Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case

No sir. The reason to incarcerate him is because he is a filthy rich Jew. But they need a good pretext.

.

No.

The "reason" to get him BACK here and to incarcerate him is because he pled guilty; and child molesting pieces of shit like him need to get punished -- and the operation of the rule of law should not be set-aside just because a bunch of stupid libs find his case to be the next urgent "social justice" issue du jour.

Most people probably didn't even know (or give any thought to whether or not) Polanski is allegedly a Jew. That notion of yours :cuckoo: is dumber than most of the crap you tend to spew.

.


And you are the "Conservative Role Model"? So what is the difference nowadays between "conservatism" and a theocratic regime.

You fuckers are always looking for pretexts to set aside due process of law in favor of legal lynching, in the name of god, of course..


.

You appear to be pre-programmed to spout stupid meaningless shit. You do that pretty well, although it is not a very marketable talent in the real world.

Nothing I said has anything to do with a theocracy, you moron.

And, unlike YOU, I have not sought in ANY way to set aside due process. The scumbag, Polanski, GOT due process, you sub-imbecile. He was in Court WITH a lawyer when he entered his plea of guilty, you cretin. I don't recall seeing anything saying that he had a fucking gun to his head at the time, either. It was AFTER that time that he chose to FLEE.

What fucking "due process" has he, in your infantile mind, been denied?

Good God. You knee-jerk robotic unthinking liberoidals are stupid.
 
Nope, it works more like this:

She could have screwed the whole football team, her own age and of the same mentallity by consent or she could have been drugged and taken advantage of by an adult who should have known better and should have been willing to make the right decision.

Not that it is "ok" for her to be a skank, but 13 year old boys will act like 13 year old boys are expected to. 45 year old men should act like 45 year old men are expected to.

That's one of the most puzzling statements you've made. And that's saying something.
I'd ask you about it but you seem unable or unwilling to defend your beliefs.

Thats ok, you seem unwilling or unable to apply some common sense to your beleifs. I guess that makes us even.

So...let us break this down is it the 13 year old bys acting immature and impulsive that confuses you or the 45 year old knowing better that confuses you?

I dont know what you mean by "common sense."
What confuses me is the idea that it makes any difference at all whether the rapist is 13 or 50.
 
Let's not forget that it is not "rape, rape". Thank goodness that we found out what "is, is" before this question came up.

The way it works is like this. She could have screwed the whole football team. No Problem there.

But a 50 y/o penis....problem.


.

Nope, it works more like this:

She could have screwed the whole football team, her own age and of the same mentallity by consent or she could have been drugged and taken advantage of by an adult who should have known better and should have been willing to make the right decision.

Not that it is "ok" for her to be a skank, but 13 year old boys will act like 13 year old boys are expected to. 45 year old men should act like 45 year old men are expected to.

Nice diatribe but no explanation as to how she was HARMED which is always the underlying basis for criminalizing an act.

No explanation for penalizing a 50 y/o man for "acting" like a 13 y/o as if he is supposed to stop liking pussy due to his age.


.:eek:
 
That's one of the most puzzling statements you've made. And that's saying something.
I'd ask you about it but you seem unable or unwilling to defend your beliefs.

Thats ok, you seem unwilling or unable to apply some common sense to your beleifs. I guess that makes us even.

So...let us break this down is it the 13 year old bys acting immature and impulsive that confuses you or the 45 year old knowing better that confuses you?

I dont know what you mean by "common sense."
What confuses me is the idea that it makes any difference at all whether the rapist is 13 or 50.

Oh, so it is not common sense you lack, it is litteracy skills. Show me where I replied to ANYONE who mentioned a 13 year old RAPIST and I will explain it to you.
 
It's "literacy."

Anyway, I had to go back and read the post several times because your mode of expression stinks.
What point you were trying to make still eludes me.
 
What fucking "due process" has he, in your infantile mind, been denied?

The one guaranteed by the USC 5th and 14th Amendments.

His lawyer. prosecutor AND JUDGE negotiated a plea arrangement deal wherein he would plead guilty in return for a PROBATED SENTENCE. No deal then no guilty plead. Back to square one. Presumed innocent.


.
 
It's "literacy."

Anyway, I had to go back and read the post several times because your mode of expression stinks.
What point you were trying to make still eludes me.

OK, so it is my fault you can't read my posts, what about the post I replied to? Surely you could have read that post and not have seen the word "rapist" before football team right?
 
I do not believe in "victimless crimes". Some where, some how someone is always a victim in some form or another.

So who's the victim when a man pays for sex with a prostitute?

Not that you would EVER agree, but both are victims.

The man, it reinforces his opinion that women (or at least some women) are objects to be used and discarded, and therefore not worthy of a serious committment, missing out on emotionally rewarding relationships that would strengthen him as a human and the community.

The woman that accepts she is a "penis receptacle", and nothing more. It takes her humanity and makes her less than an animal (as far as rights goes, dogs are considered more valuable) in society's view. If you ever talked to prostitutes, you would find drug use and mental illnesses are rampant. Those do affect society and deteriorates the community.

I guess that adds more victims: the community.

You're right. I would never agree that the criminal is his own victim. Just not a big fan of circular bullshit. No offense.
 
So who's the victim when a man pays for sex with a prostitute?

See above post.

Still doesn't answer the question I asked. Again who EXACTLY is the VICTIM?
That is because this is a loaded question. It has more than one single answer depending on every specific circumstance. Just a couple of those circumstances are, does the prostitute or the guy have an STD? Is the guy married and is he cheating on his wife?

There are so many other variables in the question that I can not even pretend to have all the right answers to it. Thus, it is a loaded question, but you already knew that.
 
See above post.

Still doesn't answer the question I asked. Again who EXACTLY is the VICTIM?
That is because this is a loaded question. It has more than one single answer depending on every specific circumstance. Just a couple of those circumstances are, does the prostitute or the guy have an STD? Is the guy married and is he cheating on his wife?

There are so many other variables in the question that I can not even pretend to have all the right answers to it. Thus, it is a loaded question, but you already knew that.

That's not how I see it at all.

This is how I see it:

You made an absolute declarative statement, that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. As a general rule, I would agree with you. However there are exceptions. I simply provided you with one such exception to test how you would respond. Rather than being open-minded and objective, and acknowledging the obvious exception for what it is, you tap danced around it and essentially refused to attempt any semblance of intelletual honesty.

You fail.

Have a nice day.
 
See above post.

Still doesn't answer the question I asked. Again who EXACTLY is the VICTIM?
That is because this is a loaded question. It has more than one single answer depending on every specific circumstance. Just a couple of those circumstances are, does the prostitute or the guy have an STD? Is the guy married and is he cheating on his wife?

There are so many other variables in the question that I can not even pretend to have all the right answers to it. Thus, it is a loaded question, but you already knew that.

There is no victim in prostition.

How's that answer mani :)
 
Still doesn't answer the question I asked. Again who EXACTLY is the VICTIM?
That is because this is a loaded question. It has more than one single answer depending on every specific circumstance. Just a couple of those circumstances are, does the prostitute or the guy have an STD? Is the guy married and is he cheating on his wife?

There are so many other variables in the question that I can not even pretend to have all the right answers to it. Thus, it is a loaded question, but you already knew that.

That's not how I see it at all.

This is how I see it:

You made an absolute declarative statement, that there is no such thing as a victimless crime. As a general rule, I would agree with you. However there are exceptions. I simply provided you with one such exception to test how you would respond. Rather than being open-minded and objective, and acknowledging the obvious exception for what it is, you tap danced around it and essentially refused to attempt any semblance of intelletual honesty.

You fail.

Have a nice day.

Wow, I state that I can not answer your question with a simple one statement answer because it is complex, and you claim victory?

Have a nice run for political office someday...

You see, there is no single answer to the question, yet you want a single answer based on a broad circumstance. I didn't fail; you just don't see the fallacy in your own question.

Sometimes the prostitue can be the vctim. Sometimes the John can be the victim. Sometimes the victim can be a spouse, it depends on a set of variables you did not present. Thus, you submitted a faulty question. I am not "tap dancing", you just want me to pull an answer out of my ass when I am not even standing up.
 
Last edited:
What fucking "due process" has he, in your infantile mind, been denied?

The one guaranteed by the USC 5th and 14th Amendments.

His lawyer. prosecutor AND JUDGE negotiated a plea arrangement deal wherein he would plead guilty in return for a PROBATED SENTENCE. No deal then no guilty plead. Back to square one. Presumed innocent.


.

You are not entitled to make up your own facts. Wills get "probated." Convicted Felons get prison or probation.

The plea, in Polanski's case, left OPEN the question of what his sentence might ultimately be. It was clearly indicated (and Polanski ACKNOWLEDGED) that it would be up to the JUDGE whether or not he got probation or a prison term for his sentence.

Tell ya what, hot shot. Instead of YOU making crap up and trying to foist off your mis-understanding of what happened as the "facts" (which they aren't) why not go to the actual official RECORD itself? Hm. How about, maybe, looking at the fucking Court Roman Polanski Plea Transcript - September 28, 2009 ?

Polanski entered his plea of guilty, and was thus convicted of the felony, ON 8/8/1977. For all the time he was in Europe, the scumbag was a wanted fugitive from justice.

So, again, what DUE PROCESS was the asswipe denied?

Certainly nobody would be so massively retarded as to claim that since the judge has since died, the plea has to be vacated. For that begs the question, what happened in the time period between the plea and when the judge died? Oh, yeah. That's right, the fucking convicted felon, FLED. He gets NO benefit, now, based on the consequence of his own illegal conduct.
 
Last edited:
I do not claim victory at all.

I would feel much better about the addition of another rare, honest, open-minded poster to this board than just one more closed-minded simpleton too spineless to question what they think they already know.
 
I do not claim victory at all.

I would feel much better about the addition of another rare, honest, open-minded poster to this board than just one more closed-minded simpleton too spineless to question what they think they already know.

So, what you are saying is because you can not ask clear questions that you demand a single broad brushed answer to, and I can not provide you with that answer, I am a closed minded spineless simpleton?

Indeed. What always amazes me is that most people who resort to calling other people "closed minded" are themselves closed minded, they just sit on the other side of the issue of those they point the finger at. Closed mindedness can occur in 360 degrees around any subject, remember that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top