Originally Posted By Beaumandy More great debate huh STPH. Why not just say the judge is wrong, he needs to go, and Vermont is allowing this to happen while another state like Texas would NEVER let this happen. You should move there, your perfect for them.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>When a judge gives a child raper 2 MONTHS you have a problem.<< That would be a problem if that was an accurate depiction of what happened. But it's not. I've already posted a link to the prosecutor's motion for the judge to reconsider the sentence. You can read the original sentencing at <a href="http://burlingtonfreepress.com/assets/pdf/BT16071113.PDF" target="_blank">http://burlingtonfreepress.com /assets/pdf/BT16071113.PDF</a> Or you can just go back to letting O'Reilly let you know what to think.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Oh, did you hear Bin Laden using YOUR talking points on here in his latest speech? I thought it was Tom, STPH or Dabob speaking.>> You are so far off base. You think if people are following your ways they must be on the entire other end of the spectrum. So whats next for you grand wizard?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<That would be a problem if that was an accurate depiction of what happened. But it's not.>> Sorry Tom, but your excuses for the judge don't work. How long did the rapist get again?? ( 2 months ) When does he get out again?? ( This March ) That's the bottom line regardless of how you try and explain it away.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder What's to debate with you, beau? As usual, you don't have the facts right, instead going in like a bull in china shop with nothing more than a loud mouth and a puzzled mind. It's no fun to go against an unarmed man. Tom and Dabob have been posting cogent accounts of what is transpiring. Read and then re-read them. This isn't the Old West. Take your lynch mob somewhere else.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy O'Reilly has brought up the points Tom and dabob have been trying to push and has blown them out of the water already. The judge could be removed today from criminal court and he has no business worrying about rehab for the rapist and ignoring justice for the little girl. Only in the world of the liberal could this be complicated and an issue for debate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Oh, did you hear Bin Laden using YOUR talking points on here in his latest speech? I thought it was Tom, STPH or Dabob speaking.<< More great debate, huh BM?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy If you heard the speech Bin Laden gave, you would think you were hearing liberal talking points... sorry, it's just the way it is in this case. No debating that.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>How long did the rapist get again?? ( 2 months )<< I'm looking at the sentence right now at <a href="http://burlingtonfreepress.com/assets/pdf/BT16071113.PDF" target="_blank">http://burlingtonfreepress.com /assets/pdf/BT16071113.PDF</a> Take a look at page 110 The sentence on the first count is not less than 60 days and not more than 10 years. The judge says that he can't guarantee that he'll get released in 60 days since it is up to the correctional center to determine if he is a viable candidate for the treatment program. He then goes on to say that Hulett will be under the direct control of Corrections for 10 years either by furlough, incarceration, parole or any combination of those. Count two has a sentence of 3 years to life. If Hulett doesn't go to a particular offender's program, the judge will put him away for life. Count three is a two to five year sentence. There is an additional program that the offender has to go through here. Counts two and three are suspended unless Hulett violates any condition of his probation. It's not a 60 day sentence.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>and ignoring justice for the little girl.<< Read the sentencing - he's not ignoring the little girl at all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No debating that.<< There's also no debating the fact that you form opinions without bothering to explore any of the details. Like the Schaivo case, you're once again embarassing yourself in this thread by blocking out many important details that challenge you're shoot-from-the-hip "bottom line" blurbs.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "O'Reilly has brought up the points Tom and dabob have been trying to push and has blown them out of the water already." O'Reillly??? That great "legal" authority? Not bloodly likely. Put this post in your pantheon of pathetic posts.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut << Put this post in your pantheon of pathetic posts.>> Say that 10 times fast.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 LOL! (That is all - I could respond to Beau's nonsense, but as usual Tom does it better than I could).
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Come on you guys! Beau may not be as glib as you, especially with Pass" outstanding alliteration, but he is right and you would realize it (being fair minded as I know you are) IF you saw the judge actually speak about the sentencing. He literally looked mentally ill to a dangerous degree as in to society. The judge does NOT believe in the U.S judicial system for which he has sworn to uphold. Beau is RIGHT although he may not explain it as eloquently as Bill. This really is a no-brainer not like abortion, supreme court appointees, etc. This judge has to go and Vt. is an embarrassing state much the same as Mass but much worse. Even Al Sharpton is going up there today, in case you missed his promise to Bill last night. Next maybe Jesse Jackson God forfend. But this cut across partisan lines. The JUDGE is a WACKO and that is being extremely euphemistic on this Disney site. P.S Pass----I like it here because none of us have the time to proofread and there is no making fun of others for that. NO need to apologize after that alliteration!!!!!!!!!!WOWWWWWWWW
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Even Al Sharpton is going up there today, in case you missed his promise to Bill last night.>> Ahh, he has a new cause.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 People like O'Reilly and Sharpton may pretend to dislike each other, but the fact is they NEED each other, and I think deep down they both probably know it. They're both ranting all the way to the bank.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Rule #1: if someone refers to that show simply as "The Factor," check his mouth area. You'll almost certainly find Kool-aid stains.>> Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I was actually working today. But why is it that if someone says they watch the Factor or listen to Rush or Hannity, they're "drinking the Kool-aid"? But people gladly accept a point of view from the NY Times or NBC as being factual. Kind of a double standard if you ask me.
