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: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Oh, and just to be REALLY CLEAR.

I am a moderate Liberal. That's Big L Liberal.

I've voted Liberal. I've voted Green. I've voted Progressive Conservative - but on a Global scale they'd be consider pretty damn Liberal.

I'm not some moralizing Christian Fundy.

I'm a Big L Card Carrying Recycling Composting Breastfeeding Paganesque LIBERAL.

And I *HATE* elitists who think that being *SPECIAL* or monied means that you are allowed to do bad things to people, because you did something people liked and you have money to shut people up.

So they can shove their elitist he's special so take the goat sacrifice and he can have all the girls and boys he wants.




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Samantha Geimer, 45, filed a legal declaration asking that the charge against Polanski be dismissed in the interest of saving her from further trauma as the case is publicized anew.

Now a wife and mother of three children, Geimer said that the insistence by prosecutors and the court that Polanski must appear in person to seek dismissal “is a joke, a cruel joke being played on me.”

Geimer said she believes prosecutors are reciting sexually explicit details of the case to distract from their office’s own wrongdoing 31 years ago. The alleged wrongdoing was brought to light in the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which prompted the director’s lawyer to file a motion for dismissal.

source



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

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.


I'm totally female.

And he doesn't get to use his money and his ability to escape to set precedent.

What's the difference between this guy, and the poor guy who escaped from a penitentiary for the same thing?

NOTHING. Except his ability to use his money to get away with it.

Being monied and being famous is not a good enough reason.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You realize she was paid off, right? I'd think after being paid millions and years have passed, she would say that. Frankly, it doesn't mater what she says at this point. He plead GUILTY.

I know, hes a liberal and thus is afforded rights the rest of us plebs aren't. You're just going to have to deal with it.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
On the liberalism angle, I agree with kosmicjack here:


Originally posted by kosmicjack
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.


By the way, the Statute of Limitations on statutory rape in CA (is that where this happened?) is 3 years.

California Statutory Rape Law



These statutes of limitations start running from the date of offense, regardless of when the crime was reported. There are other Penal Code sections tolling the statutes of limitations of certain sex crimes against minors where the statute of limitations begins running after the age of 18. This does not apply to charges under Penal Code 261.5 for statutory rape. It does apply to violent sexual assaults and sexual abuse of minors.


Am I on ignore?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
bighollywood.breitbart.com...

Link to what the 'elite' are saying.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a grown man over the age of 18, had sex with a 13 year old. this is called rape and is a felony. i don't care what else he has done or who he is. he should be tried and sent to prison if convicted.

this isn't complicated folks



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

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


See scale on page two.


I did. Though I'm not sure I see anything there that a broad range of people of any political affiliation would disagree with. Dare I say a majority?

It is a shame though isn't it? I mean if we could so easily categorize people by their political, religious, national affiliations then we could certainly end a lot of suffering.

But it isn't so easy and never has been, no matter what those gripping their power with every ounce of strength they can muster would have us believe. Think about it. Who is really being served with this entire idea of pedophilia as an issue of liberalism?

*Edited to add: Or conservatism?

As it stands bigotry is bigotry which has sadly become a defining characteristic of 'being American' in my observations. The true point on which this nation is being impaled.

[edit on 29/9/09 by TravelerintheDark]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
On the liberalism angle, I agree with kosmicjack here:


Originally posted by kosmicjack
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.


By the way, the Statute of Limitations on statutory rape in CA (is that where this happened?) is 3 years.

California Statutory Rape Law



These statutes of limitations start running from the date of offense, regardless of when the crime was reported. There are other Penal Code sections tolling the statutes of limitations of certain sex crimes against minors where the statute of limitations begins running after the age of 18. This does not apply to charges under Penal Code 261.5 for statutory rape. It does apply to violent sexual assaults and sexual abuse of minors.


Am I on ignore?


That's if you haven't been caught. He's been convicted already, and got away. That he escaped on a jet plane isn't different than if he'd dug his way out with a spoon.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wimbly
Oh, come on! You dont know? Just take a look at the last 8 years! The MSM and Hollywood made it their mission to destroy any conservative who messed up. We ALL know how a conservative in Hollywood would be treated is they raped a 13 year old (and rightfully so).


Everyone knows that all the righties having sex with children are in Washington D.C. anyway. The age of consent there is 15. I seem to recall quite a few big R representatives having trouble even keeping it above 14 but hey, they usually have sex with little boys before preaching about Jesus and morals so it is still not as bad as those liberal hollywood scum that are always getting away with sacrificing babies to satan.

This thread is a joke. This is not a right/left issue. Why does everything have to be part of this polarized political paradigm?
Rape -not republican or democratic.
victims - both republican and democratic.
perpetrators - are also both republicans and democrats.

For every thread like this on a lefty, we can find one for a righty and vice versa.

I guess it is just really heartwarming to know that people are more concerned with who Polanski may have voted for and teaching this girl a lesson about trying to drop charges.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


But he was "convicted" not just accused. If it was just an accusation, then the statute of limitations would take effect.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I saw that clip. IMO, she should go. Unbelievable elitist craw-fishing and qualifying.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
a grown man over the age of 18, had sex with a 13 year old. this is called rape and is a felony. i don't care what else he has done or who he is. he should be tried and sent to prison if convicted.

this isn't complicated folks


Why do you refuse to acknowledge the victim clearly stating that this will cause her more harm than good and will do nothing to fix or prevent anything?

All you are achieving is ruining this woman's life. Is that really what you think is best? Why?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jimmyx
a grown man over the age of 18, had sex with a 13 year old. this is called rape and is a felony. i don't care what else he has done or who he is. he should be tried and sent to prison if convicted.

this isn't complicated folks


Why do you refuse to acknowledge the victim clearly stating that this will cause her more harm than good and will do nothing to fix or prevent anything?

All you are achieving is ruining this woman's life. Is that really what you think is best? Why?


Because you are trying to create a system where those with money and fame are allowed to pay blood money and get off.

Which has been used over and over in history to let off the "special" people.

It is barbaric. Literally.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Thanks for that link. Even Whoopi said that if he wasn't famous, she wouldn't be protecting him. It's his FAME, not the fact that Whoopi is a liberal that causes her to protect him.

Aeons, thanks. I wasn't sure about that.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
Are you familiar with the Franklin Child Prostitution case?


Yes. Organized Pedophilia carried out by high-ranking people, apparently.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark

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



We would have dropped the issue...had the "Free Polanski" Movement not started.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Netzar
 


Way to deflect the attention away from the issue. It is the government trying to stop his latest movie huh?

Why don't we just let ALL the child molesters out of jail? Just to be fair and all.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Thanks for that link. Even Whoopi said that if he wasn't famous, she wouldn't be protecting him. It's his FAME, not the fact that Whoopi is a liberal that causes her to protect him.

Aeons, thanks. I wasn't sure about that.


So its just a massive coincidence that liberals are constantly leaping to the rescue of like minded guys like this, terrorists and dictators like Castro? I can assure you no conservative or Republican are defending any of those types.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Am I on ignore?


No.


Thanks for representing sane liberalism on ATS




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join