Hollywood types supporting Polanski????

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Sorry, but your comment was very vague. If you had been specific about which political leaders you were talking about and what crimes you're referring to and how they related to this rape...[/quote]Ok, I'll provide more details. Understandably, a broad comment like, "All crimes should be prosecuted, in addition to this disturbing rape case from 3 decades ago" probably needs some qualification before it sounds reasonable to some.

The Bush administration violated numerous laws, statutes and treaties, particularly with regard to illegal surveillance, indefinite detention and torture (including citizens and non-citizens). These are serious crimes under domestic and international law and they impacted a large number of people, leading to the deaths of over 100 people and many more injured and maimed.

The current administration, as well as several prominent media outlets advocate a policy of "not looking back" to the past 8 years to investigate/prosecute these crimes. Not surprisingly, however, some of these same media outlets, are (rightly) calling for prosecution of a single rape case from three decades ago. I agree that Samantha Geimer is entitled to justice in a court of law. In addition to that particular case, I believe that our political leaders are not above the law and must be held accountable for their decisions.

I hope this helps to connect the dots for you, Ghosty.

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Sorry, but your comment was very vague. If you had been specific about which political leaders you were talking about and what crimes you're referring to and how they related to this rape...[/quote]Ok, I'll provide more details. Understandably, a broad comment like, "All crimes should be prosecuted, in addition to this disturbing rape case from 3 decades ago" probably needs some qualification before it sounds reasonable to some.

The Bush administration violated numerous laws, statutes and treaties, particularly with regard to illegal surveillance, indefinite detention and torture (including citizens and non-citizens). These are serious crimes under domestic and international law and they impacted a large number of people, leading to the deaths of over 100 people and many more injured and maimed.

The current administration, as well as several prominent media outlets advocate a policy of "not looking back" to the past 8 years to investigate/prosecute these crimes. Not surprisingly, however, some of these same media outlets, are (rightly) calling for prosecution of a single rape case from three decades ago. I agree that Samantha Geimer is entitled to justice in a court of law. In addition to that particular case, I believe that our political leaders are not above the law and must be held accountable for their decisions.

I hope this helps to connect the dots for you, Ghosty.
[/quote]

Perhaps that deserves a thread of it's own rather than trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about the rape of a specific young girl. I doubt the prosecution in this case are going to be referencing the crimes of the the Bush administration to make their point.

But in fairness, reading your post again, that wasn't your point. You were referring to "media outlets"....which is comprised of frauds, whores, attention seekers, snake oil salesmen, etc. I wouldn't expect them to have an opinion on anything that wasn't a news story within the past 5 minutes. If they had had the courage of their convictions they would have spent the past 30 years railing against Polanski on the news every night rather than suddenly remembering, or in some cases learning about the case for the first time just as Polanski got busted and it became a "sexy" story again and they can get mileage out of it.

As for the current administration..well..unless there was a massive mainstream groundswell of support for prosecution of members of the Bush administration and it would benefit Democrats around election time I don't think you'll be hearing much about Bush. It might also be case of "if they go, we go" since they're all in bed together.

No need to "connect the dots" for me.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Perhaps that deserves a thread of it's own rather than trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about the rape of a specific young girl.[/quote]Yes, it was just a side-comment until someone asked for more details.

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Perhaps that deserves a thread of it's own rather than trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about the rape of a specific young girl.[/quote]Yes, it was just a side-comment until someone asked for more details.
[/quote]

No need to say "someone"....we're the only two people left reading this thing.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Perhaps that deserves a thread of it's own rather than trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about the rape of a specific young girl.[/quote]Yes, it was just a side-comment until someone asked for more details.[/quote]No need to say "someone"....we're the only two people left reading this thing.[/quote]I was waiting to see if you would ask for further clarification again.

[ghosty]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Perhaps that deserves a thread of it's own rather than trying to shoehorn it into a discussion about the rape of a specific young girl.[/quote]Yes, it was just a side-comment until someone asked for more details.[/quote]No need to say "someone"....we're the only two people left reading this thing.[/quote]I was waiting to see if you would ask for further clarification again.
[/quote]

Can we have a conversation without being snarky to each other? Honestly, we're like a cliche of every old bitty on a messageboard. It achieves nothing. I apologize if my first post was snarky. I have a perception of you that is based solely on messages in a forum which admittedly may not be accurate.

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>Can we have a conversation without being snarky to each other? ... It achieves nothing. I apologize if my first post was snarky.[/quote]Agreed. Let's move on. I don't have to be simultaneously shrill and snarky 100% of the time.[quote][i]Originally posted by ghosty[/i]<br>I have a perception of you that is based solely on messages in a forum which admittedly may not be accurate.[/quote]Good point. Despite political differences, I'm pretty sure I'd have a great time over a beer or cocktail with anyone on NWO. And the music tastes here are indeed impeccable.

This closes out my comments to the topic:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yp7r0j4XrO8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar¡Ì[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marv[/i]

[?][/quote]

Meaning, I don't give a shit about her age at the time...I don't give a shit about the statutory part. I only give a shit if it was flat-out rape. Which it was.[/quote]

It's a good thing such grossly oversimplified opinions such as this are in the minority. Does anyone know if "flat out rape" is a legal term?

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¡èt=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

<p align="justify">But, you see, it's the law that sees this as black and white/oversimplified. Even in the US, each state has their own age of consent. So while in Nevada one could consent at 16, next door in California it's 18. It's pretty hard to gauge someone's maturity with regards to sex. However, it's pretty easy if she's pushing the guy away and saying "no" the whole time[}:)] Not just that, but you do know that back in the 70s things were a little more... hectic. It doesn't excuse polanski at all, of course. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Yet, this also means that steve tyler, jimmy page, david bowie, and a few others should also be prosecuted as paedophiles and child rapists[}:)]

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar¡Ì[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SomebodySomewhere[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by marv[/i]

[?][/quote]

Meaning, I don't give a shit about her age at the time...I don't give a shit about the statutory part. I only give a shit if it was flat-out rape. Which it was.[/quote]

It's a good thing such grossly oversimplified opinions such as this are in the minority. Does anyone know if "flat out rape" is a legal term?

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¡èt=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]

<p align="justify">But, you see, it's the law that sees this as black and white/oversimplified. Even in the US, each state has their own age of consent. So while in Nevada one could consent at 16, next door in California it's 18. It's pretty hard to gauge someone's maturity with regards to sex.[/quote]

Philosophical musing is fun as an intellectual exercise and when hitting the bong but in the real world there are laws. No one is exempt from them. If you or Polanski want the laws changed, there are more useful ways of going about it.

[quote]Not just that, but you do know that back in the 70s things were a little more... hectic. It doesn't excuse polanski at all, of course. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.[/quote]

This is the more sensible part of your post.

[quote]Yet, this also means that steve tyler, jimmy page, david bowie, and a few others should also be prosecuted as paedophiles and child rapists[}:)][/quote]

OK. Most people would have no problem with that. Has the legal process been applied to these men?

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">It's not "philosophical musings" at all. Look up the age of consent for each state and you'll see there is disparity between one and the other, which proves my point. As far as ted nugent, steve tyler, and the rest of those child molesters go: nope, they've never been prosecuted and, in fact, went on to repeatedly molest their victim[}:)]




________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">

[MARV]

Philosophical musing. I don't care about the "disparity" in states' definitions of statutory rape. The ironic differences. The seeming contradictions. I don't care about other celebrities that got away with it. Do you think Polanski's legal counsel is using these arguments? No, because it doesn't work.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar￾ã[/i]
<br>Philosophical musing. I don't care about the "disparity" in states' definitions of statutory rape. The ironic differences. The seeming contradictions. I don't care about other celebrities that got away with it. Do you think Polanski's legal counsel is using these arguments? No, because it doesn't work.[/quote]

<p align="justify">It's a valid point, not a "philosophical musing" (as you maintain stating). Furthermore, you don't care for a clear definition of what rape truly constitutes. By extension, you also don't care for the law to be just and even with everyone. Ergo, you are okay with a 17-year old kid who was imprisoned for "statutory" rape (i.e., not real rape) and who lost his chances at getting into a university because he was convicted of this silly and made-up crime - whereas, real child rapists and predators remain free. Lastly, have I stated these are points to be argued by Polanski's defense? Where ever did you read that nonsense? This is a side discussion from what that other member wrote[}:)]


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">

[MARV]

[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar￾ã[/i]
<br>Philosophical musing. I don't care about the "disparity" in states' definitions of statutory rape. The ironic differences. The seeming contradictions. I don't care about other celebrities that got away with it. Do you think Polanski's legal counsel is using these arguments? No, because it doesn't work.[/quote]

<p align="justify">It's a valid point, not a "philosophical musing" (as you maintain stating). Furthermore, you don't care for a clear definition of what rape truly constitutes. By extension, you also don't care for the law to be just and even with everyone. Ergo, you are okay with a 17-year old kid who was imprisoned for "statutory" rape (i.e., not real rape) and who lost his chances at getting into a university because he was convicted of this silly and made-up crime - whereas, real child rapists and predators remain free. Lastly, have I stated these are points to be argued by Polanski's defense? Where ever did you read that nonsense? This is a side discussion from what that other member wrote[}:)]


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">
[/quote]

Obfuscation as well as philosophical musing. From someone with a porn fixation. It is the right thing for Polanski to serve out the sentence on a statutory rape conviction. I will never see otherwise.

I'm sorry, but it's hard fro me to see whose side discussion you're participating in when I'm the one you keep quoting.

<a href="http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/?action=view¤t=tick.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y271/marvymarv/tick.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[hutter]

Why should the loonies in Hollywood showing their support of Polanski be a surprise? They're mostly far-left immoral douche-bags that defend peddling movies that glamorize underage sex and rape, in comedies no less, as "progressive".

[Bitter Almonds]

[quote][i]Originally posted by mar#8730;[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by XXX[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by mar￾ã[/i]
<br>Philosophical musing. I don't care about the "disparity" in states' definitions of statutory rape. The ironic differences. The seeming contradictions. I don't care about other celebrities that got away with it. Do you think Polanski's legal counsel is using these arguments? No, because it doesn't work.[/quote]

<p align="justify">It's a valid point, not a "philosophical musing" (as you maintain stating). Furthermore, you don't care for a clear definition of what rape truly constitutes. By extension, you also don't care for the law to be just and even with everyone. Ergo, you are okay with a 17-year old kid who was imprisoned for "statutory" rape (i.e., not real rape) and who lost his chances at getting into a university because he was convicted of this silly and made-up crime - whereas, real child rapists and predators remain free. Lastly, have I stated these are points to be argued by Polanski's defense? Where ever did you read that nonsense? This is a side discussion from what that other member wrote[}:)]


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">
[/quote]

Obfuscation as well as philosophical musing. From someone with a porn fixation. It is the right thing for Polanski to serve out the sentence on a statutory rape conviction. I will never see otherwise.

I'm sorry, but it's hard fro me to see whose side discussion you're participating in when I'm the one you keep quoting.[/quote]

<p align="justify">"Obfuscation"? Hahah. If I made things any clearer and simpler, I'd be s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g things out. Of course it's the right thing polanski may serve out a sentence for rape. Nobody here has taken another stance. What is being discussed now is something else besides this. If it's hard for you to see I quoted both of you initially when I replied in this topic, then mebbe readin' glasses are in order[}:)]


________________________
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v465/Nuwavghost/dij.gif">