

[Guest MikeSC]

Care to guess how often that is ACTUALLY prosecuted?

 

Why, ALMOST NEVER.

 

You see, this is called a red herring. When you have no point, you just throw it out there.

Oh?

 

Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review.

 

I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think.

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

Then why is Statuatory Rape, exactly what you wanted proof of, mentioned as one of the offenses five times in the document?

And where does it say that the statutory rape was between 17 and 19 year olds?

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

The Kerry campaign said Wednesday it was unaware of ACT's hiring practices and had nothing to do with them.

 

Well, at least Kerry was wise enough to distance himself from them. This is the one thing Kerry has going against him. The insane splitter groups that will do stuff incredibly stupid and out of character for Democrats that get news coverage. We already know the branches of the Republican party that are insane and they get distanced right from the start.

 

When Kerry pulls away from someone, you know they messed up.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

You said that minor infractions of the statutory rape law are rarely being prosecuted. In many (but not all) states, this is what's called first degree statutory rape, where the age difference isn't that far apart. The higher degrees is when we start getting into serious child rape and I start getting disgusted and want to see someone go into a cell.

 

So I was like, hey, I think there's more people in the system for first degree than you think. Here's just a tiny subset of a group in Washington and look at how many there are.

 

That you have no problem with EITHER group being involved is just pathetic.

        -=Mike

I could have the problem if I actually had the details.

[Guest MikeSC]

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

You said that minor infractions of the statutory rape law are rarely being prosecuted. In many (but not all) states, this is what's called first degree statutory rape, where the age difference isn't that far apart. The higher degrees is when we start getting into serious child rape and I start getting disgusted and want to see someone go into a cell.

 

So I was like, hey, I think there's more people in the system for first degree than you think. Here's just a tiny subset of a group in Washington and look at how many there are.

Until you PROVIDE the age differences, you have no point. You're just throwing shit on a wall and hoping it stick.

That you have no problem with EITHER group being involved is just pathetic.

        -=Mike

I could have the problem if I actually had the details.

Man, I miss the days when libs at least pretended to give a shit about human rights.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

This is why I never provide proof for anything I say. It'll be dismissed somehow no matter what. If you refuse to believe anything in front of you, of course you'll think you're right.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Until you PROVIDE the age differences, you have no point. You're just throwing shit on a wall and hoping it stick.

The same could be said for you, so how about we just go home?

[Guest MikeSC]

This is why I never provide proof for anything I say. It'll be dismissed somehow no matter what. If you refuse to believe anything in front of you, of course you'll think you're right.

Oooh, you show us. Of course, you NEVER provide any proof to back up any of the assorted crap you post, but hey, at least you're damned consistent in your lack of evidence.

The same could be said for you, so how about we just go home?

Not quite. I'm saying convicted sex offenders were involved.

 

YOU are the one trying to downplay that crime.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

No, he's trying to downplay the fact that they're going door-to-door. Do you have any idea how many released muggers, junkies, rapists, and creeps walk and drive past you every day? They've got jobs, too..People fuck up, they do their time, and they're out. The slate's not clean, of course, and if they screw up again, they go back to the pokey. It's called the judicial system. It happens every day, and no one even bothered to mention it or care until it became juxtaposed with the word "Democrat" so kindly fuck off, all who say the current administration "isn't lifting a finger" or "doesn't even have to try" when they're blatantly getting a bullshit fluff story like this sensationalized for their own ends. What crap.

[Firestarter 0]

There's a difference between convicted felons WALKING or DRIVING PAST someone and BEING SENT by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN into SOMEONE'S HOUSE to collect their PERSONAL INFORMATION, you complete fucking moron.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So, was this guy named Horton by any chance?

 

Nothing like "The Democrats are sending out the John Kerry Pedophile brigade" to get the election season kicking.

 

Especially with all the various rapists (or one guy arrested for endangering a child) around.

 

"This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from long experience that if they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison. So tonight, I propose a four-year, $300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring, including from faith-based groups." - Bush, State of the Union

 

any progress on that?

[NoCalMike 0]

You have all scared me beyond belief. This is beyond sick and it's enough to make me turn to the dark side and become Republican.

 

Christ almighty.

you know there are more choices.....

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

No, he's trying to downplay the fact that they're going door-to-door. Do you have any idea how many released muggers, junkies, rapists, and creeps walk and drive past you every day? They've got jobs, too..People fuck up, they do their time, and their out. The slate's not clean, of course, and if they screw up again, they go back to the pokey. It's called the judicial system. It happens every day, and no one even bothered to mention it or care until it became juxtaposed with the word "Democrat" so kindly fuck off, all who say the current administration "isn't lifting a finger" or "doesn't even have to try" when they're blatantly getting a bullshit fluff story like this sensationalized for their own ends. What crap.

Amen.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

BEING SENT by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN

I'm sorry, when was John Kerry put in charge of Americans Coming Together?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

BEING SENT by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN

I'm sorry, when was John Kerry put in charge of Americans Coming Together?

Kerry knew!

 

this is part of his evil plan to "touch the children", ya know.

 

He'll soon be called John "Candyman" Kerry.

 

Democrats are the devil.

[2GOLD 0]

I don't even blame Kerry for this, it's like one of those little splinter groups that think they are helping but they are never helping.

 

I find it a little distressing that they didn't discuss background checks till they got in trouble though. That is very disappointing. Hopefully this doesn't effect Kerry at all and he was smart enough to get away from them as fast as possible. Don't blame him either.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't even blame Kerry for this, it's like one of those little splinter groups that think they are helping but they are never helping.

 

That's exactly what ACT is, which is what makes this thread so ridiculously absurd.

[Firestarter 0]

BEING SENT by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN

I'm sorry, when was John Kerry put in charge of Americans Coming Together?

Oh, please.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeah, that's a great response.

 

This mock outrage over whatever the fuck you're bitching about is about the equivilant of one of the Democrats getting miffed if the same was done by the fucking Heritage Foundation. It's a terrible thing they did, but for the love of Christ, your hysterics make it sound like John Kerry himself ordered them NOT to do background checks.

 

You're being ridiculous and using hyperbolic rhetoric for the sake of making people look "stupid". Just admit it and move on.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

BEING SENT by a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE'S CAMPAIGN

I'm sorry, when was John Kerry put in charge of Americans Coming Together?

Oh, please.

wow. that proved us wrong.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Signed by John Kerry. No, wait...

 

Just because people don't like Bush doesn't mean they're rooting for Kerry specifically.

 

Observe.

[Vyce 0]

Care to guess how often that is ACTUALLY prosecuted?

 

Why, ALMOST NEVER.

 

You see, this is called a red herring. When you have no point, you just throw it out there.

Oh?

 

Here's a release from a sentence review board from Washington state. In this August alone they're going to review five cases of first degree statutory rape. And this is just one month's worth in Washington of cases that are up for review.

 

I imagine it's prosecuted more often than you think.

This, (not) shockingly enough, doesn't actually deal with the point I made at all. Par for the course...

Then why is Statuatory Rape, exactly what you wanted proof of, mentioned as one of the offenses five times in the document?

And where does it say that the statutory rape was between 17 and 19 year olds?

-=Mike

EXACTLY.

 

Jobber replies to your post about a red herring with ANOTHER red herring.

 

Just for shits & giggles, I researched the Washington state law about statutory rape. Here's what I found.

 

Revised Washington State Code, § 9A.44.073

 

 

§ 9A.44.073. Rape of a child in the first degree

 

 

      (1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.

 

   (2) Rape of a child in the first degree is a class A felony.

 

Let's parse this, shall we?

 

The link provided by Jobber indicates that all of the statutory rape charges there are all first degree charges.

 

So then, let's look at the law.

 

"A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim."

 

Emphasis added. I underlined “and” because, as anyone who knows law will tell you, when a statute uses “and”, the word cannot be interpreted in any way other than as a requirement that at least two elements are met, that which comes before and that which comes after. Therefore, three elements MUST be met here – the victim must be less than 12 years old, the victim can’t be married to the perpetrator, and the perpetrator has to be at least 24 months older than the victim.

 

The other portions were italicized just to show how ridiculous Jobber was for posting that link. All of the men there were convicted of first degree statutory rape – which meant that their victims were UNDER the age of twelve. And unless these men were all no older than, say, 14 years old when they committed this crime – which is EXTREMELY improbable – then I’d wager that these weren’t just instances of two young people getting it on.

[Firestarter 0]

Just admit it and move on.

There's nothing to admit. The relationship between Kerry's official campaign and the 527s campaigning for Kerry can be characterised as incestuous at best. People move from one to another frequently and freely. There is no difference between them. The fact that he isn't legally responsible for their activities doesn't mean that no connexion exists, and it doesn't absolve him of moral responsibility for their actions. Until and unless he specifically disavows them, denounces them, and instructs them in so many words to immediately and permanently cease and desist from campaigning explicitly on his behalf they are part and parcel of his campaign, and he is responsible for everything they do. He bears the ultimate responsibility for what he allows anyone to do in his name. You know this as well as I do.

[Guest FrigidSoul]

Dear god, I take a 2 hour nap and come back to this. I'm not quoting anything because that would take forever, however I will try to say my piece on everything without forgetting anything along the ways.

 

First of all John Kerry doesn't have anything to do with these hirings. My grandmother did campaign work for Clinton in 91 and you know who hired her? The local Demoncratic group. Sure, somebody may have fucked up along the way(and I'll explain my use of "may" afterwords) but it wasn't Kerry. It was whomever did the hiring here. So if that person ever runs for a seat in the government then you can take your torches and pitch forks up to him/her.

 

Second if I read it correctly it said people who were jailed for sexual offenses and assault. Alot of people who have lead fairly cushy lives as far as their experiences with the two will say its "rape" and "murder" and nothing more. The sexual offense could have been as minor as the example of a 17 year old with a 19 year old and the parents reporting it or as major as raping a child. The assault could have been a fight the person had in the middle of the street where he beat somebody up, or it could have been as major as cold blooded murder. For those of crying out how the people who hired them didn't do background checks you might want to go and get the information on each and every individual yourself involved on this. As of right now you could be pegging some guy who was 19 and in love with a 17 year old as a a rapist and child molester.

 

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the first degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is less than twelve years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least twenty-four months older than the victim.

You do know that it could have been a 14 year old and a 12 year old. When I was in 7th grade there was a chick in my homeclass who wasn't even 13 yet and pregnant. Either way, that's the state law. Federal Law is different than that though and it covers every state. Break a state law and you go into a state jail, break a federal law and you get to be shipped around to pound me in the ass prison. Trust me, my uncle's broken both types of laws(nothing to do with sexual offenses though).

 

Also, just because nobody has commited a crime previously doesn't mean that if you open your door to them they aren't going to slash your throat. When you open your door, let random people into your house, and give them private information you're setting yourself up no matter who it is you're talking to. Part of living in this day and age now. I'm not saying don't let the TV Repair Man in your house, but hell...its probably safer to know self defense methods before you do for that "just in case" scenerio.

 

Republicans, you need to realise there's a grey area. Step into it, alot of life is lived in that area.

 

To my fellow Democrats admit it, somebody on this thing screwed up. Back ground checks should have been done. If the person was actually a repeated child molester than they shouldn't have been out there.

 

We'll never know the full truth about these former prisoners though because half-truths let people throw around accusations and then it sells papers.

 

I'm also not responding to any questions asked on this since I made everything crystal clear.

[Firestarter 0]

First of all John Kerry doesn't have anything to do with these hirings.

Correct. Yet, once he found out about it, it was his responsibility. No one is saying that he knowingly and deliberately exposed people he's asking to vote for him to dangerous criminals. I'm just saying that these 527 groups are working for his campaign and in his name. He must either disassociate himself from them and disavow them, and forbid them from working for him, or he will be held responsible for what they do. He gives them his tacit approval by allowing them to advance his cause. It's perfectly plain and simple.

 

Republicans, you need to realise there's a grey area. Step into it, alot of life is lived in that area.

There is a grey area, and I acknowledge it. I'm not blaming Kerry for the hirings. I am blaming him for accepting the help of groups like ACT when it's convenient and pretending he has no control over them when it isn't. His control, his responsibility, and his collusion are absolute.

 

To my fellow Democrats admit it, somebody on this thing screwed up.

Good luck there. Criminals are just misunderstood, didn't you know? It's quite normal to go out and kill people if Mommy didn't love you.