Democrats hire rapists to go door-to-door

[Vyce 0]

You do know that it could have been a 14 year old and a 12 year old.

 

The chances of that actually being the case are somewhere between "slim" and "none." More closer to "none" than anything else.

 

Don't defend Jobber. If he's going to post something ridiculous like that link and expect it to prove his argument, he's going to get called on it by someone.

[2GOLD 0]

Plus wouldn't the 14-12 yr old situation involve juevnile conviction and no knowledge of said record anyway?

[Vyce 0]

Plus wouldn't the 14-12 yr old situation involve juevnile conviction and no knowledge of said record anyway?

I'm not 100% knowledgable of Washington's sentencing guidelines, but the answer is, most likely yes.

 

They weren't referring to JUVENILE offenders in that link.

[Guest BDC]

Wouldn't 12 to 14 count within that 24 months line that was in the law Vyce posted?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Silly everyone here, "the" was missed in the headline:

 

"Democrats hire therapists to go door-to-door."

[Guest MikeSC]

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.

Simple question: If a local REPUBLICAN group did this, would you be quite so forgiving of Bush?

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.

And it could be a 30 year old man fucking a 6 month old girl.

 

That's the gift of using hypotheticals instead of actual data or evidence.

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.

Except ACT was SUPPOSED to get the background info and clearly didn't. It's not OUR job to do the JOB ACT was SUPPOSED to have done.

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.

And you could be defending a 30 year old man who raped an infant.

(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.

Except statutory rape does kinda require ONE of the parties involved to be adult. Using red herring after red herring is just poor debating.

When I was in 7th grade there was a chick in my homeclass who wasn't even 13 yet and pregnant.

Ditto for using irrelevant anecdotes.

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.

So we shouldn't put a LITTLE more concern upon somebody who HAS done it because everybody MIGHT?

-=Mike

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I'm a little confused, where in the article does it talk about sending rapists(as in more than one convicted rapists) out door to door, and why would this be 'the democrats' as opposed to 'a group of democrats'?

[Firestarter 0]

Brilliant. When the facts condemn you, parse the plurals.

 

 

 

Maybe we should talk about what the definition of "is" is.

[Styles 0]

I'm not gonna blame Kerry for this but anybody trying to defend this as anything other than a knee-jerk reaction to defend their party is incredibly naive. I have no problem with convicted criminals getting jobs in society and starting their lives over again, but there are good ideas and bad ideas. Considering that violent and sexual criminals are more likely to be repeat offenders once let out means it is not smart or safe to be SENDING them into neighborhoods to KNOCK ON DOORS?! Seriously, all of you trying to defend this need to honestly think would you be comfortable with these people, fresh out of jail, many of them violent criminals (Sorry but for every pot smoker there is an assualt and robbery and for every 19 year old loves 17 year there is a 30 year old loves 10 year old case, this argument works both ways), wandering your neighborhood and knocking on your door, especially with children in the house. I think not. Let them do clerical work or even work the phones under supervision, but giving convicted criminals with violent backgrounds with studies that prove the high probability of repeat offenses into neighborhoods is not smart, no matter which party you support.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Cancer if you say 'democrats send rapists door to door' and they haven't, it's not really a matter of plurals, or morals for that matter.

 

It just seems a "wee bit" sensational to me.

[Jingus 0]

Okay everyone, calm down a bit, here are two rather important questions:

 

1. Did we ever find out exactly what the men had been convicted of?

 

and,

 

2. Since ACT wasn't supposed to be hiring ex-cons anyway, do we know exactly who dropped the ball on the background tests?

 

Without the above information, I don't think we can draw any final conclusions from this matter.

[Guest MikeSC]

Okay everyone, calm down a bit, here are two rather important questions:

 

1. Did we ever find out exactly what the men had been convicted of?

That ACT doesn't know is the problem.

2. Since ACT wasn't supposed to be hiring ex-cons anyway, do we know exactly who dropped the ball on the background tests? 

Clearly, the state DID allow them to hire ex-cons --- then forbade them when they realized that they were giving ex-cons jobs they should not be having.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

So essentially we have no idea exactly how big the problem is, or whose fault it was, correct?

 

Then I don't see why it's a big topic for debate until the details come out.

[Guest MikeSC]

So essentially we have no idea exactly how big the problem is, or whose fault it was, correct?

 

Then I don't see why it's a big topic for debate until the details come out.

We know the problem is there because there have been people ARRESTED for actions while doing this.

 

We know ACT is responsible because they were supposed to do the background searches. This really isn't even a debatable point.

 

And there is good reason to suppose that ACT and the Kerry campaign are incestuously close.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

But my point is, that any idiot knows you don't hire convicted child molesters to do work involving processing people's social security numbers and such; aside from being common sense, it's a PR nightmare if you get caught. So I doubt that ACT or any major political organization would do it on purpose. It was against official policy to hire them, after all. So my question is, which specific ACT personnel fucked up?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So my question is, which specific ACT personnel fucked up?

John Kerry, apparently.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Mike, just because ACT and the Kerry Campaign are supposedly close, it doesn't add up to link the Kerry campaign to the hiring of ex-cons going door-to-door. Ex-convicts do earn the right to re-enter society if they have been cleared to do so.

 

Now, as for ACT: find who fucked up, eliminate said person, and do some more thorough background checks on members/employees so that this situation won't occur again. If ex-cons are going door-to-door, re-assign them to a different position.

 

But that'd be too easy, now wouldn't it?

[Guest MikeSC]

But my point is, that any idiot knows you don't hire convicted child molesters to do work involving processing people's social security numbers and such; aside from being common sense, it's a PR nightmare if you get caught.  So I doubt that ACT or any major political organization would do it on purpose.

Completely irrelevant. ACT hired them. It doesn't matter WHO in ACT hired them. They did it out of laziness.

It was against official policy to hire them, after all.  So my question is, which specific ACT personnel fucked up?

It really doesn't matter. Blame Soros for creating a group that is too lazy to check such things.

Mike, just because ACT and the Kerry Campaign are supposedly close, it doesn't add up to link the Kerry campaign to the hiring of ex-cons going door-to-door.

Like it or not, they REPRESENT the Democratic Party --- as ACT CLEARLY states.

Ex-convicts do earn the right to re-enter society if they have been cleared to do so.

They clearly didn't have the right to do THESE jobs as MO no longer permits ACT to hire them.

Now, as for ACT: find who fucked up, eliminate said person, and do some more thorough background checks on members/employees so that this situation won't occur again. If ex-cons are going door-to-door, re-assign them to a different position.

 

But that'd be too easy, now wouldn't it?

It's no an issue. MO won't let them fuck up further.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

I'm sorry Mike, but blaming ACT as a whole is absurd, as the mistake is so clearly wrong that 90% of the population would've never made it. If you asked John Kerry "hey, should we hire convicted violent sexual predators to work on your campaign?" he obviously would've said no. The mistake was made somewhere in middle management, and that's where the blame should fall.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"ARRESTED for actions while doing this"

 

Mike I know it says 4 have since gone back to jail but can you point out the part where it said they were arrested while going door-to-door?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm sorry Mike, but blaming ACT as a whole is absurd, as the mistake is so clearly wrong that 90% of the population would've never made it.

In every legal sense of the word, they ARE liable. They hired them. The felons were representing ACT. ACT is the one to blame here.

 

Let's say Wal Mart hires a drunk as a truck driver and he totals a car. Is Wal-Mart not liable because they didn't MEAN to hire a drunk?

If you asked John Kerry "hey, should we hire convicted violent sexual predators to work on your campaign?" he obviously would've said no.

If you ask him "Should we do background checks on ex-cons we hire" --- he'd probably say yes.

 

Doesn't mean it was done.

The mistake was made somewhere in middle management, and that's where the blame should fall.

In the world of legal liability, not quite.

"ARRESTED for actions while doing this"

 

Mike I know it says 4 have since gone back to jail but can you point out the part where it said they were arrested while going door-to-door?

Wow, it really should blow my mind that people would defend anything a Democratic-supported group.

 

But it doesn't.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Mike, you're missing my entire point:

 

ACT apparently had preexisting company rules against hiring such felons in such positions.

 

Therefore, the cons were never supposed to be there in the first place.

 

Ergo, it's not ACT's fault... they already said not to do that. Some individual employee(s) broke their own organization's rules. It's those individuals' fault, not ACT.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Wow, it really should blow my mind that people would defend anything a Democratic-supported group.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you're missing my entire point:

 

ACT apparently had preexisting company rules against hiring such felons in such positions.

 

Therefore, the cons were never supposed to be there in the first place.

 

Ergo, it's not ACT's fault... they already said not to do that. Some individual employee(s) broke their own organization's rules. It's those individuals' fault, not ACT.

And ACT VIOLATED THEIR OWN RULES.

 

I'm supposed to SYMPATHIZE with them?

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Sympathize? No. I don't even know who the hell ACT is or exactly what they do; I'm just saying that we have no idea whose fault it is.

 

If it turns out that one individual employee just forgot to do background checks on a particular batch of applicants but claimed he'd done them anyway, how is ACT as an organization and its bosses responsible? It's that one guy's fault, not the company's. They would've been clueless in the matter.

 

I'm not saying that is the case here; my real point is we don't know WHAT the case is. It might be like I outlined above, or it could be that the CEO of ACT had a secret plan to infiltrate the Democratic party with as many pedophiles as possible. I don't know. Nobody here does. That's my ultimate point: we really don't know what happened, so we really can't point fingers.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sympathize? No. I don't even know who the hell ACT is or exactly what they do; I'm just saying that we have no idea whose fault it is.

 

If it turns out that one individual employee just forgot to do background checks on a particular batch of applicants but claimed he'd done them anyway, how is ACT as an organization and its bosses responsible? It's that one guy's fault, not the company's. They would've been clueless in the matter.

 

I'm not saying that is the case here; my real point is we don't know WHAT the case is. It might be like I outlined above, or it could be that the CEO of ACT had a secret plan to infiltrate the Democratic party with as many pedophiles as possible. I don't know. Nobody here does. That's my ultimate point: we really don't know what happened, so we really can't point fingers.

It doesn't matter WHAT individual employee is responsible. As far as ANY legal authority is concerned, the ENTIRE company is responsible --- thus, the state of MO bars them from employing cons in half-way houses.

 

Again, imagine if Wal-Mart hired a trucker with a massive drinking problem who plowed into you one day.

 

Who would you hold responsible?

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Again, imagine if Wal-Mart hired a trucker with a massive drinking problem who plowed into you one day.

 

Who would you hold responsible?

-=Mike

Of course I'd sue Walmart. I want money, just like anyone else.

 

But in terms of blame? If the guy had lied about being a drunk, and nobody in Walmart knew differently, I couldn't blame them in my heart of hearts. They had no idea; it's not their fault.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, imagine if Wal-Mart hired a trucker with a massive drinking problem who plowed into you one day.

 

Who would you hold responsible?

          -=Mike

Of course I'd sue Walmart. I want money, just like anyone else.

 

But in terms of blame? If the guy had lied about being a drunk, and nobody in Walmart knew differently, I couldn't blame them in my heart of hearts. They had no idea; it's not their fault.

Ridiculous.

 

They have rules in place. If they do not FOLLOW their own rules in hiring --- it's THEIR fault.

 

ACT ALLEGEDLY has rules against this --- as you like to say, we don't know. For all we know, hiring pedophiles and like might be part of their overall plan.

 

However, even WITHOUT all of this --- ACT has tons of problems because 527's are NOT supposed to be partisan --- but ACT officially states their purpose as "defeating George Bush and getting Democrats elected"

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

They have rules in place. If they do not FOLLOW their own rules in hiring --- it's THEIR fault.

But that's my entire point, Mike, we have no idea who actually made the mistake. We don't know who "THEY" are. I don't even know if they're liable for this under MO law or not.

 

However, even WITHOUT all of this --- ACT has tons of problems because 527's are NOT supposed to be partisan --- but ACT officially states their purpose as "defeating George Bush and getting Democrats elected"

 

Which is a legitimate complaint... and also has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.