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: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Let it go all right at least it was a female unlike the other political persuasion who seem to have a thing for well you know ,


At least he raped a girl, so hey give him a pass?





posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

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.....



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This thread is awesome.

I think that rich and powerful people should have a government sponsored fund.

It works this way.

You determine what sorts of crimes you want to commit.

Then you work out how much it'll cost you.

You then pay into the fund the amount that will cover your proclivities.

Verified victims of your criminal activities can then make claims to the fund for the amount that a specific criminal activity perpetrated on you pays out.

This way we protect those ever so special individuals who couldn't possibly make their contributions to mankind without being given special freedoms.

Their victims are compensated for their part in helping keep these special people in the lifestyle they need and deserve.

We can call it the "Sin Offering" fund.

[edit on 2009/9/29 by Aeons]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
How about the public just boycott all of his movies, and, any actors/actresses in his movies.

If the public could do that (which I highly doubt), you’d see this pedophile strung up by noon tomorrow.



Added note: Just in case, let me add this is staying true to the theme of the thread.

Meaning, using this as an example, if, and when, the public chooses to stand up and boycott politicians, businesses, etc, something might change, but, the majority is not willing to ban together and unite and boycott, or *hit them where it hurts* (withholding money) - or so it seems......

peace




[edit on 29-9-2009 by silo13]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by silo13
How about the public just boycott all of his movies, and, any actors/actresses in his movies.

If the public could do that (which I highly doubt), you’d see this pedophile strung up by noon tomorrow.




Is English not taught in schools anymore? He is NOT A PEDOPHILE. Child rapist, sure but not a pedophile. I really hate seeing that word tossed around at every man who has sex with an underage girl. It does a great deal to take away from the true victims of pedophilia and in the long run it minimizes the sick crime that is pedophilia.

Boycotting his movies should be fairly easy though. See "The Piano?" Me neither.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The problem in my eyes are the activists who are "outraged" and "disgusted" that one would get arrested for child-rape.


I agree with you. But I don't think they are disgusted that anyone would get arrested for child rape. They are disgusted that "one of their own" is being made an example of for a crime that happened many years ago and which the victim wants dropped. They don't see the benefit. And neither do I. Not for as much pain and problems it's going to cause.

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.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The guy is a child-rapist


Statutory Rape is not rape...

I think people are annoyed that the resources of the United States government are being used over something like this when their really are child rapists out there...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
An adult using their authority to impose themselves on a child is rape.

Using drugs and alcohol is also rape.

Though I love the idea that people screwing post pubscent but partially developed minds is okay. Because she has boobies.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, is it liberalism or Hollywood elitism that caused the "Free Polanski" movement?

If this guy was just some Joe Blow, he probably wouldn't have had a chance to escape, but if he had, he wouldn't be arrested now. He would have gotten away with it. The only difference between this case and a thousand others who sleep with a young girl AND get away with it, is that Polanski is famous.

Speaking for myself, a young girl who willingly sleeps with an older man isn't forever damaged by it, especially if she had already experienced sex with men. Violent rape is another matter.

I just don't think the cost to benefit ratio is worth making a 74-year-old man spend the rest of his life in prison for something he did so long ago AND that the victim wants to drop completely to protect her kids. If she wanted him behind bars, I would support her.

If that makes me a liberal, well, then, call me a liberal.


(I completely changed my mind in the course of this thread. :shk: )


I don't mean to agree with you BH, but in this case I may have to. It is elitism, but the fact that most conservatives would NOT support him makes this a partisan issue.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
I don't mean to agree with you BH, but in this case I may have to. It is elitism, but the fact that most conservatives would NOT support him makes this a partisan issue.


Because it was not a little boy or because he is from Hollywood. If you are claiming that child rape is a partisan issue then you have not been reading every post. There are more than enough examples of these things happening and their colleagues rushing to their defense. Do you really believe that only liberals do things like this? You are not just blindly following some ideology are you?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
OK, here are my thoughts on the issue. What Polanski did was disgusting and vile.When he got caught he ran off and left the country like the coward he is. He should have been extradited back immediately and put on trial but was not and that makes me very angry.

I do tend to be more liberal when it comes to politics and I do think Polanksi should pay for his crime so in that respect I disagree that it is liberal issue here... Even the victim ( according to what was said on CNN the other night) is in favor of just letting him go....

That may just be because she wants to get it over with and into her past, but apparently she does want him to go free... I, as a liberal, do not want him to go free. he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl and he NEEDS to pay.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Sky, you keep saying the ['activists who are "outraged" and "disgusted"' by this arrest, but where is this being reported other than the Guardian (which, last I heard, was a tabloid)?



My link the OP is the BBC, not the Guardian. Furthermore, this can be found in any recent news outlets, CNN, Foxnews, you name it.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by mikerussellus
I don't mean to agree with you BH, but in this case I may have to. It is elitism, but the fact that most conservatives would NOT support him makes this a partisan issue.


Because it was not a little boy or because he is from Hollywood. If you are claiming that child rape is a partisan issue then you have not been reading every post. There are more than enough examples of these things happening and their colleagues rushing to their defense. Do you really believe that only liberals do things like this? You are not just blindly following some ideology are you?


Nope. I'm saying that if it were a conservative, then there would not be the groundswell of support. It is elitism, but with a bias towards liberals.
And anyone who rushes to the defense of someone of such low character, is a putz, in my book. Be they liberal or conservative.

A creep is a creep. And should be treated as such.

-see how I avoided using paedophile?
-



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Although this sick bastard deserves to have his Ba$$s fried. I think due to the time involved and the crime. The victim should be the one to decide whether she wants to go through this or not.

Hollyweird will turn this on it's head against her if it goes to court. I would at least keep him on the run and not let him back in the states.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

I don't mean to agree with you BH, but in this case I may have to. It is elitism, but the fact that most conservatives would NOT support him makes this a partisan issue.


I appreciate your agreement with me.
However, I must disagree with the second part of your statement. This isn't a partisan issue any more than the fact that many in the Catholic community supporting the pedophile priests is a is a partisan (conservative) issue...

It's a "group" issue. People many times are much more willing to protect those within their group, regardless what that group is. They are not protecting Polanski because he is in their liberal group (do we even know his politics?) they are protecting him because he is a Hollywood celebrity, just as some Catholics protect the priests. Because they are Catholic, not because they are conservative.

Just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Is English not taught in schools anymore? He is NOT A PEDOPHILE.


How can you keep denying he was engaged in a pedophilic act, and you deny that "free polanski" is perpetrated by leftists?

Amazing to watch.



I really hate seeing that word tossed around at every man who has sex with an underage girl.


Polanski didnt just "have sex" with an underaged girl. He forced her to have it. It is Polanski and similar people we are talking about here and not some hypthetical victims of mislabelling.







 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join