"Free Polanski" = Liberals gone crazy

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Exactly...which tells you one thing...that party platforms are not designed to suit ideology but rather the parties constituents...which in the case of the Republicans and their opposition to a woman's right to chose...is the religious right....its pandering and little more.

The Democrats do the same thing.

So much for ideology.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Likewise it would be unfair to call a polygamist movement in Utah an example of conservatism gone wild.

True.

Admittedly

Earlier on I mentioned a scale of liberalism, from healthy to perverted. The same scale can be applied to the right-wing, even in terms of sexuality where we have proper morals at the top of the scale, and bigotted slaying of homosexuals at the bottom.

So, despite the defensiveness of some liberals here, this is not an attack on liberalism as such and I deny that any such attempt was made.

The core question raised in the OP is actually:

Why are some people defending this guy?

The answer seems to have been that Hollywood-types are desensitized to the tastes and laws of the broader public?

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skyfloating]

No offence Mr. OP, but you dug yourself into a medium-sized hole the moment you posted this thread title. You chose to attack a whole political faction by insinuating that Liberals want Polanski freed. If the issue for you was just about whether he should be freed or not, you could have posted something like "Should Polanski be released from police custody?" or "how can people think Polanski should be freed!"

Now you are getting defensive when people show you an example of "Conservatives gone crazy." It really is the pot calling the kettle black.

To everyone else, if you have not read some of the earlier posts, I suggest you do right now because some good points were made. Try and remove emotion from the issue and look at the facts. This is not really about morality...it is about confusion with State/Federal Law and Civil Law. I do not have a Law degree but I think most people have a basic understanding of the differences between the two.

[edit on 29/9/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by JPhish


Another thing to add is how many other kids did he do this to after he left the country? These animals don't stop at just one kid. And I agree, I don't care how long it takes to track these animals down.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Not really. The difference between liberalism and liberalism-gone-too-far is still clear as a bell to me and no amount of rhetoric can change that.

The denial on part of many liberals (the normal liberals we see in this thread) is that the "everything goes" stance can easily descend into things more sinister.

Ive seen a friendly and innocent "everything goes" stance turn into more troublesome stuff many times throughout life. Which is why I choose to be more moderate in all stances, including political ones.

Ive seen it with soft-drugs turning into harder ones, friendly sex turning into more sinister sex, petty theft eventually devolving into hard crime, etc. The instances are imprinted in memory, in real-life experience.

reply to post by Skyfloating


To make it clear, imagine a republican senator caught in the same crime.

This is hypocracy at its finest.

All those that support this paedophile should be ashamed.

a very angry 2 cents.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Quite possibly correct sky, which would indicate that it is not a case of extreme liberals making a farce of morality but extreme immorality making a farce of liberalism, so your thread title would seem to miss the point just a bit.

Likewise it would be unfair to call a polygamist movement in Utah an example of conservatism gone wild.

It's not liberal or conservative principles run amok. It's a lack of principles hiding itself behind any excuse it can get, and soiling the ideologies which are used to that end in the process.

The problem with this thread is that -in my opinion- it's trying to stretch the boundaries of liberal's openness to sex, to rape. In essence putting the liberals in the same side as the rapists and the pedophiles, at the left side. As if it doesn't happen at the right side.

I agree with Benevolent Heretic's take that this is an elitist case. Just with the "conservative" church priests who love altar boys case, they got 'support' and 'protection' from their elite peers.

The thread tittle should not be "liberals gone crazy", it should be "the elites have gone crazier even more".

Originally posted by Skyfloating
So, despite the defensiveness of some liberals here, this is not an attack on liberalism as such and I deny that any such attempt was made.

The core question raised in the OP is actually:

Why are some people defending this guy?

The thread title is "Liberalism gone crazy". On the first page someone pointed out (and in my opinion correctly) that the defenders are all Hollywood types and that this is an issue of the elite not a political issue, to which you responded.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
But its also a liberal issue as "free sexuality" is a core liberal issue. There is a bright side to "free sexuality" but it becomes dark when taken to extremes.

It read to me like you're equating 'free sexuality' with pedophilia.

I also noticed another inference by stating Harrison Ford, one of the so-called defenders, is a 'liberal activist'.

By the titling the thread and your added content of the word 'Liberalism' this whole thread is tilted towards political baiting, in my opinion. You shouldn't be surprised at the reaction of defensiveness.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
To make it clear, imagine a republican senator caught in the same crime.

Yes, there are Republican pedophiles and they should be jailed.

What does this have to do with left-wing-activists standing up for the civil rights of pedophiles more than the rights of the children?


[edit on 29-9-2009 by Skyfloating]

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


You can't really say what's wrong with people "these days" when the actions of both cases were around 30 years ago.

Originally posted by intrepid
Oh my, where to start? Of course Hollywood is not necessarily liberal. You've got the "talking heads" of course but labeling the lot as "liberal" would be incorrect. Didn't Reagan come from this crowd?

Its all liberal publications and politicians running to his rescue.

WaPo's Applebaum Excuses Polanski, Fails to Note Her Conflict of Interest

LA Times's Goldstein Excuses Child Rapist, Recalling His Personal Tragedies

Time Explains 'Why the French Are Outraged' at Roman Polanski Arrest

On "Hardball" last night former Democrat Governor Willie Brown was on defending him.

If someone finds or starts a list of the Actors and Directors etc who are supporting this "man" please link me.

I'll be happy to stop watching all of their movies. And I mean it. I've happily stopped from watching others of this ilk before, and I'll be happy to continue.

Being famous or being special doesn't entitle you to screw children. End of story.

They can't get that - I'll be happy to help teach it to them.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by mikerussellus
To make it clear, imagine a republican senator caught in the same crime.

Yes, there are Republican pedophiles and they should be jailed.

What does this have to do with left-wing-activists standing up for the civil rights of pedophiles?

Just putting the shoe on the other foot. The support would be none, both sides would be condeming it. There would be no defense. As there shouldn't be at all regardless of who has committed the act.

Thinking about this thread a little more, I'm wondering if the liberal ideology is a factor in the Hollywood's defense of Polanski. How would Hollywood respond if say a conservative Hollywood celebrity (say Ted Nugent or Ben Stein) were in the same boat? ... Would Hollywood be as vociferous in their defense of him? Or would they turn their back on him and insist that he pay for his crime?

I don't know. Do we know Polanski's politics? Is "liberal Hollywood" protecting one of their own because he's "Hollywood" or because he's a liberal? Or perhaps a little of each?



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

To the OP. This also shouldn't be a Liberal/Republican issue. Because anyone could bring up Lawrence King and 'Boystown' for the defense of the liberals.

If anything you could say 'movie stars gone crazy'.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
On the first page someone pointed out (and in my opinion correctly) that the defenders are all Hollywood types and that this is an issue of the elite not a political issue, to which you responded.

Except that its not only "Hollywwood-Types". See post by wimbly on this page for example.

Every person should be judged equally, by that i mean, if its a regular person like us who did something wacky like this....then freeing is the last thing that would come into their head. So why the heck this asshole should be released.........

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Disclaimer: This is no criticism of liberalism as such but of its darker side

How the left-wing are treating the Polanski-case is a good example of the dark-side of liberalism, a good example of what happens when a soft heart becomes a soft brain.

Have you given any thought to the victim?

She has stated that she does not want to relive this. She said that she went through it once already and no good would come of bringing it all back to the surface. She said he should be left to go do what he is doing and let her live her life. She apparently does not feel like letting Polanski have any more of her.

I guess that makes her a looney, lefty, moonbat? Perhaps she should be punished for wanting to let this rapist go free.

Or you could have respect for the fact that she has moved on and does not feel like being raped all over again. Silly liberal woman.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Thinking about this thread a little more, I'm wondering if the liberal ideology is a factor in the Hollywood's defense of Polanski. How would Hollywood respond if say a conservative Hollywood celebrity (say Ted Nugent or Ben Stein) were in the same boat? ... Would Hollywood be as vociferous in their defense of him? Or would they turn their back on him and insist that he pay for his crime?

I don't know. Do we know Polanski's politics? Is Hollywood protecting one of their own because he's "Hollywood" or because he's a liberal? Or perhaps a little of each?

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

So what's worse, people standing up in saying something in his defense or people sweeping it under the rug? In the Lawrence King case a woman was sentenced to 25 years in jail for perjury after the other victim recanted his testimony implicating 'high up' republicans.

I don't see this as a political issue. And the very act of lambasting 'liberals' over this is just adding fuel to the divide in your country. These are Hollywood people defending one of their own. No more, no less.