"Free Polanski" = Liberals gone crazy, page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 30 times


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 11:36 AM by Lillydale
Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by Lillydale


I am glad to hear that we can put aside our political differences and agree that whomever rapes a child, it is wrong. And that those who engage in this practice should be vigorously prosecuted and imprisoned for their gross crimes regardless of their political affiliation.

We are all proud of you back home.


Who is proud of me, where is home?

I do not understand why political differences should have even entered this. This entire thread is just a political argument kicked off by the ignorant title.

I see it kind of like this. If a Satanist kills someone, it is a Satanic murder. If a Christian kills someone, it is just a murder.

Someone is a victim and someone is a perpetrator and neither one of them were engaged in politics at the time and the crime was not politically motivated. This is obviously just Hollywood rooting for Hollywood. The problem is that apparently "Liberals" like the victim do not want him brought back here to face her. I agree with the victim so suddenly I am a looney liberal just like those Hollywood elites like Arnold and Reagan and McCain.....


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 11:51 AM by silo13
reply to post by Lillydale


My apologies if your definition and mine of pedophile do not go arm in arm, and, if you're correct in your defection, and that mine might be taking away from the sickness of true pedophiles, then I thank you for pointing this out.

On the other hand? Not everyone lives is FREAKIN AMERICA - And it doesn’t take learning English to know anyone who rapes a child, is a pedophile and anyone who rapes an adult is a rapist.

But maybe this is for another thread, yes?

Point being.

I do think politicians protect their own, of course they do.

Just the way wolves always hunt in a pack...

But -

Statutory rape is wrong. And I'm sure the activists know that and agree with it. But at this point, in this particular case, it's a virtually a victimless crime. And they don't want to see their bud in prison for the rest of his life. I HATE most activism, but I see their point.


As much as I'm against anything that resembles in word of form, the hurting of a child, I read an article (here) that the victim wants this dropped, and has petitioned the case being dropped for quite a while, as, it's only doing her and her family more harm.

Her wishes in this case, IMO, should be observed and adhered to.

peace

[edit on 29-9-2009 by silo13]


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 11:57 AM by Lillydale
Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Lillydale


My apologies if your definition and mine of pedophile do not go arm in arm, and, if you're correct in your defection, and that mine might be taking away from the sickness of true pedophiles, then I thank you for pointing this out.


Do you think Webster issued me my very own special dictionary?

On the other hand? Not everyone lives is FREAKIN AMERICA - And it doesn’t take learning English to know anyone who rapes a child, is a pedophile and anyone who rapes an adult is a rapist.


That is the problem right there. Please look up the word pedophile as you obviously do not know what it means.

But maybe this is for another thread, yes?

Enough said.

Point being.

I do think politicians protect their own, of course they do.

Just the way wolves always hunt in a pack...

peace




[edit on 29-9-2009 by silo13]


I don't think people are looking at this rationally. First, we are mangling the language and taking one crime and accusing others of it. Then we are so bent on punishing this man that no one cares if they have to trample the victim to get there. I just thought that since this is about drugging and raping a 13 year old girl who is still alive and vocal today, we should look at it that way instead of changing the definition of words in order to make it a different crime and disregarding the damage done to the victim in all of this.


reply posted on 29-9-2009 @ 12:28 PM by Wimbly
It just keeps coming....



Day Two of ABC’s Polanski Coverage: ‘Hunted’ Director Subject to ‘Prosecutorial Obsession?’

ABC’s Good Morning America on Tuesday America continued to raise questions about the arrest of Roman Polanski in Europe, spinning the case as a "31 year-old prosecutorial obsession." According to reporter Nick Watt, the film director has "been hunted since 1978."


The View's Whoopi Goldberg on Polanski: 'It Wasn't Rape-Rape'

The View's Whoopi Goldberg yesterday offered the most outrageous and despicable defense of child rapist and Hollywood director Roman Polanski yet: "It wasn't rape-rape." That's right. Goldberg tried to claim that Polanksi drugging and having sex with a thirteen year old girl, who repeatedly uttered 'no' to the predator, does not qualify as 'actual' rape




[edit on 29-9-2009 by Wimbly]
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



The Internet as a case study of Socialism
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
Why the need for Constant Growth?
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags
Real Socialists. The Friends Of The Conservatives.
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
The Greenbay Packer\'s Prove That Socialism Works.
  Posted 19 days ago with 5 member flags
On What Date Did Human Freedom End?
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags