Bill O points- kids

[SonomaCat]

He's a commentator that's his job....commenting

Yes, he is. I just prefer my commentators to include more substance and less partisanship in their opinion pieces. Others have lower expectations.

You must have a limited list of those

Unfortunately, yes. Couldn't agree more.

[Hell's Bells]

ooh so we should understand wtf made him want to rape little boys...your kidding me right? Honestly i dont see any other information that is relivant other then why the judge gave him such a light sentance to begin with!

Cute ... but no. I'm not talking about the right-wing talking point that suggests that knowing more about an issue means we should take a touchy-feely approach to crime/terrorism/whatever and care more about why they did it than what they did. That's called a straw man argument -- I never said that, so you can't really say "your [sic] kidding me right?"

I am saying that one should actually read a comprehensive background on any story before one makes a judgment about something such as "the judge is evil and didn't sentence this guy harsh enough!!!!!!!!"

Fair enough? Knowledge before harsh opinions?

in some instances yes but in cases like this then no
just trust me i know what happens to kids when they get molested and how much they have to deal with. i have not been involved with either end but i have known several kids that were

[SonomaCat]

And here is an article relating to the prosecutor in the case:

http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... emplate=BA

Turns out it was a plea agreement, agreed to by the family of the victims, that was necessary because the prosecution was having problems getting testimony necessary to get an all-out conviction.

I'll be damned ... a little knowledge suddenly makes the issue much more complex, doesn't it?

[Hello Kitty]

ooh so we should understand wtf made him want to rape little boys...your kidding me right? Honestly i dont see any other information that is relivant other then why the judge gave him such a light sentance to begin with!

Cute ... but no. I'm not talking about the right-wing talking point that suggests that knowing more about an issue means we should take a touchy-feely approach to crime/terrorism/whatever and care more about why they did it than what they did. That's called a straw man argument -- I never said that, so you can't really say "your [sic] kidding me right?"

I am saying that one should actually read a comprehensive background on any story before one makes a judgment about something such as "the judge is evil and didn't sentence this guy harsh enough!!!!!!!!"


Fair enough? Knowledge before harsh opinions?

I think it awfully harsh of you to suggest that meth and crack addicts should be allowed to kill themselves because it is social Darwinism (another thread)

[Ponycat]

I applaud Bill and others (Kasich, Oprah (yes Oprah Winfry) to name a few) for bringing attention to this BS. Judges and prosecuting attorneys need to be held accountable and the typical "we don't want to put the victim through a tough trial" excuse just doesn't hold water. I've experienced very few victims initiate this thinking.

[SonomaCat]

I think it awfully harsh of you to suggest that meth and crack addicts should be allowed to kill themselves because it is social Darwinism (another thread)

Granted ... but that's what's happening whether it is legal or not (and keep in mind that I am being very cynical when I use terms like that -- in reality, I know it's not a fair statement). Where it really gets hard to rationalize (and I avoided this earlier) is when people on this stuff actually do get pregnant (thus defeating the whole Darwinism approach). Then you have a kid in a virtual no-win situation.

[G.W.Bush]

I think it awfully harsh of you to suggest that meth and crack addicts should be allowed to kill themselves because it is social Darwinism (another thread)

Granted ... but that's what's happening whether it is legal or not (and keep in mind that I am being very cynical when I use terms like that -- in reality, I know it's not a fair statement). Where it really gets hard to rationalize (and I avoided this earlier) is when people on this stuff actually do get pregnant (thus defeating the whole Darwinism approach). Then you have a kid in a virtual no-win situation.

And the backpedaling begins…

[Ponycat]

And here is an article relating to the prosecutor in the case:

http://www.centralohio.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... emplate=BA

Turns out it was a plea agreement, agreed to by the family of the victims, that was necessary because the prosecution was having problems getting testimony necessary to get an all-out conviction.

I'll be damned ... a little knowledge suddenly makes the issue much more complex, doesn't it?

YES, a lot more complex, the judge and attorney are both saying it was the others fault for not ordering or asking for jail and/or prison time.

[SonomaCat]

I applaud Bill and others (Kasich, Oprah (yes Oprah Winfry) to name a few) for bringing attention to this BS. Judges and prosecuting attorneys need to be held accountable and the typical "we don't want to put the victim through a tough trial" excuse just doesn't hold water. I've experienced very few victims initiate this thinking.

But if the victims don't testify, you can't blame the judge for it.

I am all for intelligent discussions on these issues, but based on Bill's talking points memo, that's not what he's doing. His exclusive goal is to skewer this judge and blame liberals and democrats for the problems of the world.

I agree that an indepth report on the topic of children testifying would be insightful and might bring about some postive change. But merely screaming insults at a judge who is working within the confines of the system is certainly not the most productive route to go.

[SonomaCat]

I think it awfully harsh of you to suggest that meth and crack addicts should be allowed to kill themselves because it is social Darwinism (another thread)

Granted ... but that's what's happening whether it is legal or not (and keep in mind that I am being very cynical when I use terms like that -- in reality, I know it's not a fair statement). Where it really gets hard to rationalize (and I avoided this earlier) is when people on this stuff actually do get pregnant (thus defeating the whole Darwinism approach). Then you have a kid in a virtual no-win situation.

And the backpedaling begins…

So it's backpeddling when I offer my own critiques to my own posts?

On the contrary, it's called having an open-minded discussion of a complex issue, which I am enjoying with Hello Kitty.

[Hello Kitty]

On the contrary, it's called having an open-minded discussion of a complex issue, which I am enjoying with Hello Kitty[/quote]

I am glad that you think it is an open-minded discussion because I feel very close minded about both topics and no matter what you say I wont change my mind

[Ponycat]

I applaud Bill and others (Kasich, Oprah (yes Oprah Winfry) to name a few) for bringing attention to this BS. Judges and prosecuting attorneys need to be held accountable and the typical "we don't want to put the victim through a tough trial" excuse just doesn't hold water. I've experienced very few victims initiate this thinking.

But if the victims don't testify, you can't blame the judge for it.

No but you can blame the judge for not ordering any jail time AT ALL and for accepting a plea of two counts of Sexual Battery when the original charge was 20 counts of Sexual Intercourse without COnsent and 2 other counts. I'm assuming they had so many original counts because they new they could prove at least a couple. I know you trump it up a little to get a guilty plea but I've never seen this big of a drop. Both the Prosecutor and Judge seem lazy to me and should have there feet held to the fire. Even if it is done in an inflammatory way.

[SonomaCat]

On the contrary, it's called having an open-minded discussion of a complex issue, which I am enjoying with Hello Kitty

I am glad that you think it is an open-minded discussion because I feel very close minded about both topics and no matter what you say I wont change my mind [/quote]

But you are approaching the conversation with logic and civility as opposed to hurling talking points and straw man arguments. I love to debate in that setting -- it's so much less confusing than trying to deconstruct what bizarre concept someone is throwing against the wall before even knowing what kind of response is appropriate.

[Grizlaw]

...because I feel very close minded ... and no matter what you say I wont change my mind

Typical female.

[Hell's Bells]

I applaud Bill and others (Kasich, Oprah (yes Oprah Winfry) to name a few) for bringing attention to this BS. Judges and prosecuting attorneys need to be held accountable and the typical "we don't want to put the victim through a tough trial" excuse just doesn't hold water. I've experienced very few victims initiate this thinking.

But if the victims don't testify, you can't blame the judge for it.

No but you can blame the judge for not ordering any jail time AT ALL and for accepting a plea of two counts of Sexual Battery when the original charge was 20 counts of Sexual Intercourse without COnsent and 2 other counts. I'm assuming they had so many original counts because they new they could prove at least a couple. I know you trump it up a little to get a guilty plea but I've never seen this big of a drop. Both the Prosecutor and Judge seem lazy to me and should have there feet held to the fire. Even if it is done in an inflammatory way.

I would not go as far as saying lazy but.......ok i will
it does not leave the judge out of the blame equasion, i agree should have asked for jail time.
this guy must be the luckiest guy on the face of the planet

[briannell]

wow, I knew Bill would get brad to debate, but I'm glad to see that it's an interesting thread - oh and i agree with Kitty