Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Bill O'Reilly Loses His Mind (or, Battle of the Fox News Juggernauts)

- Found On The Net (https://thetfp.com/tfp/found-net/)

- - Bill O'Reilly Loses His Mind (or, Battle of the Fox News Juggernauts) (https://thetfp.com/tfp/found-net/115716-bill-oreilly-loses-his-mind-battle-fox-news-juggernauts.html)

Bill O'Reilly Loses His Mind (or, Battle of the Fox News Juggernauts)

In this clip, Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly duke it out. To quote another site:

Quote:

A young girl was tragically killed by a drunk driver. But this was not enough for O'Reilly. Instead, because the criminal was an illegal alien he added this incident to his ongoing crusade against the brown people. Luckily Geraldo was on the show and he - to his credit - called out O'Reilly's xenophobia for exactly what it was. This drove Bill O'Reilly insane. I was almost certain he was going to reach across the table and hit Geraldo.

Later, a news conference was held in response to O'Reilly's criticism:

Quote:

The mayor and Tessa Trachant's father both said that making an issue out of immigration loses the focus that the girls were killed by a man that police said was driving drunk.
Ray Trachant said, "We need to heal, and to bring immigration, that's disrespectful to a family who's just mourning."

Anyway, I posted this here primarily because it's entertaining and pretty incredible. Obviously, there are probably some people here who may agree with O'Reilly, and others who will agree with Geraldo. Still, there will be others, like me, who find their head spinning because they want to agree with Geraldo, but....it's Geraldo! :lol: Discuss the politics if you must, but sometimes it's best to just enjoy the show :)

O'Reilly never had much of a good mind to lose in the first place. He's an arrogant, lying SOB who's willing to arrogantly lie for the extreme right, and therefore Murdoch employs him on what is tragically and falsely called the Fox NEWS channel. Anyone who looks at him as a reasoned commentator on the day's events is doing so through Rush-tinted glasses. Except even Limbaugh doesn't claim to run a news show.

Man, O'Reilly really flipped out there. He's a douche though and I seriously cannot stand him. It doesn't matter if it was Jesus that was driving drunk, fact remains the guy was driving drunk and killed someone. It has nothing to do with him being illegal or not.

ORly is an idiot. I'm not a fan of Rivera, but I agree with him.

Let me repeat this: O'reilly is an idiot. I hope he comes on to TFP so he can flame and bait and get permanently banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esoteric

Quote:

O'Reilly said Alfredo Ramos should have been deported after a previous drinking charge.

Police said Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was believed to be intoxicated when he ran into 17-year-old Allison Kuhnhardt and 16-year-old Tessa Tranchant's vehicle Friday night, killing them.

so the first one was a freebie?

So then the Beltway sniper could have been prevented if they were deported yes? So we don't want to bother with preventing crimes we just decry the fact they were commited in the first place?

Quote:

This is an Immigration and Naturalization report (first disclosed by columnist Michelle Malkin) describing Malvo's illegal entry into the United States. The December 2001 report was filed after INS agents were contacted by police in Bellingham, Washington. Cops there were apparently responding to a "custody dispute" between Malvo's mother and John Muhammad, whom the INS report describes as "no relation to the son, Lee Malvo." Immigration officials determined that the pair were in the country illegally and detained them. Both were later released from a Seattle INS detention facility, in lieu of a deportation hearing. (2 pages)

While BOR (not Bill O'Rights) shows his whatever, I agree it doesn't matter the race the person is, but it does matter the legal standing of the individual, be it a legal resident or illegal alien. Crimes committed by illegal aliens have more potential to be mitigated by removing them from the country in the first place.

and will, I'd rather the illegals drive drunk and commit crimes in your neighborhood since obviously you don't care that they do. At least I'll know they are on the other side of the US and not anywhere near me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

and will, I'd rather the illegals drive drunk and commit crimes in your neighborhood since obviously you don't care that they do. At least I'll know they are on the other side of the US and not anywhere near me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geraldo Rivera

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens.

...so yes, I'll take the safer people in my neighborhood, thanks.

My brother was arrested five times for drunk driving and because he is an upstanding white citizen with enough money to provide a good defense ($20,000 for just his lawyer on the last go around) he was able to stay out of jail. Even with a three strikes law. He never hurt anyone, but he certainly could have. I was a little disgusted when he got out of the last one especially. Since we were all sure he was going to to go to prision. But, no.

On a more positive note, he hasn't had a drink since his last arrest.

But really, is the legal status of this man really that relevant in light of what American citizens with the means to provide a good defense are getting away with every day?

I agree with Geraldo...and that was really hard to type.

<and on a side note, I'm not at all convinced that that wasn't a totally staged incident...I'm such a cynic>

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

...so yes, I'll take the safer people in my neighborhood, thanks.

nice and snarky, I love it! Actually that's not what I implied nor stated. I stated the that you can have the illegals that ARE committing crimes since you don't care that they are.

Otherwise, everyone would be able to say "Well look at Cynthetiq being all Xenophobic and hating against the brown people." I'm not advocating not having illegals near me, I live in a city of 8 million there are illegals at ever turn. Since part of the population explosions of most large cities have been illegal immigrants. I'm saying you caught them for crimes already, remove them from the area unless they file for Asylum or Refugee status.

But you keep thinking that it's the safer people, that illegal that was caught once before for drunk driving, and the Beltway sniper who killed 10 people. Both situations resulted in needless tradgedies that could have been prevented if the government did not fail the people it's sworn to protect., but people get all caught up in the idea that "Oh hating on the illegals again."

LOL!!!!!

I think they are both idiots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Drunk Driving = Upstanding citizen? or you referring to when he wasn't driving drunk he was an upstanding citizen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Drunk Driving = Upstanding citizen? or you referring to when he wasn't driving drunk he was an upstanding citizen?

Personally do I think he was an upstanding citizen? No, I don't think he was.

But if you want to argue about the fact that white people with money get preferential treatment in our justice system we can certainly do that. Although it would be off the topic...even though I started it down that path, I suppose.

I'm about to go out an meet some of our fellow TFP'ers...I'm in too good a mood to argue. :)

:) It's a good day for that, enjoy your outing!

Anyone with money gets preferential treatment in the justice system. It doesn't matter if they are white, OJ proved that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

so the first one was a freebie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

But really, is the legal status of this man really that relevant in light of what American citizens with the means to provide a good defense are getting away with every day?

Thank you, mixedmedia. :)

The key to this discussion, in my opinion, is immigration reform. The US has a negative birthrate. You need immigrants. Period.

Yes, there are illegal immigrants. Just make it easier for them to immigrate.

End of problem.

I think o'reilly just needs a torta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

nice and snarky, I love it! Actually that's not what I implied nor stated. I stated the that you can have the illegals that ARE committing crimes since you don't care that they are.

So because I think that immigration laws are broken, that means that I want people to commit crimes in my neighborhood? Snarky.

By the way... to the title of this thread.

I don't think BOR has lost his mind at all. He just spoke his mind. His subtle form of racism should be apparent to all to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

By the way... to the title of this thread.

I don't think BOR has lost his mind at all. He just spoke his mind. His subtle form of racism should be apparent to all to see.

Well, I took the title from another blog actually, but I have to say...I swear it looked like his top was going to blow like in one of those cartoons where the character gets mad and smoke blows out of their ears and their hair pops off their head and starts twirling in the air ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

So because I think that immigration laws are broken, that means that I want people to commit crimes in my neighborhood? Snarky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geraldo Rivera
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens.

...so yes, I'll take the safer people in my neighborhood, thanks.

I didn't say that, you did. I offered them up, you said, yes please.

I think there is a key missing word in that sentence, and it should read, reported crimes committed by illegal aliens are lower than that of normal citizens.

When someone you know is killed. Gone forever. It's hard to deal with the fact that had that person not been there, for whatever reason, they would still be here, laughing and smiling. You have no idea how hard that is. No idea.

And when that reason is something as clear as a repeat offense, when the police / immigration had a clear duty to deport somebody who had committed a felony previously...

Your heart breaks. That's not racism, or xenophobia, it's grief.

How many times have you heard the question "if you could just prevent one"

Well this is an example of that. I despise O'Reilly, but my heart agrees with him, and my mind with Geraldo.

I think that the fact that this man kills someone an then kills again should be what's discussed, though. Where he comes from should be inconsequential, shouldn't it? I mean if someone were to commit a murder, and he had multiple parking violations, or downloaded music from Kazaa....we wouldn't really think those facts were pertinent to the case. If a man is killed by a person who download music illegally, and the RIAA cries bloody murder, we'd all be on the RIAA like white on rice. This is the same thing. The man in this case happens to be an illegal immigrant, and those big loud assholes like O'Reilly are ready to twist this into something it's not. That's horribly disrespectful and shameful.

I think the focus should be on preventing the crime in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think the focus should be on preventing the crime in the future.

Couldn't the crime have been prevented in the future if the illegal alien was deported since they had already caught him before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Couldn't the crime have been prevented in the future if the illegal alien was deported since they had already caught him before?

You shouldn't speculate on what might have happened "if."

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrandani

And when that reason is something as clear as a repeat offense, when the police / immigration had a clear duty to deport somebody who had committed a felony previously...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I think that the fact that this man kills someone an then kills again should be what's discussed, though.

If this man had killed someone once before and then killed again, then the outrage over him not being deported the first time would be completely valid. However, that's not the case. He was simply caught driving under the influence once before - a misdemeanor - and then got in the fatal accident the second time, killing two people. What was done was exactly what should have been done: when he committed the misdemeanor, his citizenship was not checked because it is simply not productive to check the citizenship of every single person that goes through the police department, but when he committed the felony, his citizenship was checked and he was caught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

There's a small, but not insignificant, problem with this statement: the man had not previously committed a felony. That's the whole point. Driving under the influence, in most states - and in the state in question - is not a felony. And, as the mayor stated, they check citizenship when a felony is committed, not otherwise. It would be terribly expensive to check citizenship for every single crime committed, and I would certainly hope no one would propose checking citizenship only for every single crime committed by a latino. So, we're left having to have a cut-off point. In that state, it is to check citizenship when a felony is committed, which it wasn't the first time he got a DUI. Not only do the mayor and governor understand this, the parents of both the victims do as well. That fact goes against the "broken heart, not xenophobia" argument as well. Neither of the people who did lose a loved one are wondering "why wasn't he deported the first time?"

If this man had killed someone once before and then killed again, then the outrage over him not being deported the first time would be completely valid. However, that's not the case. He was simply caught driving under the influence once before - a misdemeanor - and then got in the fatal accident the second time, killing two people. What was done was exactly what should have been done: when he committed the misdemeanor, his citizenship was not checked because it is simply not productive to check the citizenship of every single person that goes through the police department, but when he committed the felony, his citizenship was checked and he was caught.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize that DUI/DWI is only a misdemeanor in some states. I was under the impression that over the years, with all the increases of penalties, zero tolerance laws, decreasing the BAC, laws created for refusal of breath, blood, urine test, et. al. that the crime was actually a felony. Heck it is a felony to assault a NYC bus driver.

For the state of NY in which I live:

Quote:

V&T Law §§1192 & 1193(1)(c)
impaired offenses: 1st offense is a traffic infraction, 2nd and subsequent offenses are misdemeanors.
per se offenses: 1st offense is a misdemeanor, 2nd offense within 10 years is a class E felony, 3rd offense within 10 years is a class D felony

and the rest of the Tri-State which has supposedly has reciprocity of driving records:
NJ

Quote:

State v Hamm 577 A.2d 1259 (NJ 1990)
drunk driving is not a "crime"

Quote:

In State v. Hamm, 577 A.2d 1259 (N.J. 1990), the defendant was charged with his third driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense. The possible penalties for a third DWI offense in New Jersey included 180 days incarceration, a$1,000 fine, 10-year driver’s license suspension, and up to 90 days of community service. Although the latter penalties could have been imposed in addition to the 180-day incarceration period, the court concluded that the legislature had not so "’packed’[the DWI] offense with onerous penalties"as to clearly reflect a legislative determination that DWI is a serious offense requiring a jury trial. Hamm, supra, 577 A.2d at 1267.

Quote:

§§14-227a(h), 53a-25 & 53a-26
1st and 2nd offenses are misdemeanors, 3rd and subsequent offenses are felonies

For the state of Virginia where this happened:

Quote:

§§18.2-10(f), 18.2-11(a) & 18.2-270
1st offense and 2nd offenses within 10 years are class 1 misdemeanors, 3rd offense within 10 years is a class 6 felony.

Seems like to me that zero tolerance means more like "We give you one free pass, then it's zero tolerance..."

Criminal Status of State Drunk Driving Laws

So in this sitation I understand completely why it is what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

which of course brings us back around to Geraldo's point - it's not about illegals, it's about drunk driving. DWI absolutely should be a felony, and a big one at that. You should lose your license forever if you're caught pulling that crap.

Geraldo is no dummy. He just happens to love money, he knows how to make a lot of it (produce sensationalist bullshit), and no longer cares about the societal consequences of encouraging such hedonism, but every once in awhile a little bit of good old fashioned common sense pokes through.

This is fucking SPECTACULAR!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Couldn't the crime have been prevented in the future if the illegal alien was deported since they had already caught him before?

Couldn't the crime have been prevented by getting everyone who downloads music?

The crimes are unrelated, therefore relating them is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smeth

If this man had killed someone once before and then killed again, then the outrage over him not being deported the first time would be completely valid. However, that's not the case. He was simply caught driving under the influence once before - a misdemeanor - and then got in the fatal accident the second time, killing two people. What was done was exactly what should have been done: when he committed the misdemeanor, his citizenship was not checked because it is simply not productive to check the citizenship of every single person that goes through the police department, but when he committed the felony, his citizenship was checked and he was caught.

I couldn't agree more. Well put! :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Couldn't the crime have been prevented by getting everyone who downloads music?

You're late to the party. Cynthetiq already stated that he realized that the disconnect lies in the fact that the DUI wasn't a felony in the state in which it occurred, and thus did not incur a citizenship check.

Are you not paying attention, or just looking for chances to score zingers? There was enough of that in the other thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I was responding to his post in response to mine, which happened to be after his response to Smeth. I was finishing the conversation, nothing more.

this is what I thought was already happening when I first read the OP, now it will happen in the state of NJ.

Quote:

Cops will ask: Are you legal?
After Newark killings, AG orders police to check suspects' immigration status
Thursday, August 23, 2007
BY RICK HEPP AND BRIAN DONOHUE
Star-Ledger Staff
Police in New Jersey are now under orders to ask suspects they arrest for serious crimes or drunken driving this question: Are you here legally?

Setting a statewide policy where none existed, Attorney General Anne Milgram yesterday made immigration checks a routine part of police procedure, requiring state and local officers to notify federal authorities when they have reason to believe a suspect is in the country illegally.

At the same time, the attorney general prohibited officers from inquiring about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses or persons reporting a crime, so that unauthorized immigrants can come forward without fear of deportation.

The orders, which take effect immediately, come as questions continue to mount over the handling of a suspect in the recent killings of three college students in a Newark schoolyard. One of the chief suspects, Jose Lachira Carranza, was an illegal immigrant from Peru who was out on bail awaiting trial on charges of aggravated assault and child rape.

Essex County prosecutors and the state Superior Court said they did not know Carranza was here illegally when bail was set in the two cases -- which is why Milgram yesterday also ordered police to notify county prosecutors and the court if they believe a suspect is not authorized to be here.

"There's no question that the Newark tragedy really shined a light and brought focus to the question of what was happening throughout the state with regard to notification to immigration authorities," Milgram said. "What we found was that it depended ... on who the police chief was and what county you were in. There is a need for a uniform state policy."

The order drew praise from county and local police departments, although groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey cautioned that it could lead to abuse by local officers.

"There needs to be more training with regard to this and other related issues to ensure it doesn't go down a path of enforcing federal immigration policy or racial profiling," said Charles "Shai" Goldstein, executive director of the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network.

Milgram said the state will monitor departments periodically to insure compliance and issue an annual report on how often notifications are made. She stressed that officers are prohibited from racial profiling -- treating suspects differently based on their ethnicity.

The attorney general yesterday also set limits on participation of state, county and local officers in a controversial program run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that deputizes police to enforce immigration laws. Milgram said officers can only act as federal deputies once an arrest has been made and cannot patrol towns simply to find illegal immigrants.

Morristown is currently the only New Jersey police department to have applied to the program, although it has yet to be accepted. Milgram yesterday encouraged other departments to apply, particularly those that operate the county jails and state prisons where they can more easily check an offender's status.

Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello said he was pleased Milgram affirmed the right of towns to participate in the ICE program. But he said officers should be able to inquire about those arrested for disorderly person offenses in addition to indictable crimes and drunken driving.

"It would be a shame if you arrested someone who was drunk and disorderly, and then you found out later that the individual was wanted for murder in the country he left," he said.

The new initiative prompted immediate questions about how the already strapped local office of ICE would be able to handle the thousands of new calls and reports that are likely to pour in as a result of the new policy.

Those concerns were underscored by a memo obtained yesterday by The Star-Ledger warning all state judges that ICE was not set up to receive a "large scale" of notifications and to wait until the immigrants were "convicted of other offenses" before notifying federal authorities.

The memo by acting Administrative Director of the Courts Philip Carchman summarized an April meeting in which federal authorities "indicated that they had limited staff and were not really set up to receive notifications on a large scale."

Scott Weber, Newark field office director of ICE's Office of Detention and Removal, yesterday dismissed questions about his agency's ability to handle additional calls and said his office has seen its staff double in the past year.

"Do we have enough resources? We do," said Weber. He added that having police report suspected illegal immigrants at the time of arrest may cut down agents' workload by eliminating the need to scour inmate lists.

The new rules make it more likely, but not certain, that illegal immigrants arrested by local police will eventually be deported. Weber said ICE would likely put detainers on most suspects who are found to be in the country illegally, notifying police they should be turned over to immigration authorities before being released.

ICE would generally hold off on deporting suspects until their criminal cases and possible sentences are complete, but if charges were dismissed, ICE could take custody and begin the deportation process. Suspects subject to immigration detainers may still be released on bail, Weber said.

Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow, whose office was criticized for not reporting Carranza to ICE when he was charged in earlier crimes, applauded Milgram's initiative. She said the office will immediately develop a model form that local police departments in Essex can use to make the referrals.

"It's a good first step to address a very significant problem," Dow said. "I think the attorney general wisely addresses the concerns about protecting the rights of victims."

Newark Mayor Cory Booker -- who has said it is the federal government's duty to enforce immigration laws, not local police -- said the new order was balanced.

"Local officers cannot inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses to crimes or persons requesting police assistance," Booker said. "That makes certain that the safety of Newark residents comes first and ensures that our most vulnerable residents are protected."

In a relatively related matter, Billo is an atheist.

Funny shit if you ask me.

eh, the censorship police nailed this video, wouldn't want to make the conservatives show their true colors now would we?