"Free Polanski" = Liberals gone crazy

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Even before Weinstein enlisted the left wing in his fight to free the famed director of "Chinatown," "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Pianist," celebrities were picking up the drumbeat.

1

uh huh and.............? I am not sure what your point is but I am going to guess it is that you finally went to dictionary.com and realized I was right.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Precisely. Liberalism-gone-too-far / Left-extremes. Not liberals per se.

Funny how a dozen posters are misrepresenting that.

No..........what is actually funny is how you do not see how pointing out that people on the right not only love sex with kids but protect each other over it too is relevant.

THERE IS NO REASON POLITICS NEEDS TO BE IN THIS DISCUSSION. If you just want to bash the left extreme then fine. Which part of the right should I put all the boyscout-*%&#ers on?

Originally posted by Aeons
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.


I am????? When did that come about? What steps am I taking? I am not defending the rich or the famous. I am defend the victim who has had 30 to think about this. I had no idea that I had the power to create an systems

Originally posted by Lillydale
THERE IS NO REASON POLITICS NEEDS TO BE IN THIS DISCUSSION. If you just want to bash the left extreme then fine. Which part of the right should I put all the boyscout-*%&#ers on?

Making the villain the hero is a tendency of Hollywood, but also a tendency of certain elements of the left-wing.

You can see one example of this in how these activists passionately fight for the rapist and not for the girl.

These are some of the same people (on the petition list) who call terrorists "freedom fighters".

Originally posted by Wimbly
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.

Yeah um no. Listen, see if you can follow along.

Do you think he can take the money back if she changes her mind now? Why on earth would that money have any sway at this point in time?

The only person I am looking out for here is the victim. If I thought a 70 year old man on the other side of the world was any kind of threat to anyone things would be different. Not only is he not a threat but punishing him after all this time will do nothing to deter others and nothing to him really. He will just go die in prison after having enjoyed a long full life.

The only person really being punished at all right now is the victim. Why does that not matter? What is the point if the net total of punishing him is double the punishment to her?

You dont get it and you wont get it. You think you are doing the right thing but who the hell are you doing it for?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale
Are you reading this thread at all? The one subtitled "Liberals gone crazy?" I am responding to the thread and other posters as much as you.

The emphasizing of REPUBLICAN was in response to one of my posts above.

Take what is relevant and toss what is not to the others. The subject of the thread is not just Polanski and his crime. The subject of the thread is how LIBERALS in particular support him.

Precisely. Liberalism-gone-too-far / Left-extremes. Not liberals per se.

Funny how a dozen posters are misrepresenting that.

Actually, the right wing Repub extremists in Hollywood (you know they're there) DID want to sign the petition to free Polanski but unfortunately they had to head to DC to help their political buddies out with the ever-growing child molestation scandal going on there. That will keep them busy, otherwise they'd sign it in a heartbeat.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale
THERE IS NO REASON POLITICS NEEDS TO BE IN THIS DISCUSSION. If you just want to bash the left extreme then fine. Which part of the right should I put all the boyscout-*%&#ers on?

Making the villain the hero is a tendency of Hollywood, but also a tendency of certain elements of the left-wing.

You can see one example of this in how these activists passionately fight for the rapist and not for the girl.

These are some of the same people (on the petition list) who call terrorists "freedom fighters".

...........and like I said! There are the same things on the right. Who do you think did the covering in the Franklin Coverup?????????????????????????

As far as terrorists...."I am a proud right wing terrorist!!" - "That man is a good American right there."

Remember that exchange?

You got Hollywood backing this guy so you blame the left. There are plenty of politicians on the right that are guilty of the same things and yet I cannot point out that this is NOT a left right problem? If Polanski was a congressman, this would most definately be a Republican issue. It is a Hollywood elite issue just like I would call that other crap Washington elitism. It is about people with money and fame, not left or right.

Do not ask why I would point out that the right does it too if the only point you want to make is that the left is bad for supporting Polanski. The "Left" is not supporting him. I did not see any black people on that list so does that mean that this is "white people gone crazy" as well?

reply to post by Lillydale


Why is it that when the darker sides of the left are exposed, the left always comes up with the dark sides of the right, as if two wrongs make a right?

Its childish, really. Just admit that the left has a sinister and extreme side.

I have not once denied the dark side of Repbs, Rightists, etc. But they are not the topic of this thread, are they?

The topic of this thread are left-activists in passionate, firey support of the child-rapist.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I find that the left-right spectrum is a comparison system that is lacking.

Have you heard of economist Walter Block?

He uses a plus shape, with left and right and good and evil - as opposed to the spectrum with just two ends.

The good and evil go at the top or the bottom.

This allows us to have Mother Theresa and Uncle Stalin at the same end of the spectrum and not feel weird about it as there is a clear differentiation; because we now include good and evil.

So while they are both at the left, Stalin is at the bottom (evil), while Mother Theresa is at the top (good).


Likewise, this also allows Hitler and Ron Paul to occupy the far right without causing too much confusion, as they are clearly separated by how much good or evil they do - and this is indicated on the chart by their distance from center (and therefore each other).




[edit on 30-9-2009 by Exuberant1]

This has nothing to do with left wing / right wing / liberalism but everything to do with a group of self-opinionated, arty elite who believe that due to their wealth and 'intellectual superiority' they are above the law.

Hang the evil bastard high and leave his body out in the open for all to see says I.

The man is an evil paedophile who has avoided justice for too long and deserves his comeuppance.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Why is it that when the darker sides of the left are exposed, the left always comes up with the dark sides of the right, as if two wrongs make a right?

Its childish, really. Just admit that the left has a sinister and extreme side.

I have not once denied the dark side of Repbs, Rightists, etc. But they are not the topic of this thread, are they?

The topic of this thread are left-activists in passionate, firey support of the child-rapist.

No no no no no. You just do not get it. I am not trying to right a wrong with another wrong. I am trying to point out that child rape and supporting child rapists is NOT A LEFT RIGHT THING!

He happens to be from an industry that is mostly Left so most of his supporters happen to be lefties. You have it ass backwards. You think they support him because they are left. That is not it. I am pointing out that there is wrong on both sides and there is support for wrong on both sides and it is the same kind of wrong on both sides.

You claimed that this is a "WEAKNESS FOR THE LEFT." I am simply pointing out that it is a weakness for the right as well so why bother bring that into it?

The people supporting him are left so the left must support him because the left have a weakness for child rape.
the people supporting him are white so the whites must support him because whites have a weakness for child rape.

I was just also pointing out that there is no shortage of child rape and the cover-up, protection of, and shielding on the right but it must be for a different reason than because the Right has a weakness for child rape.

edit to add that I am mailing out dictionaries to everyone on this thread tomorrow.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Exuberant1


I understand the concept and I agree that a linear left-right is mostly inadequate.

In this thread it is used a short-hand to exemplify where "villain becomes hero" comes from. It comes from certain elements of society that call themselves "left-wing". The label "left-wing" is not actually mine, its their own.

In reality, this is abuse of of what liberalism inherently means. So of course, referring to them as "liberals" in the thread title is unfair. But it has achieved lively discussion affording all posters the opporunity to reflect on the state of society and its stereotypes.

reply to post by Lillydale


Moral Relativism is not a weakness of the right, its a weakness of the left. The weaknesses of the right are of a different nature (moral bigotry for example).

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Moral Relativism is not a weakness of the right, its a weakness of the left. The weaknesses of the right are of a different nature (moral bigotry for example).

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skyfloating]

What????????

You have already been given examples of child rapists on the right and those that supported them. What is the difference?

Originally posted by Lillydale

What????????

You have already been given examples of child rapists on the right and those that supported them. What is the difference?

The difference is in motive/cause.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Lillydale

What????????

You have already been given examples of child rapists on the right and those that supported them. What is the difference?

The difference is in motive/cause.

Really? Please explain.

reply to post by Skyfloating


To those who say, "let the victim have her wishes", I say, "What if she wanted castration or execution? Would you still want her to have her wishes?"

Originally posted by Lillydale
Really? Please explain.

Ive actually explained the difference between right-wing-motivated child abuse and left-wing-motivated child abuse at least 5 times throughout this thread.

Ive also explained the dark sides of both sides, which are significantly different, several times, in very simple, easily recognizable and universally factual terms.

Plenty of other liberals in this thread have noticed and commented on it in various ways.

If you havent even noticed that, its an indicator that you are not really participating in discussion or what others are saying but merely on a ranting-spree.

reply to post by Skyfloating


No, I have read your posts but I have yet to see your credentials. The differences that you talk about are nothing more than assumptions about people's motives. Do you really claim to know all these people's motives?

Either way, you did not even know who was involved in the Franklin coverup so your 'research' did not get that far did it?

Just because you say something does not meant that it is actually the way things are. How could you have even come to these conclusions without knowledge of the biggest child sex case in the United States history and involved the White House?????

Originally posted by Lillydale
No, I have read your posts but I have yet to see your credentials.

My credentials?

End of discussion with you, its not worth my precious time.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Skyfloating]