Paris if a free woman again...

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Oh yeah, your quote from the Josh Hancock thread...

I understand that the family is suffering by losing a son but this is another example of folks simply not taking responsibility for their own behavior...or, in this case, a father blaming everyone but his son for his son's behavior. According to reports, the restuarant manager tried to talk him into taking a cab, he was 2x the legal limit, speeding, talking on his cell, and he had grass in the car...the family should consider themselves lucky if the tow truck driver and the person with the disabled car don't sue them (son's estate). He could have killed several innocent people as well...sad, but this action is indefensible!

so...lets not blame everyone else but Paris...but hey, you're entitled to your opinion

You continue to focus on Ms Hilton, I've said from the beginning that she is responsible for her actions...this isn't about what she did, it's about her treatment by this judge!!! Knockout punch? I think folks are so filled with their view of things that they can't tolerate a different opinion!

[somerfrost]

I continue to talk about the issue of fairness and folks here simply seem unwilling or unable to get past the "Paris Hilton is an evil bitch who deserves what she gets" mentality! She is responsible for her behavior...and this judge is responsible for his!

[ninetoone]

did the judge commit the crime? Wake up...you are focusing on the wrong person, not everyone else in the world!

Here's an expression you might want to look up:

"cant see the forest for the trees"

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

did the judge commit the crime? Wake up...you are focusing on the wrong person, not everyone else in the world!

Here's an expression you might want to look up:

"cant see the forest for the trees"

You can insult my point of view all you want....the fact remains that all you see is Paris Hilton...the debate has never been about whether she violated her parole, it is about her treatment by this judge! Try thinking about what I'm saying instead of attempting to belittle my pov.

[ninetoone]

I'm being 100 percent serious when I say that you should look up that expression "can't see the forest for the trees". You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but remember, it doesn't make you an intellectual to refuse to focus on the elephant in the room.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

I'm being 100 percent serious when I say that you should look up that expression "can't see the forest for the trees". You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but remember, it doesn't make you an intellectual to refuse to focus on the elephant in the room.

The problem here is that we are talking about two completely different subjects...you are explaining why Paris deserves to "pay for her crime" and I'm talking about a judge who, in my opinion, is grossly overstepping his authority and using someone as a pawn in a "pissing contest" with the sheriff.

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem here is that we are talking about two completely different subjects...you are explaining why Paris deserves to "pay for her crime" and I'm talking about a judge who, in my opinion, is grossly overstepping his authority and using someone as a pawn in a "pissing contest" with the sheriff.

Yeah, the problem is that the two subjects come together to make the "story". It's my contention that the focus of the story (AKA the "big picture", or "forest", or "elephant") is Paris Hilton, and not the judge (the trees).

My feeling is that most reasonable and prudent people would agree with me, but I have no way of proving that on here. As I said, you have the right to focus on whatever you want, but it did strike me as strange that you were the same person that posted the Hancock reply. Oh well...I guess I'll just pray we never get on a jury together. My feeling is that you've seen 12 angry men a few too many times.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ninetoone

Yeah, the problem is that the two subjects come together to make the "story". It's my contention that the focus of the story (AKA the "big picture", or "forest", or "elephant") is Paris Hilton, and not the judge (the trees).

My feeling is that most reasonable and prudent people would agree with me, but I have no way of proving that on here. As I said, you have the right to focus on whatever you want, but it did strike me as strange that you were the same person that posted the Hancock reply. Oh well...I guess I'll just pray we never get on a jury together. My feeling is that you've seen 12 angry men a few too many times.

LOL! I don't see the hypocracy in my points of view though...in Hancock, I was agruing that folks are indeed responsible for their actions...in Hilton, I'm saying exactly the same thing, Ms Hilton AND the judge are both responsible for their respective actions. I simply don't believe the story here is Hilton (although the media has certainly made it all about her and the public swallows the bait), I believe this is an example of a judge deciding to make an example out of someone and then getting into a "pissing contest" with the sheriff using Ms Hilton (and the public outcry against her) to go beyond his jurisdiction and impose his will on the sheriff...we'll see what the appeals court says.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The problem here is that we are talking about two completely different subjects...you are explaining why Paris deserves to "pay for her crime" and I'm talking about a judge who, in my opinion, is grossly overstepping his authority and using someone as a pawn in a "pissing contest" with the sheriff.

The judge just didn't want his sentence overturned essentially by a sheriff that most likely simply didn't want to deal with all the BS. I don't see that the judge did anything extraordinary. The judge thought, and I think rightly so, that it doesn't set a good example to just give up on the incarceration because it is difficult. Someone drawing a line and saying this isn't right. I admire the action he took.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

The judge just didn't want his sentence overturned essentially by a sheriff that most likely simply didn't want to deal with all the BS. I don't see that the judge did anything extraordinary. The judge thought, and I think rightly so, that it doesn't set a good example to just give up on the incarceration because it is difficult. Someone drawing a line and saying this isn't right. I admire the action he took.

My question is twofold...first, did he overstep his authority? and second, what is the motivation here? Legally we'll get an answer to the first part from the appeals court, we may never get an answer on the second.

[ninetoone]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

The judge just didn't want his sentence overturned essentially by a sheriff that most likely simply didn't want to deal with all the BS. I don't see that the judge did anything extraordinary. The judge thought, and I think rightly so, that it doesn't set a good example to just give up on the incarceration because it is difficult. Someone drawing a line and saying this isn't right. I admire the action he took.

I agree. Somer, what would you say if Paris did the time & came out in a few months & said that this is the best thing that's ever happenned to her? (and thanks the judge)

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I was making a joke and pointing out how you are a hypocrite. Sometimes I feel like you just enjoy the battle no matter what it is. If people are saying red, you are going to say blue, and fight it all the way. I have to say this is a special arguement. Somehow you have managed to try and make people feel sorry that Paris Hilton is being punished for her actions. I see what you are saying and you know what, the judge probably is trying to set an example and so what. She needs a good dose of reality. But you can't have it both ways Somer. Come on.

So please point out why I am a hypocrite...since we are calling names, may I call you an ignorant bastard?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Sure. Although bastard isn't exactly correct. Ninetoone did a pretty good job of pointing out why you are a hypocrite. I won't stoop to your level, although it would be very easy to. As usual, keep fighting that fight.

You call me a hypocrite then say you won't stoop to name-calling...LOL! I was kidding of course, I don't think you are an ignorant bastard but I already addressed Ninetoone's post...you gotta do better than that if you are gonna call me names like hypocrite (since I'm one person who has been accused over and over of being painfully consistant).