Thursday, June 26, 2008

maybe, kinda, sorta, a little, sometimes

Obama, McCain Condemn Supreme Court Decision on Child Rape
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday he disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing executions of child rapists.

I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama said at a news conference. “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable that that does not violate our Constitution.”

That's a condemnation these days? I know it really pained Obama to know that the bitter clingers of America all think that child rapists should be on the fast track for the gas chamber so he had to come out with something.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

What kind of punishment did you get for your crimes?

Anonymous said...

none he should have gotten more, he should be in jail. His point is that harsh crime penalties are a deterrent and what rapists don't deserve the death penalty. I think gas chamber is a little too nice any heinous crime deserve to be skinned

Anonymous said...

Ninny leftist. You are so lame you cannot even see the forest thru the trees.

Child rape has nothing to do with any "charges" against Daniel, but you lame morons cant get past that.

How pathetic. The topic is child rape.

Anyone that would rape a child is BEYONE repair. Period.

Anonymous said...

Daniel,

I was hoping you might take a moment, for a change, and respond to this post as this is something I've been confused about ever since learning of your past.

I'm not trying to attack you for your past run-ins with the law, only trying to understand your rationale for your stance towards dealing harshly with criminals.

Typically, our views about what should and should not be come from our own personal experiences. As I understand it, you were arrested and convicted of gun- and drug-related crimes as well as for gang-banging. It also seems that you served no jail time for these crimes.

Nevertheless, you seem to have turned your life around insofar as you appear to hold down a job and care for a family. I also assume based on recent posts invoking scripture, that you view yourself as a man of faith and generally adhere to the rule of law.

Was there something about our lenient application of justice in your particular case that motivated you to "turn your life around"?

I think it seems reasonable to assume that, today, you would advocate far harsher punishment for persons convicted of the same crimes you committed, than you yourself received, no?

I would assume you received some form of probation or something. If this application of justice enabled you to turn things around, why shouldn't other criminals on your same level be offered the same second-chance?

Anonymous said...

oh, and before any jumps to the conclusion that I am advocating for lenient treatment of child rapists, I am not.

anon 10:04

Anonymous said...

10:04

What you are practicing here is called agitprop.


Again, good try. Now stay on task.

Child rape has nothing to do with anything Daniel did in his past.

Kaelri said...

Not in this case. 10:04 has asked a legitimate question in what I think is a refreshingly honest and respectful manner. I hope Daniel take the opportunity to respond in equal terms.

As I sees it said...

I was so in support of the court allowing child molesters to get the death penalty. The way I figure it, it would be the best way to rid this country of the Repubican Party. Just the Grand Old Pedophiles in prison now would free up alot of beds for those who commit repeat offenses or like our blog host Daniel, meth dealing and illegal firearms possesion.

Bobkatt said...

As usual, you anon posters let your personal venom for Daniel color your reading of his post.
No where does he say that he agrees with death penalty for child rapists.
He may or may not.
The point is that he sees this as just another example of Obama being the good politician and saying what he thinks will benefit his campaign.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:07,

How was my question to Daniel agitprop? Since when is agitprop disseminated in the form of a question?

Did I veer off course from the original post? Maybe a little, but not too far (is deviation from the original post really that uncommon for this blog?).

Daniel's original post reminded me of this question I have asked Daniel on a few other occasions and thought I'd give it another shot.

My understanding of Daniel is that he is an advocate of stiff criminal penalties, and my hunch is that this position would lead him to view any form of justice that does not throw gang-bangers found to be in possession of drugs and guns in prison, as weak.

As a man convicted of the very same crime and receiving a second-chance by the state and its citizens, I simply wonder why Daniel might push to have the book thrown at others, when he was given a break. One might think he would be thankful, and wish to give others the same opportunity to turn things around, and hope they'll make good on it (again, I'm not talking about sex offenders here, but rather people convicted of crimes of the same level of seriousness as Daniel's).

Is there something so malicious in this line of honest questioning? Can Daniel not answer for himself?

Anonymous said...

(again, I'm not talking about sex offenders here, but rather people convicted of crimes of the same level of seriousness as Daniel's).
11;07

That is my point. Stick to the damn topic.

This blog is about child rape.

again stay on task

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:40 -

It's not about child-rape; in it, Daniel claims that Obama's criticism of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling is weak, and implies that it is only intended to reach out to a certain portion of the electorate (the pro-capital punishment portion).

My response to this is (A) I agree with Obama that all of our sentencing guidelines should be guided by narrow and specific definitions, that's just good legal principal (B) If he is pandering, well, he is a politician.

Now that I've addresed the topic at hand, anon 2:40, as apparent self-appointed moderator, will you grant me permission to pursue a different, although related, line of questioning: Daniel's position of punishment of criminals in light of his own personal experiences?

Anonymous said...

... that you view yourself as a man of faith and generally adhere to the rule of law.

Yes, that's how he views himself. I can't speak to his faith, but his application of "rule of law" depends on many variables. He is not intelligent enough to understand this, or why it creates problems for his credibility.

Anonymous said...

"personal venom for Daniel"

Personal Venom? For Daniel? It is truth, Bobkitty.

As for supporting the death penalty for child molestors, I do. Because the vast majority are Republicans, I think it is a double benefit. Rid society of pedophiles and rid society of the organization that promotes the act.

Daniel said...

Anon 10:04

I did jail time. I have been convicted of "unlawful possession of a firearm" ORS166.250 mistemeanor.

I was not in any way "rehabilitated" by any incarceration or government/correctional program.

It was Jesus Christ and my wife who made me want to change my life around.

I advocate the harsh treatment of criminals because I know that works from personal experience.

Anonymous said...

You might have done some jail time but you didn't receive a prison sentence for your crimes.

Your explanation doesn't really make any sense.

If Jesus and your family is what worked for you, why do you have any reason to think it won't also work for others. That is, why don't we turn other gang-bangers loose and hope they too find the lord and embrace their families rather than putting them in prison, as you seem to desire.

If leniency works for you, why shouldn't it work for others? That's really the question you seem incapable of answering, and thus, the reason that you come off as hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:25 AM
I guess since you want GOP pedophiles given the death penalty, what is your recommendation for the DemoncRAT pedophiles? Elect them to the governorship? Do you remember Neil the pedophile? I want all pedophiles convicted and I am not against the death penalty. I don't understand why you want to punish Republican pedophiles, but not the DemoncRAT pedophiles. Why do you believe that DemonCRATS should be rewarded for raping young children?

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:25 AM, one last thing.
It is obvious that you voted DemoncRAT. So, you voted for Ted Kulongoski who knew about his best buddy Neil raping that young girl. You voted to put a man in the governorship whose job as attorney general should be to prosecute Neil. You are a really sick fuck who wants a pedophile and his good friend as governors of this great state.

Tasha said...

Rapists began to kill their victims when laws were enforced and they knew they might go to jail.
Right now , raping children seems to be the fashion because they might not tell.
Now the rapists will just kill the children to avoid jail.
I have a better idea, turn them loose and let the public hang them , shoot them beat them to death.
like the illegal alien rapist in the Yamhill county jail. the one that costs us $ 300,000 a year just for his kidney treatments.