Originally posted by Skyfloating

Except that its not only "Hollywwood-Types". See post by wimbly on this page for example.

Except I was responding to you and your claim that you didn't intend this to be a condemnation of liberalism.

Edited to add: And that Wimbly post mentions two media personalities and the French from the links I saw. Does it surprise anyone that the French defend him since they've been harboring him? Why? I don't know. Ask the French government.

Does one ex-governor, a Democrat, make this a widespread 'liberal' issue?

If people want to claim political indignation over such a thing, perhaps they'd be interested in the Franklin Child Prostitution Ring case.

[edit on 29/9/09 by TravelerintheDark]

Sky, you have yet to acknowledge how the links on the first page which detail that there are conservatives who engage in pedophilia effects your premise that it is indicative of Liberalism gone crazy according to your sliding scale.

Additionally, I will assert that Liberals are more likely to be apologists in many regards and don't see the world as black and white as many Conservatives, it's all shades of gray. It's possible that this may be at the root of the indefensible and outrageous act of pleading Polanski's case. So in that sense, maybe there's a little crazy there...

However, I still think the source of the defense is more Elitism than Liberalism. They think they are special and above the law and other social mores.


(FTR, the OP has been qualified to an extent that focuses the argument more narrowly than previously stated.)


[edit on 29/9/2009 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Yes, there are Republican pedophiles and they should be jailed.

What does this have to do with left-wing-activists standing up for the civil rights of pedophiles more than the rights of the children?

Psssssssssssst. This is for everyone using this word. Yes, I am saying this to you, other posters, and almost every host on those liberal Air America and Jones Radio stations.

Polanksi is not a pedophile

He was NOT accused of pedophilia.

He did not plead guilty to pedophilia.

He was not convicted with pedophilia.

I am not sticking up for what he actually did do but thanks to Dateline NBC, America has completely forgotten that English words mean things. This is not pedophilia. You do not call a kidnapper a murder and you cant call every rapist a pedophile. It muddies the water and makes it easy for people to become lynch mobs.

Leave this poor girl alone and let he just go on with her life. Why does anyone here feel they know better than the victim just what should happen, even if that thing that happens means she has to suffer all over again?

Look of pedophile.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Except I was responding to you and your claim that you didn't intend this to be a condemnation of liberalism.

I intend this to contribute to exposing the perversion of liberalism, yes.

Originally posted by Lillydale
She said that she went through it once already and no good would come of bringing it all back to the surface. She said he should be left to go do what he is doing and let her live her life. She apparently does not feel like letting Polanski have any more of her.

Great post.

I find I am really straddling the fence on this one. I hate it when I do that. I already gave some personal history, but just a little more, I was definitely underage at my first sexual encounter and he was 21. I ended up marrying him. But if it had been similar to the Polanski situation - a one night stand - I can absolutely see just wanting to let it go. Since she now has children she doesn't want them to be exposed to all this. She dropped the charges. Should we be considering her at all?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Except I was responding to you and your claim that you didn't intend this to be a condemnation of liberalism.

I intend this to contribute to exposing the perversion of liberalism, yes.

Thank you. Then I see no reason to feign surprise at the defensiveness of people being lumped together in such an irresponsible, and frankly offensive, manner.

I mentioned it above and I'll mention it again... Are you familiar with the Franklin Child Prostitution case?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Have you given any thought to the victim?

She has stated that she does not want to relive this.

So for the sake of the poor victim, would you suggest we let the Polanski-case rest?

Whoopie Goldberg
Patrick Goldstein - LA Times
Harvey Weinstein - Director
Anne Applebaum - Washington Post and Slate
Mia Farrow - Actor
Andrzej Wajda - Polish Director
Harrison Ford - Actor
Monica Bellucci - Actor
Fanny Ardant - Actor
Debra Winger - Actor
Jimi Blue - Actor Germany
Wilson Gonzalez Ochenknecht - Actor Germany
John Farr - Huffington Post writer
Sigourney Weaver - Actor
Johnny Dep - Actor
Adrien Brody - Actor
Ewan McGregor - Actor
Tom Wilkson - Actor
Ben Kingsley - Actor
Kim Catrall - Actor
Olivia Williams - Actor


The Swiss Green Party demanded he be released from prison. Stick to the environment you yobs.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale

Have you given any thought to the victim?

She has stated that she does not want to relive this.

So for the sake of the poor victim, would you suggest we let the Polanski-case rest?

The victim has asked for as much. She wants the issue dropped.

It's been stated in nearly every article I've read, including those posted by Wimbly.

[edit on 29/9/09 by TravelerintheDark]

Originally posted by threekings
To the OP. This also shouldn't be a Liberal/Republican issue.

Im not saying its a Liberal/Republican issue. Its only a liberal issue.

To the point: Its not a liberal issue either. Its an issue of exaggerated liberalism.

But the ATS-posters, bless their hearts, have been whipped with the labels "liberal" and "conservative" so often here, that they are kind of sensitive when the terms are applied.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale

Have you given any thought to the victim?

She has stated that she does not want to relive this.

So for the sake of the poor victim, would you suggest we let the Polanski-case rest?

The victim has asked for as much. She wants the issue dropped.

It's been stated in nearly every article I've read, including those posted by Wimbly.

[edit on 29/9/09 by TravelerintheDark]

And many a woman with a broken arm and a black eyed would like to not lay charges against their abusers too. But zero tolerance is the rule for a reason.

The fact that they guy got away, and paid blood money doesn't forgive him.

Once upon a time, and still in many countries, he could go give a tithe and sarcrifice a goat. And he'd still have screwed a thirteen year old.

[edit on 2009/9/29 by Aeons]

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
It read to me like you're equating 'free sexuality' with pedophilia.

See scale on page two.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Should we be considering her at all?

Well...this is my problem with those now illegal Dateline stings.

If we decide not to consider her, then what is the crime he is being jailed for? If it is fleeing, then more of my tax dollars will go to decide what crime he was convicted for that he was feeling from. He was convicted of rape.

Raping who?

Well, we decided not to consider the victim at all.

Ok, so then who did he rape?

The victim.

Are we doing anything that will help her? Deter him and others? Will his punishment come with or without the price of also punishing the victim. But like you said, and as many DA's like to do....forget her. What does she mater.

Imagine you get arrested for cocaine possession. When you get to court, there is no cocaine, the cocaine is not even mentioned because it is no longer being considered. What are you in court for again?

Maybe it is just me but I have to look at it from where she stands. He has not been a threat to her in decades. Apparently, he was not a serial rapist and even if he ever was, he sure isn't now. What is the net gain from bringing him back to the U.S.?

The victim gets to relive her pubescent drugging and raping all over again. Polanski gets to spend the last few years he has left in a minimum security prison.

It just is not worth it. Have sex at an early age and marrying that guy is pretty different from being fed barbiturates and taken advantage of by an adult, when you are just a child on a photo shoot. The victim is all over this. Without the victim, there is just an old man wondering what the hell the fuss is about.

I can only speak for me but I can most definitely say that this is the kind of thing that a girl does not like to have to relive after spending so much of her life getting over it.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale

Have you given any thought to the victim?

She has stated that she does not want to relive this.

So for the sake of the poor victim, would you suggest we let the Polanski-case rest?

The victim has asked for as much. She wants the issue dropped.

It's been stated in nearly every article I've read, including those posted by Wimbly.

[edit on 29/9/09 by TravelerintheDark]

And many a woman with a broken arm and a black eyed would like to not lay charges against their abusers too. But zero tolerance is the rule for a reason.

The fact that they guy got away, and paid blood money doesn't forgive him.

A good point, although not the one I was making and with 30 years past I'm sure she's had time to consider her options carefully, especially after her testimony.

She accepted the money.

The question ultimately here is 'What is justice and who deserves it?' If justice is to serve those wronged, in this case it isn't. If it's for revenge of society then what issue are we genuinely addressing?

And if you mistake any of this for a defense of the actions of Roman Polanski, then you're not only wrong but foolish as well.

Originally posted by Aeons
And many a woman with a broken arm and a black eyed would like to not lay charges against their abusers too. But zero tolerance is the rule for a reason.

Ahhhh, another man that knows what is best for these dumb weak woman.

This is an adult female who was raped once when she was 13. There is no chance that will ever happen to her again. There is no chance that He will do it again. It was once, 30 years ago. The idea that she just doesn't want to press charges because she is some Stockholm battered wife is the most chauvinistic and imbecilic things I have read here in a long time. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Sky, you have yet to acknowledge how the link on the first page which details that there are conservatives who engage in pedophilia effects your premise that it is indicative of Liberalism gone crazy according to your sliding scale.

Psychologically speaking, both the tolerating/apologizing of pedophilia (extreme left-wing) and the bigotted suppression-of-sexuality (bible-thumping right-wing) can lead to pedophilia, imo.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skyfloating]