The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I was listening to the radio at 8AM this morning when I heard a small report about the interview with OJ Simpson about his new book on Fox. They said that O'Reilly was urging people not too watch it, boycotting companies who put up ads during it (I believe) and generally attacking it.
Just saying: After all the nonsense I've seen on Fox News, this is one of the most sensible things I've heard, and it was from Bill O'Reilly, of all people.
Looks like the Catholic Church would have fired the Virgin Mary if they had been in business back then.
Hey, if God had sent an angel down to the principal's office that said, "Don't fire the bitch, the big man knocked her up." I am sure he would have given it due consideration.
Wii Code: 1231 4448 8299 3147 ((Send me a PM and come join the party))
Looks like the Catholic Church would have fired the Virgin Mary if they had been in business back then.
Hey, if God had sent an angel down to the principal's office that said, "Don't fire the bitch, the big man knocked her up." I am sure he would have given it due consideration.
Wii Code: 1231 4448 8299 3147 ((Send me a PM and come join the party))
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Actually, that makes sense to me on a deep level.... wow.
In all seriousness, things just became stunningly clear in my head.
It can be weird when you suddenly stop smoking pot. Like, you probably know where your car keys are right now. No, you aren't psychic - you can remember things.
Actually, that makes sense to me on a deep level.... wow.
In all seriousness, things just became stunningly clear in my head.
It can be weird when you suddenly stop smoking pot. Like, you probably know where your car keys are right now. No, you aren't psychic - you can remember things.
It's an ironic twist that conservatives gravitate toward the Roman Empire as a historic example when the Roman Empire crucified Jesus and it was Christianity that in large part served to make it "all tolerating".
Something he also said in that interview
"Rome fell when it became all tolerating"
Alexander Demandt alone pubished over 200 theories on why Rome fell, but we didn't know the truth until Bill. Thank you, Bill O'Reilly, for explaining a historical mystery with one fell swoop of brilliance. :^:
I was listening to the radio at 8AM this morning when I heard a small report about the interview with OJ Simpson about his new book on Fox. They said that O'Reilly was urging people not too watch it, boycotting companies who put up ads during it (I believe) and generally attacking it.
Just saying: After all the nonsense I've seen on Fox News, this is one of the most sensible things I've heard, and it was from Bill O'Reilly, of all people.
I was listening to the radio at 8AM this morning when I heard a small report about the interview with OJ Simpson about his new book on Fox. They said that O'Reilly was urging people not too watch it, boycotting companies who put up ads during it (I believe) and generally attacking it.
Just saying: After all the nonsense I've seen on Fox News, this is one of the most sensible things I've heard, and it was from Bill O'Reilly, of all people.
Anyone know what to make of this?
Did he ask people to boycott Fox?
Yeah, I was gonna say, this is weird, because Fox is broadcasting the special, and owns the publishing house that is selling the book.
Its hard to believe this OJ shit started 12 years ago and it still stings our society, justice system and media.
Football + Sociopathic Narcissist + Murder=Media Frenzy
And actually regular Fox News anchors were condemning it the other day. I happened to catch it during the PS3 fiasco and they basically said it was in poor taste (I remember thinking it was somewhat ironic with the Fox News logo in the corner).
I was listening to the radio at 8AM this morning when I heard a small report about the interview with OJ Simpson about his new book on Fox. They said that O'Reilly was urging people not too watch it, boycotting companies who put up ads during it (I believe) and generally attacking it.
Just saying: After all the nonsense I've seen on Fox News, this is one of the most sensible things I've heard, and it was from Bill O'Reilly, of all people.
Anyone know what to make of this?
Did he ask people to boycott Fox?
Yeah, I was gonna say, this is weird, because Fox is broadcasting the special, and owns the publishing house that is selling the book.
Fox probably doesn't care about him condemning it because they feel any publicity is good publicity.
Couscous on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
Fox News has been actively trying to distance themselves from Fox Broadcasting. Almost every one of their anchors has expressed indignation, anger, and worse at this activity, and many have been pushing for a boycott of Fox on this one. They always disclaimer that Fox Broadcasting and Fox News are both owned by News Corp, but Fox News generally hates Fox Broadcasting.
Athenor on
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons Rome fell was it relied on slaves to do all the work.
Really tolerating like
I think it was mainly because Rome's army was spread too thin, but its reliance on lead and slaves contributed to it too.
Well from what I learned from my history class, it was a number of things; expanding their empire to much, spreading out their army, promising land to their soilders contributed to expanding the empire bit, corruption in their government. By the time the barbarians came Rome was basically dead.
Fox News has been actively trying to distance themselves from Fox Broadcasting. Almost every one of their anchors has expressed indignation, anger, and worse at this activity, and many have been pushing for a boycott of Fox on this one. They always disclaimer that Fox Broadcasting and Fox News are both owned by News Corp, but Fox News generally hates Fox Broadcasting.
They should definitely go after the head company, and the man putting this filth on television. All morally upright citizens would never work under such a terrible man. Boycott, I say!
The moral leaders at the esteemed Fox News should lead the charge.
I thought he was kinda smart when he went after judges that gave light sentances to sex offenders.
No?
Actually I don't recall why, but I do recall that there was a smartish reason to not give them heavy sentences. I'm too lazy to do the research right now though.
Shinto on
0
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
As I recall the judge wanted a more integrated, step-by-step punishment rather than just a lot of time in jail outright.
Bill O'reilly doesn't appear to realize that punishment can involve more than prison-time.
iowa on
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
edited November 2006
From what I gather, Bill O'riley's big issue involves Sex Offenders that are only in jail for 6 weeks to a few months, and are then released into a system where they are not required to check in with parole officers.
His largest base of activisim is laws for the tracking and punishment of child molesters, especially the tracking part.
Athenor on
He/Him | "We who believe in freedom cannot rest." - Dr. Johnetta Cole, 7/22/2024
What kind of sex offenders are we talking about here? "Sex offender" is a rather broad category.
Child molestors if I recall.
Yeah, but I think the case in question was the one where the judge was threatening to give a child molester a ridiculously light sentence if the prosecutor did not put treatment back on the table. The judge wanted jail and treatment, because the dude wasn't up on a life-sentence-no-parole charge; the prosecutor just wanted jail, presumably because he is tough on crime.
If the dude's got a chance of hitting the street again, I think any sane person would want them to have gone through some serious counselling before they're released. It might not work, but no counselling at all sure as hell isn't, and there actually being a counsellor involved at least means that someone can turn in a report saying "No way in hell" to the parole board if the guy shows no signs of responding to treament or is still in denial about his crimes.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I thought he was kinda smart when he went after judges that gave light sentances to sex offenders.
No?
So I looked it up. What set the issue off was a Vermont judge who gave something like a two month sentence to a sex offender.
The sex offender was what the state of Vermont classifies as a "type A" sex offender, meaning that with treatment the likelihood of his re-offending would be significantly diminished. However the state laws did not provide treatment as an option, they only provided for jail time.
In his ruling the judge first decided that the laws providing for jail time alone were unacceptable as a sentence because they neither kept the offender in prison for the rest of his life nor did they privide him with the treatment necessary to protect potential future victims. The public was not therefore safe.
So he gave the man a light sentence as a protest to get the attention of law makers. The laws were promptly changed to provide treatment for type A offenders. Because of what the judge did there will probably be hundreds of fewer children molested in Vermont in the coming decade.
All that is much to nuanced for a man like O'Reilly though.
It's an ironic twist that conservatives gravitate toward the Roman Empire as a historic example when the Roman Empire crucified Jesus and it was Christianity that in large part served to make it "all tolerating".
Yeah, but those Christians were a whole 'nother bunch compared to the constantinian reformationist great-awakening fundamentalist evangelicals of America today.
Actually, that makes sense to me on a deep level.... wow.
In all seriousness, things just became stunningly clear in my head.
It can be weird when you suddenly stop smoking pot. Like, you probably know where your car keys are right now. No, you aren't psychic - you can remember things.
:^: to Shinto. May your brilliance never cease to amaze me.
I thought he was kinda smart when he went after judges that gave light sentances to sex offenders.
No?
So I looked it up. What set the issue off was a Vermont judge who gave something like a two month sentence to a sex offender.
The sex offender was what the state of Vermont classifies as a "type A" sex offender, meaning that with treatment the likelihood of his re-offending would be significantly diminished. However the state laws did not provide treatment as an option, they only provided for jail time.
In his ruling the judge first decided that the laws providing for jail time alone were unacceptable as a sentence because they neither kept the offender in prison for the rest of his life nor did they privide him with the treatment necessary to protect potential future victims. The public was not therefore safe.
So he gave the man a light sentence as a protest to get the attention of law makers. The laws were promptly changed to provide treatment for type A offenders. Because of what the judge did there will probably be hundreds of fewer children molested in Vermont in the coming decade.
All that is much to nuanced for a man like O'Reilly though.
No, you do not give a child molester a ridicously small punishment to make a point. that is complete garbage. The man needs to learn what he did was wrong, and politics should not intefer with that. The man receives no punishment or treatment. whats to stop him from doing it again? "Oh look, this nice new law was passed, but oops the guy I gave a short jail time raped jimmy again. too bad." I mean how badly mentally has the kid the man molested been affected? the man needs to face his punishment for his horrible act.
I thought he was kinda smart when he went after judges that gave light sentances to sex offenders.
No?
So I looked it up. What set the issue off was a Vermont judge who gave something like a two month sentence to a sex offender.
The sex offender was what the state of Vermont classifies as a "type A" sex offender, meaning that with treatment the likelihood of his re-offending would be significantly diminished. However the state laws did not provide treatment as an option, they only provided for jail time.
In his ruling the judge first decided that the laws providing for jail time alone were unacceptable as a sentence because they neither kept the offender in prison for the rest of his life nor did they privide him with the treatment necessary to protect potential future victims. The public was not therefore safe.
So he gave the man a light sentence as a protest to get the attention of law makers. The laws were promptly changed to provide treatment for type A offenders. Because of what the judge did there will probably be hundreds of fewer children molested in Vermont in the coming decade.
All that is much to nuanced for a man like O'Reilly though.
No, you do not give a child molester a ridicously small punishment to make a point. that is complete garbage. The man needs to learn what he did was wrong, and politics should not intefer with that. The man receives no punishment or treatment. whats to stop him from doing it again? "Oh look, this nice new law was passed, but oops the guy I gave a short jail time raped jimmy again. too bad." I mean how badly mentally has the kid the man molested been affected? the man needs to face his punishment for his horrible act.
Prison needs to be a treatment and a punishment.
I tend to regard what the judge did as right because:
Before he did it offenders were not being treated which was resulting in more kids being molested.
After he did it offenders were being treated which is resulting in less kids being molested.
So my question to you really has to be: why are you in favor of kids being molested?
Actually, that makes sense to me on a deep level.... wow.
In all seriousness, things just became stunningly clear in my head.
It can be weird when you suddenly stop smoking pot. Like, you probably know where your car keys are right now. No, you aren't psychic - you can remember things.
:^: to Shinto. May your brilliance never cease to amaze me.
Yeah. It's easy when you routinely rip off stand up comics you see on Comedy Central.
Posts
Actually, that makes sense to me on a deep level.... wow.
In all seriousness, things just became stunningly clear in my head.
I'm just quoting this for hilarity and cleverness.
Well done.
I'm oneupping you and sigging it.
It can be weird when you suddenly stop smoking pot. Like, you probably know where your car keys are right now. No, you aren't psychic - you can remember things.
"Rome fell when it became all tolerating"
On the black screen
It's an ironic twist that conservatives gravitate toward the Roman Empire as a historic example when the Roman Empire crucified Jesus and it was Christianity that in large part served to make it "all tolerating".
Alexander Demandt alone pubished over 200 theories on why Rome fell, but we didn't know the truth until Bill. Thank you, Bill O'Reilly, for explaining a historical mystery with one fell swoop of brilliance. :^:
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons Rome fell was it relied on slaves to do all the work.
Really tolerating like
Also I hope they all lose money on this
I think it was mainly because Rome's army was spread too thin, but its reliance on lead and slaves contributed to it too.
Football + Sociopathic Narcissist + Murder=Media Frenzy
And actually regular Fox News anchors were condemning it the other day. I happened to catch it during the PS3 fiasco and they basically said it was in poor taste (I remember thinking it was somewhat ironic with the Fox News logo in the corner).
Well from what I learned from my history class, it was a number of things; expanding their empire to much, spreading out their army, promising land to their soilders contributed to expanding the empire bit, corruption in their government. By the time the barbarians came Rome was basically dead.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
The moral leaders at the esteemed Fox News should lead the charge.
However after being tainted by Fox News no credible news angency would want them
No?
Actually I don't recall why, but I do recall that there was a smartish reason to not give them heavy sentences. I'm too lazy to do the research right now though.
Child molestors if I recall.
Bill O'reilly doesn't appear to realize that punishment can involve more than prison-time.
His largest base of activisim is laws for the tracking and punishment of child molesters, especially the tracking part.
Yeah, but I think the case in question was the one where the judge was threatening to give a child molester a ridiculously light sentence if the prosecutor did not put treatment back on the table. The judge wanted jail and treatment, because the dude wasn't up on a life-sentence-no-parole charge; the prosecutor just wanted jail, presumably because he is tough on crime.
If the dude's got a chance of hitting the street again, I think any sane person would want them to have gone through some serious counselling before they're released. It might not work, but no counselling at all sure as hell isn't, and there actually being a counsellor involved at least means that someone can turn in a report saying "No way in hell" to the parole board if the guy shows no signs of responding to treament or is still in denial about his crimes.
So I looked it up. What set the issue off was a Vermont judge who gave something like a two month sentence to a sex offender.
The sex offender was what the state of Vermont classifies as a "type A" sex offender, meaning that with treatment the likelihood of his re-offending would be significantly diminished. However the state laws did not provide treatment as an option, they only provided for jail time.
In his ruling the judge first decided that the laws providing for jail time alone were unacceptable as a sentence because they neither kept the offender in prison for the rest of his life nor did they privide him with the treatment necessary to protect potential future victims. The public was not therefore safe.
So he gave the man a light sentence as a protest to get the attention of law makers. The laws were promptly changed to provide treatment for type A offenders. Because of what the judge did there will probably be hundreds of fewer children molested in Vermont in the coming decade.
All that is much to nuanced for a man like O'Reilly though.
:^: to Shinto. May your brilliance never cease to amaze me.
Prison needs to be a treatment and a punishment.
I tend to regard what the judge did as right because:
Before he did it offenders were not being treated which was resulting in more kids being molested.
After he did it offenders were being treated which is resulting in less kids being molested.
So my question to you really has to be: why are you in favor of kids being molested?
Yeah. It's easy when you routinely rip off stand up comics you see on Comedy Central.