ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Do not give a Ratz Azz about who wins in Mass, but always find it interesting how anyone can come forth and attempt to divert attention from the actual issues and use flawed info.. as is in the case of the famous, Fells Acre Day Care Case... there has been discussion about whether or not the Ameriaults were falsely tried, whether the evidence was tainted etc.
Today Coulter says you mass folks should not vote for Coakley because she opposed the parole of Gerald Ameriault... last week she was too lenient on the priests...
Think Coulter may be striking the wrong nerve here, as would probably think that most folks believe the allegations in the Fells Acre Day Care case... Coakley is vulnerable, but this is the wrong area to attack.. Poor Gerald Ameriault is probably not going to resonate real well...
Interestingly enough the victims never rallied to the support of the Ameriaults... HB will probably have some input, as he likes to rant and rave about this stuff..
In Tuesday's primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.
During the daycare/child molestation hysteria of the '80s, Gerald Amirault, his mother, Violet, and sister, Cheryl, were accused of raping children at the family's preschool in Malden, Mass., in what came to be known as the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history.
In July 2001, the notoriously tough Massachusetts parole board voted unanimously to grant Gerald Amirault clemency. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: "(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner's conviction."
Thanks to Martha Coakley, Gerald Amirault sat in prison for another three years.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Coakley will win, then they will canonize her, then she will stick it to them and they will love her.......
The only thing that interested me about the Day Care Thing was how the same people who wanted the Amiraults sent to the Electric Chair looked the other way with that Fat Pig Cardinal Law and his "boy humping priests"
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Do not give a Ratz Azz about who wins in Mass, but always find it interesting how anyone can come forth and attempt to divert attention from the actual issues and use flawed info.. as is in the case of the famous, Fells Acre Day Care Case... there has been discussion about whether or not the Ameriaults were falsely tried, whether the evidence was tainted etc.
Coulter makes a very powerful case and you have done absolutely nothing to refute any of the points she made. And I hate to tell you this, but this is a legitimate issue much like Dukakis' furlough program was a legitimate campaign issue 20+ years ago.
I always believe there are 2 sides to every story so if someone wants to present the opposing point of view I would be very happy to read it. Right now all I have seen is people criticize Coulter but without actually pointing out where she went wrong or why Coakley was justified in her actions.
Coulter makes a very powerful case and you have done absolutely nothing to refute any of the points she made. And I hate to tell you this, but this is a legitimate issue much like Dukakis' furlough program was a legitimate campaign issue 20+ years ago.
I always believe there are 2 sides to every story so if someone wants to present the opposing point of view I would be very happy to read it. Right now all I have seen is people criticize Coulter but without actually pointing out where she went wrong or why Coakley was justified in her actions.
Sounds an awful lot more like Jane Swift's failure than Coakley's.
Sounds an awful lot more like Jane Swift's failure than Coakley's.
Like I said, right now all I have seen is people criticize Coulter but without actually pointing out where she went wrong or why Coakley was justified in her actions.
Like I said, right now all I have seen is people criticize Coulter but without actually pointing out where she went wrong or why Coakley was justified in her actions.
Coulter is attacking Coakley while giving a free pass to the person who actually made the decision. Further, she never firmly establishes the extent to which Coakley is responsible for influencing the decision. It's dishonest at best (it's Coulter so that's no surprise).
Really all she did was to make Swift look bad. It's really a horrible argument. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Obviously Swift is the ultimately responsible party here, just by definition.
Last edited by apple strudel; 12-10-2009 at 11:58 AM..
Coulter is attacking Coakley while giving a free pass to the person who actually made the decision. Further, she never firmly establishes the extent to which Coakley is responsible for influencing the decision. It's dishonest at best (it's Coulter so that's no surprise).
Well the person who actually made the decision neither holds nor is running for public office. If it makes you feel better, you can rest assured that Coulter is certainly no fan of Jane Swift.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple strudel
Really all she did was to make Swift look bad. It's really a horrible argument. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Obviously Swift is the ultimately responsible party here, just by definition.
Don't be so naive. Governors will listen to advice and counsel in these types of situations, especially from prosecutors and district attornies. Coakley's actions are 100% fair game.
I am completely open minded about this issue and willing to listen to the other side of the argument. But it is pretty sad when the best the other side can give is "it's Jane Swift's fault!" Sounds to me like you have no defense for what Coakley did, so you're just desperately trying to pass the buck. How courageous.
I am completely open minded about this issue and willing to listen to the other side of the argument. But it is pretty sad when the best the other side can give is "it's Jane Swift's fault!" Sounds to me like you have no defense for what Coakley did, so you're just desperately trying to pass the buck. How courageous.
Uh, isn't it actually you and Coulter passing the buck from the decider to the advisor? Ouch.
Coulter makes a very powerful case and you have done absolutely nothing to refute any of the points she made. And I hate to tell you this, but this is a legitimate issue much like Dukakis' furlough program was a legitimate campaign issue 20+ years ago.
I always believe there are 2 sides to every story so if someone wants to present the opposing point of view I would be very happy to read it. Right now all I have seen is people criticize Coulter but without actually pointing out where she went wrong or why Coakley was justified in her actions.
Let me try to dumb this down for the right, as they are easily confused..
Last week there was a thread about how Coakley did not respond correctly to the Geoghan case.. and that her inaction caused more abuse..
This week Coulter makes the case that because Coakly oppose the "notoriously tough conservative parole board", she kept an innocent man behind bars.. the parole board felt that the case deserved clemency even though they should not make that decision..
Lets review the Fells Acre Case... their convictions were upheld upon appeal..
Gerald Amirault would end up being convicted of assaulting and raping nine children and was sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison, while his mother and sister were convicted in a separate trial of similar crimes against four children and sentenced to jail for eight to 20 years. They were convicted by a jury of their peers..
The Massachusetts parole board recommended the commutation of Gerald Amirault's sentence in July 2001 (an action that the alleged victims strenuously objected to). The then–Acting Governor, Jane Swift, rejected the decision in February 2002. He was ultimately released from the Bay State Correctional Center on April 30, 2004.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - Victims in the Fells Acres child abuse case broke down Thursday as they described their pain publicly for the first time in hopes of keeping the last person convicted in the case behind bars.
Gerald Amirault has served 15 years of a 30- to 40-year sentence. Last month, the parole board recommended commutation of his sentence, saying there is ``substantial doubt'' about his conviction.
Those children, now adults, stood by their testimony Thursday.
``This family raped me, molested me and totally ruined my life,'' said Jennifer Bennett, who was 31/2 years old when she started at Fells Acres.
``We weren't coaxed. We weren't lying. We're telling the truth and we always will,'' said Bennett, 22. ``I was there. None of you were there. We weren't coaxed, nor were we ever ever ever brainwashed.''
Lets reframe the Coulter Article, she claims "tookie" was innocent, he was guilty and his appeals all failed.... I do not know much about Martha Coakley, but what I do know is a lot about child abuse as this was my profession for 30+ years, and I understand all the legal subtleties... Coakley had to represent the people of Mass, in this case the victims who strenuously objected to the Ameriaults being paroled... if she did not contest their parole she would be raked over the coals.. she acted in the best interest of the commonwealth in this case
Comprende...????
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Anne Coulter Pounds it on Coakley..
Linear Mode
