It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Free Polanski" = Liberals gone crazy

page: 18
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
to let nonsense like this distract one from the more pressing issues of the day is well…stupid.



There is no more pressing issue than the brains of the populace getting manipulated to think the villain is the hero.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skyfloating]


Here is the thing my friend, the Law of the Land and that of the People says I can not vote until I am 18, it also says I can not smoke tobacco products until I am 18. Yet many young adults begin smoking long before they turn 18. Most young people wish they could vote before they turn 18 too. The Law of the Land and that of the People says I can not drink alcoholic beverages until I turn 21. Most young people have there first alcoholic beverage long before they turn 21 while many more actually drink alcohol frequently before they turn 21. The Law of the Land and that of the People says that while I can not drink until I am 21, I can legally start to sign Contractual Agreements at the age of 18! Even though an 18, 19 or 20 year old can not drink alcoholic beverages they can Contractually volunteer and then obligate themselves to go step on an improvise explosive device in Iraq or Afghanistan and for those unhappy with that choice soon to be added by much more ‘mature’ minds the additional option of Iran.

Despite these above things, science has long concluded that the frontal lobe of the human brain that gives one the power to fully reason and control and modify their behavior does not stop fully growing and completely matures until the age of 26.

I first started facing the world and so have many others at the ripe old age of 13. In other words mommy and daddy are a long, long way away or do not exist at all, and I am out there fending for myself and making decisions for myself based on my own day to day survival. At the end of each and every day I must have fed myself, clothe myself, house myself despite the fact that the Law of the Land and that of the People says I can not legally do this nor should I be doing this. Yet many people do. In fact a good number of 13 year olds are more mature and sometimes even more intelligent than adults 2, 3, even 4 times their own age. A look around these boards at what some of the ‘adults’ post would convince most people of that.

In years gone by in fact for most of humankind’s existence puberty was the start of adulthood.

The Law of the Land arbitrarily puts a number on things, 16 to drive, 18 to vote and smoke, and to go to war for one’s country and sign Legal Contracts, even though one’s driver’s license at 16 is a legal contract, and 21 to drink even though driving is potentially more harmful as is smoking as is definitely going to war at the ages of 16 and 18 respectively.

Yet once again science says I and no one else is best suited to make any of those decisions to the age of 26.

So what really happens between the age of 13 (typically the age of puberty and adolescence for most young people) and the age of 18 when you can start legally laying down your life for G-d, Country and King also known as the Military Industrial Complex? Answer a whole lot of societal brainwashing via the Institutions of G-d, Country and King also known as the Military Industrial Complex to instill a mindless and unquestioning adherence and acceptance to complex and artificial social norms for the sake of society and G-d, Country and King but mostly for the sake of conformity and acceptance to the Military Industrial Complex.

At 13 I was seduced by a 33 year old woman. Should she go to jail now? She is still alive. By the time I was 15 I was traveling all over the country and Canada in rock n’ roll bands and bedded dozens of women who were well into their 30’s and even 40’s should they all go to jail now?

Or is this my fault too because I am a male and not a female so supposedly by the double standards of our complex and artificial set of social norms better suited for such intimate liaisons and not a victim or less of a victim because of that?

I sure did not feel like a victim! In fact I enjoyed these things, as I enjoyed being independent and thinking for myself and governing myself at an age where I felt willing, desirous and competent to do these things but the Law of the Land and the People said and felt I was not.

What really happened to me between the ages of 13 when I was first made a ward of the State and compelled to leave home as a result and I turned 21 and could legally do everything that society permits and did not attend any ritualized or institutionalized educational programs or have any parental or ‘mature’ oversight? Answer, I came to see the Military Industrial Complex also known as G-d, Country and King for what it truly is a murderous cabal that would gladly kill me with cigarettes, ply me with alcohol, cause me to accept rigid conformity to a complex set of artificial social standards and if none of those things were enough to kill my human spirit then I could always look forward to guns, bombs and bullets ‘legally’ killing my human physical form courtesy of the same military industrial complex.

Simply put this 13 year old girl was not kidnapped. She chose to be where she was doing what she was doing and she chose to of her own volition and accord.

Trust me when I say one does not ‘accidentally’ end up at Jack Nicholson’s house. Has this ever happened to you friend?

I think not!

Roman Polanski is likely guilty of simple bad judgment and not asking more critical questions of the young woman.

By societal standards and morally I see the girl’s parents as far more culpable and guilty of he simply through lax parental oversight.

Yet even still the girl simply did not want to stay at home, she wanted to be adult, she wanted to go out on her own, she wanted to party and enjoy substances the Law of the Land and People have proclaimed are illegal and she wanted to do this in the company of much older and more ‘mature’ adults who probably weren’t as mature as she might have been or they might have been or as mature as many of us might have preferred for them to be because of a complex rigidly instilled set of artificial social norms that more than anything simply create non-thinking conformity to the Military Industrial Complex, also known as G-d, Country and King.

Considering 13 year old boys and girls willingly and eagerly initiate sexual intimate relationships all the time, and that in this country for the better part of the first 2 centuries of it’s existence a young person could marry and even have children at the age of 13 coupled with the fact that the victim does not want to see her ‘perpetrator’ prosecuted for his indiscretion and lack of better judgment what are we really doing in this rush to vilify and persecute this man and his behavior?

Well, I know what we aren’t doing, and that’s discussing or putting an end to the Military Industrial Complex and how it brainwashes people into being basically ‘non-thinking’ adults who are incapable of looking at or judging things on a case by case basis or thinking outside of a rigidly imposed and indoctrinated set of artificial complex social standards.

I consider myself one of the luckiest people alive to have achieved ‘adulthood and independence’ at the age of 13.

I prize the fact that I can think independently based on the merits of individual situations instead of a deeply instilled predisposed set of rigid reactions that do little but create conformity and non-thinking.

I think the world would be a far better place if we allowed young adults to function as young adults instead of a protected species that is primarily being protected for the sake of instilling the notions of conformity to the Military Industrial Complex.

Roman Polanski in my humble opinion is simply guilty of bad judgment as was a willful and independent minded 13 year old young woman as was her ‘mature’ parental figure.

Polanski has already ‘paid’ his victim a suitable restitution in her eyes. He is still being victimized still by these long ago events, she is still being victimized long ago by these tragic events, and the only person still not really having to answer is the person most responsible and that is the negligent parental figure.

Who is most capitalizing off of all this? The Military Industrial Complex that uses it as a means to both distract from real issues and to further instill those artificial social standards and norms.


[edit on 30/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   


Last year, transcripts of Geimer's 1977 grand jury testimony, which resulted in six charges against Polanski, were made public. The transcipts include shocking details of 13-year-old Geimer testifying that the 43-year-old Polanski plied her with champagne and part of a Quaalude before performing oral, vaginal and anal intercourse on her, despite her demands to "keep away."




Geimer said the other intentions became clear after Polanski offered her part of a Quaalude, which she took, then asked her to get into a Jacuzzi without her underwear. He took pictures of her in the Jacuzzi naked, before taking off his clothes and joining her in the water, she said.

Geimer said she grew uncomfortable when he grabbed her around the waist and started to move her hips around.

When she hopped out of the Jacuzzi and retreated to the bathroom, she said, Polanski followed her there and she told him she wanted to go home. "Yeah, I'll take you home soon," he said, according to her testimony. "No, I have to go home now," Geimer said she told him.

Geimer testified that Polanski persuaded her to go to the bedroom and lie down. Geimer went, she said, but she sat on the couch in the bedroom. She described Polanski sitting next to her and reaching over to kiss her.

Geimer said she told him, "No, keep away" and "Come on, let's go home." He ignored her, she testified, then "went down and he started performing cuddliness (sic)."

When the district attorney asked Geimer what "cuddliness" meant, she clarified, "he placed his mouth on my vagina."

"I was ready to cry," she said. "I was going, 'No. Come on. Stop it.'"


Link

Rape plain and simple of an underage girl who he intoxicated. The guy is dirt bag scum and so are all the Hollywood libs sticking up for him. Especially that trash Whoopi.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


What was she doing there in the first place?

Did he really know she was 13?

Can we be absolutely certain a 13 year old who likely lied a great bit just to end up place where she should not have been in the first place isn't also fabricating her reactions and participation to events that she later got in 'trouble' for when she did show up at home?

A whole lot of unanswered questions there in my mind.

Guilty of bad judgement is my own belief and not premeditated pedophillia.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


What was she doing there in the first place?

Did he really know she was 13?

Can we be absolutely certain a 13 year old who likely lied a great bit just to end up place where she should not have been in the first place isn't also fabricating her reactions and participation to events that she later got in 'trouble' for when she did show up at home?

A whole lot of unanswered questions there in my mind.

Guilty of bad judgement is my own belief and not premeditated pedophillia.



Feel free to read the link I included of the court transcripts. She was there because he promised the mother he could further her career with some modeling photos. So are you saying poor judgement on the mother's fault that resulted in forced intercourse of her daughter is ok? Just a result bad judgement huh. I hope you don't have any daughters.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


you did not have to go to these great lengths to make your point, because my problem is not with Polanski himself who may have had a really bad day that day, who may have felt great regret, who may be a changed man by now. I understand that.

My problem is with the severe reality impairment displayed by certain activists who feel "outraged, disgusted, shocked" that a criminal would be arrested.

The reason it is so severe is because it shows how wide segments of the population have lost the ability to think straight, to discern, to feel, to be able to tell who is a hero and who is not.

Even worse, when I point out that Im baffled by this, I get accused of being a "christian moralist", although I am neither a christian nor a moralist nor even a Republican. Im just a normal person astonished that Orwellian Reality-Reversal is already in full swing and hardly anyone notices it....



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Moral Relativism is not a weakness of the right, its a weakness of the left.


Wrong. It's a weakness of extremism in general

The extreme right under the "pro-life" banner condemns abortion but refuses condom education, supports the death penalty and hedges on torture. The extreme right espouses "Christian beliefs" while judging and condemning their fellow man. The extreme right claims to be for "less government" yet under the last administration grew the police state to an unimaginable degree.



[edit on 30/9/2009 by kosmicjack]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Wrong.

The extreme right under the "pro-life" banner condemns abortion but refuses condom education, supports the death penalty and hedges on torture. The extreme right espouses "Christian beliefs" while judging and condemning their fellow man. The extreme right claims to be for "less government" yet under the last administration grew the police state to an unimaginable degree.


Thats not moral relativism, thats moral absolutism, which is another problem altogether.

Moral absolutism says "X is right, Y is wrong, period!!!"

Moral relativism says "Nothing is inherently right or wrong"

Both stances are problematic and responsible for a great amount of stupidity.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


Yes I have daughters my friend, and the last place in the world I would let them be is at Jack Nicholson's house and the last career I would want them to pursue is one that is notorious for it's 'Casting Couch'.

In fact I personally drove my daughters back and forth to and from school and would only let them associate out of school with children who I met their parents.

Let us not forget that people lie under oath all the time.

That he might, and I do say might have 'slipped' her a half of qualude but I doubt he tricked her into drinking chamapagne.

Further Angelica Houston was present in the home that day and did not peg the girl's age at 13 either but simply said she had the look of a certain type of girl and attitudes of a certain type of girl, who in her estimation could have been anywhere between 14 and 21.

Any partent who would just drop off their child at a famous celebrities home hoping it would lead to their child's celebrity is not doing their child a favor. Middle America might not fully understand what goes on in Hollywood what the people who live there do, it's in your face 24/7.

The reality is if most Americans knew the typical behavior and lifestyles of the people who create their entertainment and news and produce it they would be appalled.

No one was innocent in this affair, no one.

Everyone from the girl's mother, to the girl to Polanski to Houston herself was guilty of bad judgement and I don't believe for a minute Nicholson was not there as was later claimed.

I think everyone involved is lying about something to one degree or another, and everyone involved had some degree of dysfunction, deviance, and selfish motive involved.

The girl had no problem negotiating and accepting a handsome cash settlement with Polanski when he was abroad and on the lamb, what does that tell you.

If anything it was a setup from the git go, would I drop my child off at a celebrity's home in the Hollywood Hills and just leave her there, not on your life, not for a million dollars, but the truth is as we know from Michael Jackson some parents would do it for far less than a million dollars.

Everyone is guilty of something in this case, and mostly it's just greed, lust and poor judgement.

If stupidity were against the law we would all be in jail friend.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Well Proto, I think it is safe to say you have achieved the following with your long post above.

- You have managed to piss off people from pretty much all sides of the debate with this issue
- You have left yourself open to a series of flaming where you will be called lots of names
- You bravely decided to question the victim (or at least her parents) role in the whole situation

However, I think what you have mostly said is true. Sometimes the truth hurts. Thanks for your input, because it has highlighted some very important issues and raises questions that need to be answered:

1) Why would the parents of a MINOR think it is suitable to send their 13 year old girl to the house of a famous actor without them there?

2) Why would the victim's parents allow their 13 year old daughter to be in the company of older men who will be consuming alcohol at the very least?

3) Why would parents put the potential career benefits of their child ahead of that child's safety?

Asking these questions does not make one a paedophile supporter or somebody who wants to defend Polanski and get him "off the hook." There are three sides to the story - Polanski's version, the victim's version and THE TRUTH.

The question is: what is the real TRUTH of the situation?

[edit on 30/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

1) Why would the parents of a MINOR think it is suitable to send their 13 year old girl to the house of a famous actor without them there?

2) Why would the victim's parents allow their 13 year old daughter to be in the company of older men who will be consuming alcohol at the very least?

3) Why would parents put the potential career benefits of their child ahead of that child's safety?

Asking these questions does not make one a paedophile supporter or somebody who wants to defend Polanski and get him "off the hook." There are three sides to the story - Polanski's version, the victim's version and THE TRUTH.

The question is: what is the real TRUTH of the situation?



You`ll be surprised to find that I dont disagree with the above. Every issue has multiple factors involved and not only one sole cause.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I would disagree friend, to me Orwellian reality is a cry of outrage over a situation where the victim seeks no punishment and has already been compensated.

To take a productive member of society out society and make them unproductive simply for the reason of extracting some vengeful pound of flesh smacks of Orwell to me.

Do you think Duggard kidnapped a 14 year old based on the fact that "Polanski got away with it"?

Do you think the next predatory pedophile in which there are far to many which should tell you something right there is going to say "Wait they got up with Polanski finally I had better not do that"? Because we all know the Death Penalty has elliminated the crime of murder?

The Orwellian thinking is "The Book says this must be done".

As I said I became sexually active with mature adult women at that same age, and I sure didn't feel like a victim and still don't!

In fact I felt great and was quite pleased to have enjoyed something that came completely natural to me.

To make that something different is Orwellian.

I think what you might not get not being a celebrity is that people of celebrity are in fact targeted all the time because of their fortune and fame seeking to garner something off of their fortune and fame often in dishonest and manipulative ways.

What is Orewellian is not being able to think outside of a rigid box of 'Rules' written in black and white that do not take account for the many shades of gray that life is played out by us all in.

That's Orewellian.

Hollywood has been a cesspool of decedance since they stuck up the Hollywood Land Real Estate Venture sign and started inviting the New York City Film Industry out to Los Angeles.

I spent 12 long decedant and debauched fun filled years of my life out there and I highly recommend everyone do so at some point in their life.

Different perspectives and lifestyles only broaden a person's views and understandings of the world.

By the Book is Orwellian, living learning and letting live is natural.

I fear who the Orwellian program is working on is you my friend, and the reality is about the only people who don't suffer from the Orwellian programing is Hollywood, because they are the ones who manufacture it and give it to the rest of the world to digest, they see it for the defeatist conformist rigid thing that it is because of that, and that is manifest in the desire to not hold one of it's own to the same conformist thinking they promote for the sake of an Orwellian control grid.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


Thanks friend and I am a big boy and an independent thinker and well those who want to flame me over it, sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.

The reality is as you so sagely asked what is the real truth of this situation.

Who in their right mind would really care is my humble oppinion.

A Hollywood Celebrity meets aspiring gold diggers and associated want-to-be's and it leads to controversy, what a surprise there.

Compared to the real woes of the world it's a non-issue, the hysterical thing is all the participants are happy with the outcome, but the keepers of the Orwellian Book and their cult of followers aren't.

They want justice and could care less about the truth.

They want to feel empowered.

Thumbs up he lives, thumbs down throw him to the lions, bring on the lions we want to see the blood!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hail Caesar!



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


I've brought up the mother on several occasions, and why if he believed she was 19 would he need to lie to her mom. 19 year olds don't need mommys permission anymore. But proto just ignores that part, because it blows a giant hole in his rapist minded theory that she lied about her age and asked to be raped just by being there.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


You're really a sick @ss individual, IMO. See, regardless of what your definition of sexually mature is, as parents, we are responsible for our children until they are 18. Thankfully, those decisions aren't left up to all the pedos, otherwise i'm sure 12 would be the legal age of consent. I'm not some orwellian puritan either, i've done my share of the same hell raising at a young age as you have. But i've NEVER tried to push a female who was even uncertain as to whether she wanted to be with me. If i ever felt even the slightest uncertainty, i backed off. Rape is digusting, and he plead guilty. He should do time, that isn't a "fineable" offense, and the money he paid the victim to avoid her civil lawsuit has NOTHING, NADA, to do with his criminal trial, which he fled.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
To take a productive member of society out society and make them unproductive simply for the reason of extracting some vengeful pound of flesh


Do you disagree with his arrest as well?



As I said I became sexually active with mature adult women at that same age, and I sure didn't feel like a victim and still don't!


Forced sex is less enjoyable though.



What is Orewellian is not being able to think outside of a rigid box of 'Rules'


Is it rigid and illiberal to suggest arrest for a child-rapist?



written in black and white that do not take account for the many shades of gray that life is played out by us all in.


So this case is not that clear-cut?



I spent 12 long decedant and debauched fun filled years of my life


Is child-rape part of a decadent fun-filled life?



Different perspectives and lifestyles only broaden a person's views and understandings of the world.


Would the "alternative lifestyle" of a child abuser broaden my view?




I fear who the Orwellian program is working on is you my frien


Yeah, maybe I should just relax and let it go



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I just hope Sweden does the right thing and extradites him to the US. Regardless what the victim says now, he is a child rapist and must pay for his crime to society. If they don't allow him to be extradited they are sending the message to sexual criminals that in fact they CAN run and they CAN hide.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Thanks my friend, every day when I awake my number one goal is not to be 'normal' if normal is living a life of rigid conformity where compassion and forgiveness has become a thing of the past.

Justice in the Republic and the Empire was never meant to be such a rigid thing where people could not think of or make allowances for the individual circumstances of the accused and the victim's plight.

It is Orwellian to no longer account for these things and to promote an atmosphere of the Law is the Law is the Law.

I think Justice has long ago been more than amply served in this case and your reactions towards my utilizing my own better judgment, honesty and free will to paint me as some kind of 'evil' that is some how deficient only goes to underscore my point of the incredible pressures brought to bear through rigid societal conditioning to cause people to conform without thinking.

Though you meant what you meant as an insult I take it as the highest form of compliment.

That it bothers some people so that some rare people still have a mind of their own and are capable of independent even unpopular thought illustrates my point that what the Original Poster contends is in fact false and the reverse.

It is the type of dystopian conformist thinking and rigid societal pressure based on uniformity and conformity with total disregard for the truth and extenuating circumstances that is Orwellian.

I have more than made a case for that, of course it would require an independent mind to realize that.

Who belongs in jail in my humble opinion is the despots that have brought your minds unquestioning conformity where you dare not speak out against what is written in black and white or risk the ire of the indignant.

Is the victim indignant? Nay, so pray tell exactly why are you?

The girl was at the exact point in time and space she wanted to be. What transpired there is something called life.
Life itself is on the verge of becoming a crime in our distorted world friend.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Once again your whole supposition depends on the word of a 13 year old girl whose own judgement and veracity is not beyond question.

Would a child lie about events and circumstances to avoid their own moral responsibility and exercise of freewill if it means scorn or punishment?

No parent is being honest with themselves as is no person being honest with themselves if they were to say no, no child would lie in such a case.

Where you there?

Do you really know?

Can you even say you know enough about this case to know for certain Polanski knew the child was 13?

Can you even honestly say you know enough to know that it was not consensual.

This is such a poluted and convoluted affair because of the age of the matter, the age of the victim, the lifestyle of the perpetrator, victim and witnessess.

So like so much of our increasingly dangerous and deadly Orwellian society we let trial by media affect our judgment.

The fact that the prosecution agreed to a total of 96 days for what you call Child-Rape in an irresponsible desire to sensationalize the events and evoke and illicit emotional reactions instead of intelligent, considered and studied ones is telling.

To me and my understanding of the Los Angeles California Justice system which I am not only intimately familiar with, but was intimately familiar with at that exact same point in time, such a plea bargain would have only been struck if their was some level of guilt prevelant in all the concerned parties and a pre-mandatory sentencing world was considering all the circumstances based on what really happened...instead of sensationalized versions of the events 32 years odd later to create ratings and a distraction from much more pressing problems.

Justice was never meant to be so blind and I urge you all to consider the very double edged nature of the sword you wish to so rashly smite someone down with.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


19 Year olds without a car need mommy for rides up to the Hollywood Hills friend.

Or do you think Celebrities live on the RTD route?

You are so unaware of so many things regarding this case, but you keep making it fit your neat little mold of the world as it has been instilled into your mind.

Wanting to be 'right' because it makes you feel 'right' is not necessarily either my friend.

The girl needed a ride because in case you never heard the song "No body walks in L.A.".



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
It just shocks me that many in society seem to think that taking topless and nude photos of a 13 year old girl, getting her drunk, giving her pills, performing all types of sex on her that you can think of, not letting her leave the room when she wants to and proceeding to have even more sex with her despite her pleas to stop, is somehow acceptable in that it happened decades ago.

WTF, what is wrong with people demanding Polanski be freed. It's not like he proclaims he was innocent, he pled guilty then ran off. Please explain the rationale of letting an admitted pedophile get off free because he is a great "cultural" figure. I'm not sure I want to be part of a culture that condones or accepts that.

Whoppi Goldberg:

"I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.


Wow, that pretty much lowers the standards for rape, let's clear out the prisons of all those "innocent" rapists.




top topics



 
30
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join