Originally Posted By cape cod joe To DD-----that's why I'm trying not to respond to that type of puerile buffoonery. The NY Times as we all know is frightening dishonest as is the main street media, hence the dissolution of the ratings and the gravity of the audience to the Fox Network, and also great people like Chris Matthews of Hardball. These are all honest people trying to get to the truth rather than usual political obfuscation.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Dabob-----please read my sentence in its entirety as it is quite simply the conglomeration of his "dazed" look and his inherent disrespect for the judicial system of this country that I made my judgement. His words and his looks combined to put it in more simple terms D if you get that. I'm sorry but you have to be accountable for foolishness in your remarks. I obviously did not go entirely by his looks but ask Dr. Phil (made his living judging by looks of prospective jurors) and the jurors in the OJ trial if looks don't have a great bearing on life. This judge talked AND looked mentally unstable. I don't say this lightly and NO one else, to my knowledge, has said this. My greatest talent is knowing people, looks etc. and this judge is a wacko!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "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." Maybe if there wasn't language like lib, lib, lib or this-"The JUDGE is a WACKO and that is being extremely euphemistic on this Disney site."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>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.<< <-- hums the theme from The Odd Couple...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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.> One is not drinking the kool-aid if one merely watches Hannity etc, (or reads the NYT); one is drinking the kool-aid if one uncritically believes everything any particular organ says, from right or left. I don't know anyone who reads the NYT (and I live in NY, so that's a lot) who believes everything it says automatically. I've met plenty of people who believe everything Rush or Hannity say uncritically. That's the mark of the Kool-aid.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <My greatest talent is knowing people, looks etc. and this judge is a wacko!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!> Wow. That says a lot, actually. Also, it's hard to see how somehow has "inherent disrespect for the judicial system of this country" when what he was doing was, you know, following the law. And his history had always been as a tough sentencer, if anything, so he may well have done what he did reluctantly. But don't let years and years of his prior judgeship cloud your judgement of a man you had never even heard of till this month.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "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." Joe, look. What many of us are doing here is trying to explain what is going on with this case based upon our actual experiences with this sort of thing and also from taking in different accounts. As I said earlier, this is certainly a hot button issue. Thing is, the judge cannot and will not allow himsef to become beholden to the whims of raucous public sentiment. Whether some like it or not, rehabilitation is central to our system of justice, even when it comes to molestation. The judge wanted to get the guy therapy, as he is supposed to do, and based upon the evidence presented, which is that the Defendant was a low risk, he meted out the only sentence he could within the way the Vermont laws are written. I personally don't put much stock in the posturing of Vermont politicians who are knocking the judge, because they're only casting for votes. And I'm sorry, but Bill O'Reilly and his "no spin" tough guy gimmick holds no water with me, either. To date, I've neither seen or read about any judge who is critical of the sentence. This judge's reputation is actually 180 degrees of what you accuse him of up above. Sometimes in the law courts are bound to do things that are unpopular, but required under the law. As others have said, efforts are already under way to change the law. Good. The three strikes law here in California is a prime example of bad law that judges are forced to enact on a daily basis. If anything, people should be outraged at the legislators who allowed such a sentencing guideline to remain on the books. Seeing them call for the judge's head is a coward's way out, since they didn't give him the necessary tools to work with in the first place. From where most of us sit, the people embarrassing themselves are the ones who don't have enough of an understanding of how the system works. No one maintaining the sentence is adequate, far from it. But get angry at the legislators who didn't put enough bullets in the judge's gun, not the judge himself.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Excellent points Pass but he had the tools of 8 years and chose 2 months. Again to be tautological, He HAD the tools of 8 years, which he could have used, but did not. He also belittled the U.S. Judicial system fir which he took a solemn oath to uphold. Surely, being a lawyer, you must yourself be offended by his aberrant behavior propensities. If he doesn't believe in the system, he should get out. He won't so we (as in WE THE PEOPLE)--quoting obviously from the Hall of Presidents speech---------have to remove him. Of course I'm in contact with legislators but there are more expeditous methods for stopping this man---------remove him to civil court only which, if you saw the factor, was one of the immediate remedies so he can't let his non-belief in the punishment aspect of our system ruin others lives. He has to go, like the Catholic Priests had to go after decades of silence. WE THE PEOPLE have to unite and stop the abuse of our most valuable asset, our children.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Brainstorm------ How about all you talking heads out there WATCH THE FACTOR tonight and as my wife tells me "Just the facts Joe" and give facts of program tomorrow on this site? How's that so we're all on the same page I'm in>>>>>>>>> Anyone else commit to just the segment (I'm sure he'll continue it) on Vt.????? just 10 minutes of your time 8 EST on Fox Network! EVERYONE in!!!!!!!!????????
Originally Posted By cmpaley *Once again, pencils in "Watch DVD" for the two timeslots the "O'Lielly Factor" will be on*
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Excellent points Pass but he had the tools of 8 years and chose 2 months. Again to be tautological, He HAD the tools of 8 years, which he could have used, but did not. He also belittled the U.S. Judicial system fir which he took a solemn oath to uphold. Surely, being a lawyer, you must yourself be offended by his aberrant behavior propensities." Dial it down, man, dial it down. Sorry, but I don't buy into the O'Reilly spiel AT ALL. And yes, I've watched him, plenty. I see you're going to ignore the points about rehabilitation, and the fact that if he violates terms of the sentence he could go back for much longer than the eight years you would prefer. All well and good, but that also ignores the protocol the judge is supposed to follow. I also don't get ayt all this reactionary bit about "belittling the justice system". Quite honestly, I'd say those who continue to rail on against this judge are doing the same thing.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Why the sardonic fear CM? I don't think an uninformed person should be taken seriously in any rational discussion. If you told me to watch a certain program that sheds legitimate light on subjects, I would. Are you that afraid of the truth? If it's not the truth, then give your best VALID point for point arguments. Don't you want to be taken seriously? Maybe you're just being funny and I apologize if you are except child rape is not funny and you not wanting to watch the AG for Vt. etc doesn't show your concern for this subject. As Bill is wont to say "Where am I going wrong here"?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If you told me to watch a certain program that sheds legitimate light on subjects, I would.' Respectfully, I've watched O'Reilly, and his show ain't it.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass--------his honor's own comments belittled the system! I can't dial down HIS remarks and I did say you made good points--------reread my e! Maybe we can talk on the phone as it seems people aren't reading my e's here.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe "Excellent points pass" Did you reread it???????? You are absolutely 100% right about the not liking the rehab being central. Child molesters do NOT reform. It's like saying gays can go straight. The stats are like 99% hence the people like me with kids want to protect the kids and don't like the judge shooting for the 1% longshot!!!! It's gambling with our children.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe If it ain't it then give specific eg's like in a court of law or public opinion not just "It ain't it" We need facts and specific examples or we have nothing but rabble rousing lynch mobs whatever the cause may be.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Factor begins in 5 minutes!!!!!!!! Watch it and critique with facts i.e. Bill said this and it is untrue because and give concrete reasons. Rational thoughtdoes rule at the end of the day.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "If it ain't it then give specific eg's like in a court of law or public opinion not just "It ain't it" We need facts and specific examples or we have nothing but rabble rousing lynch mobs whatever the cause may be." You really do need to slow down. I think we're all going to just have to disagree on O'Reilly. If you find what you're looking for watching that show, good for you. Many of us find him full of himself and/or hot air.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Okay! No examples but I respect after a hard day's work like myself also, I don't want to do the R and D myself so I respect your views. Thanks for the rollercoaster ride and I will now let Bill and the boys battle it out and Larry King and Greta and hannity. I like to learn from everyone.:O night night LP
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "You are absolutely 100% right about the not liking the rehab being central. Child molesters do NOT reform. It's like saying gays can go straight." And this is where you need to slam on the brakes. YOU might not like the idea of rehabilitation, and maybe even the judge doesn't like it, but he's bound by the law to apply the sentencing guidelines given him. I've seen the judge's comments, and didn't find them offensive at all.
