You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do liberals attack Bill O'Reilly for calling out judges who give light sentences...
- Thread starter JW B
- Start date
volleyballchick
New member
I have never attacked Bill O'Reilly for that reason at all. I have attacked him for being an idiot and for telling lies, but if he wants to attack judges for light sentences, I don't care. That is his opinion. It is when he lies that he is not stating an opinion.
...to perverts? http://www.examiner.net/law/x1699584323/Man-gets-five-years-probation-on-child-molestation-charges
This wouldn't be the first time. They went after O'Reilly because he dared show support for Jessica's Law, which Vermont and a number of other states oppose.
For those asking for a source:
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/03/activist_bill_oreilly_encourages_protests_outside_mo_judges_house.php
This wouldn't be the first time. They went after O'Reilly because he dared show support for Jessica's Law, which Vermont and a number of other states oppose.
For those asking for a source:
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/03/activist_bill_oreilly_encourages_protests_outside_mo_judges_house.php
Chewy Ivan
New member
I'm not sure. I don't have any problem with Bill O'Reilly exposing judges who have lost faith with the justice system, and I'm liberal.
I do wonder why conservatives support Bill O'Reilly so much. I thought conservatives were more in favor of states' rights instead of federal government expansion. Why do they support Bill O'Reilly applying his standard to everyone in the nation instead of allowing local communities and state residents to measure their own officials?
I do wonder why conservatives support Bill O'Reilly so much. I thought conservatives were more in favor of states' rights instead of federal government expansion. Why do they support Bill O'Reilly applying his standard to everyone in the nation instead of allowing local communities and state residents to measure their own officials?
We don't. Bill O'Reilly falsely portrayed a San Francisco Chronicle editorial -- about California's proposed "Jessica's Law" -- as based only on concerns for the civil rights of sex offenders. In fact, the editorial was strongly in favor of increased child protection but questioned the effectiveness of the proposed law.
O'Reilly claimed during the "Talking Points Memo" portion of the January 19 program that "[v]irtually all opposition to Jessica's Law ... is coming from the left." As an example, he quoted a January 19 editorial from the "liberal" San Francisco Chronicle:
O'REILLY: For example the liberal San Francisco Chronicle today said this, quote, "For parents, no issue is as great as their children's safety. It's time for elected officials to tone down the rhetoric and get to work on an effective alternative to the seriously flawed 'Jessica's Law.' "
He then asserted:
O'REILLY: The Chronicle doesn't like the law because once a sexual predator is released from prison, that person's movements and living quarters would be monitored by the state.
O'Reilly's excerpt was the last sentence of the editorial and omitted any mention of the actual reasons the Chronicle argued against passage of California's version of "Jessica's Law," proposed in both California houses by Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, husband and wife, and recently rejected in committee by both the California Assembly and Senate.
The Chronicle detailed several potential problems with the law. First, it described concern that residency restrictions would force offenders into rural communities, though it did note that Sen. Runner discounted that concern as "totally bogus." Second, the editorial noted that "[a]n 80-page analysis" of the bill "raised myriad other questions about the potential side effects of its extensive rewrite of sentencing laws." From these "potential side effects," the Chronicle wrote specifically of "various problems with satellite tracking of parolees -- including reliability problems that cause law enforcement to chase many false alarms." It is this worry that prompted the Chronicle to state: "There is good reason to question the value of such an extensive monitoring program proposed in the Runners' bills."
The editorial did mention "concerns about its [the bill's] civil-liberties implications," but only in the same sentence as the bill's "great potential for unintended consequences." For these reasons, the Chronicle also wrote that it opposed the Runners' attempt to put the measure on California's public ballot. The Chronicle said that "[t]he ballot box is no place to settle an issue of this complexity and importance to public safety." Rather, the editorial urged legislators to look to alternative bills promoting child safety
O'Reilly claimed during the "Talking Points Memo" portion of the January 19 program that "[v]irtually all opposition to Jessica's Law ... is coming from the left." As an example, he quoted a January 19 editorial from the "liberal" San Francisco Chronicle:
O'REILLY: For example the liberal San Francisco Chronicle today said this, quote, "For parents, no issue is as great as their children's safety. It's time for elected officials to tone down the rhetoric and get to work on an effective alternative to the seriously flawed 'Jessica's Law.' "
He then asserted:
O'REILLY: The Chronicle doesn't like the law because once a sexual predator is released from prison, that person's movements and living quarters would be monitored by the state.
O'Reilly's excerpt was the last sentence of the editorial and omitted any mention of the actual reasons the Chronicle argued against passage of California's version of "Jessica's Law," proposed in both California houses by Sen. George Runner and Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, husband and wife, and recently rejected in committee by both the California Assembly and Senate.
The Chronicle detailed several potential problems with the law. First, it described concern that residency restrictions would force offenders into rural communities, though it did note that Sen. Runner discounted that concern as "totally bogus." Second, the editorial noted that "[a]n 80-page analysis" of the bill "raised myriad other questions about the potential side effects of its extensive rewrite of sentencing laws." From these "potential side effects," the Chronicle wrote specifically of "various problems with satellite tracking of parolees -- including reliability problems that cause law enforcement to chase many false alarms." It is this worry that prompted the Chronicle to state: "There is good reason to question the value of such an extensive monitoring program proposed in the Runners' bills."
The editorial did mention "concerns about its [the bill's] civil-liberties implications," but only in the same sentence as the bill's "great potential for unintended consequences." For these reasons, the Chronicle also wrote that it opposed the Runners' attempt to put the measure on California's public ballot. The Chronicle said that "[t]he ballot box is no place to settle an issue of this complexity and importance to public safety." Rather, the editorial urged legislators to look to alternative bills promoting child safety
Obama is a Thief
New member
Because personal accountability is not high on the liberal's mindset.
Wow it's clearly a question O'really but thanks for exposing yourself as a troll who simply runs around reporting people because you don't like their point of view. For the poster if your question is removed please appeal it you will win and O'really will lose influence when reporting falsely next time helping to prevent him from doing this again.
Wow it's clearly a question O'really but thanks for exposing yourself as a troll who simply runs around reporting people because you don't like their point of view. For the poster if your question is removed please appeal it you will win and O'really will lose influence when reporting falsely next time helping to prevent him from doing this again.
Obama is a Thief
New member
Because personal accountability is not high on the liberal's mindset.
Wow it's clearly a question O'really but thanks for exposing yourself as a troll who simply runs around reporting people because you don't like their point of view. For the poster if your question is removed please appeal it you will win and O'really will lose influence when reporting falsely next time helping to prevent him from doing this again.
Wow it's clearly a question O'really but thanks for exposing yourself as a troll who simply runs around reporting people because you don't like their point of view. For the poster if your question is removed please appeal it you will win and O'really will lose influence when reporting falsely next time helping to prevent him from doing this again.