Doonesbury vs. Hollywood this week
Peter B. Steiger
You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
thinking???
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
Dann
wrote:
> http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> thinking???
>
They are trying to be something that they don't understand;
intellectuals.
--
Regards,
Dann
Carl Fink
> http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> thinking???
Thinking? That's a huge assumption.
For all that some right-wingers like to hate on Trudeau, I think (without
doing the research) that he and Rush are on the same page on this issue.
Me too. Polanski deserves worse punishments than we can actually inflict
under the US Constitution.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Dann
> On 2009-10-14, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> > You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> > have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> > exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> > thinking???
>
> Thinking? That's a huge assumption.
>
> For all that some right-wingers like to hate on Trudeau, I think (without
> doing the research) that he and Rush are on the same page on this issue.
>
> Me too. Polanski deserves worse punishments than we can actually inflict
> under the US Constitution.
No one is slagging Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Goldberg, OTOH, has earned a
heaping helping of criticism, scorn, and other verbal abuse.
Which is kind of regrettable as she has been moderately libertarian
from time to time.
--
Regards,
Dann
Mike Marshall
>On Oct 14, 12:54=A0pm, "Peter B. Steiger" <see....@for.email.address>
>wrote:
>> http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>>
>> You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
>> have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
>> exaggeration. =A0What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
>> thinking???
>>
>They are trying to be something that they don't understand;
>intellectuals.
>--
>Regards,
>Dann
Harrison Ford has grandchildren the same age as the child Polanski had
his quaalude/champagne party with...
http://www.photographytips.com.au/images/roman-polanski-fugitive-justice1.jpg
-Mike "sheesh"
James Nicoll
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
>have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
>exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
>thinking???
>
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Paul Ciszek
In article <5ebf6a30-e82f-4b99...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>No one is slagging Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Goldberg, OTOH, has earned a
>heaping helping of criticism, scorn, and other verbal abuse.
>
>Which is kind of regrettable as she has been moderately libertarian
>from time to time.
Some libertarians can be kind of creepy in that regard--some of them
seem to regard the enforcement of laws against child abuse and domestic
violence to be examples of government sticking its nose where it
doesn't belong, a man's home is his castle, etc.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Robert
> On 2009-10-14, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> > You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> > have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> > exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> > thinking???
>
> Thinking? That's a huge assumption.
>
> For all that some right-wingers like to hate on Trudeau, I think (without
> doing the research) that he and Rush are on the same page on this issue.
>
> Me too. Polanski deserves worse punishments than we can actually inflict
> under the US Constitution.
> --
You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right? And that
the woman in question has gone on record as saying that she doesn't
want Polanski prosecuted? If Polanski wasn't a celebrity it wouldn't
even raise an eyebrow. California's limited law-enforcement resources
should be focused on violent criminals, not statutory "rapes" from
forty years past. Their prisons are already so crowded that thousands
of criminals are being released early!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
He's not "accused" of anything. He pled guilty then fled justice, so
he's *convicted* and a fugitive.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Carl Fink
> You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right?
No. Because it is false.
He PLED GUILTY to statutory rape. He COMMITTED forcible rape and pled down.
He drugged a 13-year-old girl and vaginally and anally raped her while she
pleaded with him to stop.
> And that the woman in question has gone on record as saying that she
> doesn't want Polanski prosecuted?
Not up to her. In this country we do not have private prosecutions. He's a
rapist and letting him go free because he can afford a trip to Europe is NOT
justice, period.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
James Nicoll
Robert <bobby...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
No, he was accused of with rape by use of drugs, perversion,
sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing
a controlled substance to a minor. He pled guilty to the charge of engaging
in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which Geimer's lawyer accepted
to spare his 13-year-old client the trial. Havign pled guilty, Polanski
fled when he learned the judge might, as was his legal right, not let
Polanski off with probation.
Here's the testimony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Actually, from her own Grand Jury testimony:
After giving her the half-qualude and champagne, he got her naked.
He asked her if he could perform cunnilingus on her, she said no, he
did anyway. He asked her if he could penetrate her vagina, she said
no, he did anyway. He asked her if he could penatrate her anally, she
said no, he did anyway, and climaxed inside. Remembering she was 13
years old at the time makes it that much creepier.
I don't know what definition you have of rape, but that seems to
fit the common "forced penetration" one.
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 1:20�pm, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-10-14, Peter B. Steiger <see....@for.email.address> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>>
>> > You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
>> > have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
>> > exaggeration. �What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
>> > thinking???
>>
>> Thinking? �That's a huge assumption.
>>
>> For all that some right-wingers like to hate on Trudeau, I think (without
>> doing the research) that he and Rush are on the same page on this issue.
>>
>> Me too. Polanski deserves worse punishments than we can actually inflict
>> under the US Constitution.
>
>No one is slagging Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Goldberg, OTOH, has earned a
>heaping helping of criticism, scorn, and other verbal abuse.
>
???
Oh, this should have a good explanation!
>Which is kind of regrettable as she has been moderately libertarian
>from time to time.
Everybody's a little crazy . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Carl Fink
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT), Dann <deto...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>No one is slagging Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Goldberg, OTOH, has earned a
>>heaping helping of criticism, scorn, and other verbal abuse.
>
> Oh, this should have a good explanation!
Caryn "Whoopi Goldberg" Johnson said that what Polanski did "wasn't
rape-rape." She's a thought-free, unfeeling, piece of work.
Mike Marshall
>You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right? And that
>the woman in question has gone on record as saying that she doesn't
>want Polanski prosecuted? If Polanski wasn't a celebrity it wouldn't
>even raise an eyebrow.
Quaaludes. Champagne. 13 year old child. You're not thinking clearly.
-Mike
Cindy Kandolf
> http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> thinking???
Circling the wagons doesn't require a great deal of thinking.
Honestly, when I heard Whoopi's remark, my jaw dropped so fast it left
bruises on the way down. Rape is sex without the consent of one of the
involved parties. And in the situation under discussion: 1) she was
well under the age of consent; 2) he was in a position of influence
over her (she was hoping he could help her get started in an acting or
modeling career); and 3) she was intoxicated on both alcohol and a
Quaalude at the time. What more does it take to make it "rape-rape"?
It's right back to the days of "she must have been willing or she'd've
fought back harder".
(Besides which, this is at least as much about fleeing the country
before sentencing as anything else. Surely nobody is going to deny
that Polanski did *that* part?)
To bring it back to comics a little, Trudeau should be thanking his
lucky stars that young Sam is believably about 13 years old herself
right now. Wednesday's punchline was a thing of beauty.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: B�rum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 12:54�pm, "Peter B. Steiger" <see....@for.email.address>
Actually, it's called peer loyalty . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Pat O'Neill
> In article <96add2d7-991f-46d1-81ed-449e6bd7a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Robert <bobbyd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right?
>
> No, he was accused of with rape by use of drugs, perversion,
> sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing
> a controlled substance to a minor. He pled guilty to the charge of engaging
> in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which Geimer's lawyer accepted
> to spare his 13-year-old client the trial. Havign pled guilty, Polanski
> fled when he learned the judge might, as was his legal right, not let
> Polanski off with probation.
>
> Here's the testimony:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.htmlhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html
> defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
While in no way defending what Polanski did, there are credible
questions about the judge's reasons for denying the probation as
stipulated in the plea deal Polanski and the prosecutor agreed to. It
is highly unusual for a judge to overrule a plea deal in cases like
this...except that Polanski was a high-profile defendant and the
judge--according to credible sources--saw an opportunity for some high-
publicity grandstanding.
Further, while I agree about the US not having private prosecutions as
another poster stated, the authorities in cases like this usually bow
to the victim's wishes regarding trials and their aftermath. Greimer
is satisfied; why--after 30 years--isn't the LA prosecutor? Why did
the Swiss--after letting Polanski come and go for three decades (he
owns a home in Gstaad)--suddenly choose to arrest and extradite him?
The political questions--on both sides of the Atlantic--are
disturbing.
Invid Fan
<ci...@bizet.nethelp.no> wrote:
> "Peter B. Steiger" <see...@for.email.address> writes:
> > http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
> >
> > You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> > have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> > exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> > thinking???
>
> Circling the wagons doesn't require a great deal of thinking.
>
> Honestly, when I heard Whoopi's remark, my jaw dropped so fast it left
> bruises on the way down. Rape is sex without the consent of one of the
> involved parties. And in the situation under discussion: 1) she was
> well under the age of consent; 2) he was in a position of influence
> over her (she was hoping he could help her get started in an acting or
> modeling career); and 3) she was intoxicated on both alcohol and a
> Quaalude at the time. What more does it take to make it "rape-rape"?
> It's right back to the days of "she must have been willing or she'd've
> fought back harder".
>
And probably that "date rape" isn't really rape and she had to know
what would happen going in.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Oct 15, 12:09 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <96add2d7-991f-46d1-81ed-449e6bd7a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Robert <bobbyd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right?
>
> > No, he was accused of with rape by use of drugs, perversion,
> > sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing
> > a controlled substance to a minor. He pled guilty to the charge of engaging
> > in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which Geimer's lawyer accepted
> > to spare his 13-year-old client the trial. Havign pled guilty, Polanski
> > fled when he learned the judge might, as was his legal right, not let
> > Polanski off with probation.
>
> > Here's the testimony:
>
> > --http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicollhttp://www.cafepress.com...all your "The problem with
> > defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
>
> While in no way defending what Polanski did, there are credible
> questions about the judge's reasons for denying the probation as
> stipulated in the plea deal Polanski and the prosecutor agreed to. It
> is highly unusual for a judge to overrule a plea deal in cases like
> this...except that Polanski was a high-profile defendant and the
> judge--according to credible sources--saw an opportunity for some high-
> publicity grandstanding.
>
> Further, while I agree about the US not having private prosecutions as
> another poster stated, the authorities in cases like this usually bow
> to the victim's wishes regarding trials and their aftermath. Greimer
> is satisfied; why--after 30 years--isn't the LA prosecutor? Why did
> the Swiss--after letting Polanski come and go for three decades (he
> owns a home in Gstaad)--suddenly choose to arrest and extradite him?
> The political questions--on both sides of the Atlantic--are
> disturbing.
So are the moral questions. How many convicted felons, fearful that
the judge may impose a harsher sentence than the DA asked for, skip
the jurisdiction-- I don't think many, as they don't have the money or
connections a Polanski.
Plea bargins are not legally binding and it is usually within any
juedges power to reject the recommended sentencing. If we feel that
judges must adhere to plea bargins, act to change the law or appeal
the decision but don't skip the country because you don't like the
result.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On 2009-10-15, Antonio E Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT), Dann <deto...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>>No one is slagging Mr. Trudeau. Ms. Goldberg, OTOH, has earned a
>>>heaping helping of criticism, scorn, and other verbal abuse.
>>
>> Oh, this should have a good explanation!
>
>
>Caryn "Whoopi Goldberg" Johnson said that what Polanski did "wasn't
>rape-rape." She's a thought-free, unfeeling, piece of work.
Well for *that*, sure . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Dann
>
>
>
> > In article <96add2d7-991f-46d1-81ed-449e6bd7a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > Robert <bobbyd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > >You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right?
>
> > No, he was accused of with rape by use of drugs, perversion,
> > sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing
> > a controlled substance to a minor. He pled guilty to the charge of engaging
> > in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which Geimer's lawyer accepted
> > to spare his 13-year-old client the trial. Havign pled guilty, Polanski
> > fled when he learned the judge might, as was his legal right, not let
> > Polanski off with probation.
>
> > Here's the testimony:
>
> > --http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicollhttp://www.cafepress.com...all your "The problem with
> > defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
>
> While in no way defending what Polanski did, there are credible
> questions about the judge's reasons for denying the probation as
> stipulated in the plea deal Polanski and the prosecutor agreed to. It
> is highly unusual for a judge to overrule a plea deal in cases like
> this...except that Polanski was a high-profile defendant and the
> judge--according to credible sources--saw an opportunity for some high-
> publicity grandstanding.
Actually, plea agreements pretty much vary from court to court. One
judge may sign onto what amounts to a three way agreement for a plea
where the judge across the hall may accept the plea and the
prosecutor's recommendation for punishment while concomitantly
maintaining discretion of the actual sentence.
One key factor in any plea agreement is that the accused exhibit some
level of remorse for his/her actions. If a defendant exhibits
contradictory behavior before he/she is sentenced, then it is
appropriate for a judge to factor that into the sentence.
Essentially, a defendant can void their agreement by exhibiting non-
remorseful behavior prior to sentencing.
In this particular case, if Mr. Polanski exhibited a lack of remorse
for his actions in either words or deeds, then it is not only within
the ability of the judge to establish a different sentence, it is also
the responsibility of any court officer that knows of such words or
deeds to bring them to the judge's attention.
A plea agreement is not like a contract you sign to buy a car.
> Further, while I agree about the US not having private prosecutions as
> another poster stated, the authorities in cases like this usually bow
> to the victim's wishes regarding trials and their aftermath. Greimer
> is satisfied; why--after 30 years--isn't the LA prosecutor? Why did
> the Swiss--after letting Polanski come and go for three decades (he
> owns a home in Gstaad)--suddenly choose to arrest and extradite him?
> The political questions--on both sides of the Atlantic--are
> disturbing.
Until the sentence has been issued, the case is open. The only way to
close it is to get the defendant in front of a judge who can then
impose a sentence of some sort.
Mr. Polanski complicated matters by committing a second crime when he
fled prior to sentencing.
IMO, the judge should honor the original plea agreement for the rape
charge. He should then fine Mr. Polanski for the trouble he has
caused the prosecutor's office and perhaps tack on some jail time for
the fleeing charge.
In any case, Mr. Polanski, the famous film director, will have
received far less "justice" than Mr. Polanski, the carpenter/plumber/
engineer/etc., would have received for the same crimes. The latter
would have gotten 5 to 10 in prison even with the plea agreement.
All of the above is informed by a bunch of personal experiences with
people I know that have been in potentially serious trouble.
--
Regards,
Dann
Dann
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:04:06 -0700 (PDT), Dann <detox...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 14, 12:54 pm, "Peter B. Steiger" <see....@for.email.address>
> >wrote:
> >>http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2009/10/14/
>
> >> You know, if I hadn't googled that remark from Whoopi Goldberg I would
> >> have thought Trudeau was employing his usual flair for comic
> >> exaggeration. What the heck was she (and Polanski's other supporters)
> >> thinking???
>
> >They are trying to be something that they don't understand;
> >intellectuals.
>
> Actually, it's called peer loyalty . . .
Any disagreement between us on this point is something you are
bringing to the table.
--
Regards,
Dann
Dann
this story perceived by the average person where you live?
We get to hear from a lot of non-average people in the news. I'm
wondering if average people have a different opinion.
--
Regards,
Dann
cryptoguy
> On Oct 15, 10:09 am, "Pat O'Neill" <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 12:09 am, jdnic...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > > In article <96add2d7-991f-46d1-81ed-449e6bd7a...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Robert <bobbyd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >You do realize that he's accused of STATUTORY rape, right?
>
> > > No, he was accused of with rape by use of drugs, perversion,
> > > sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing
> > > a controlled substance to a minor. He pled guilty to the charge of engaging
> > > in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, which Geimer's lawyer accepted
> > > to spare his 13-year-old client the trial. Havign pled guilty, Polanski
> > > fled when he learned the judge might, as was his legal right, not let
> > > Polanski off with probation.
>
> > > Here's the testimony:
>
> > >http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.htmlhttp://www.thesmo...
> > > defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
>
> > While in no way defending what Polanski did, there are credible
> > questions about the judge's reasons for denying the probation as
> > stipulated in the plea deal Polanski and the prosecutor agreed to. It
> > is highly unusual for a judge to overrule a plea deal in cases like
> > this...except that Polanski was a high-profile defendant and the
> > judge--according to credible sources--saw an opportunity for some high-
> > publicity grandstanding.
>
> Actually, plea agreements pretty much vary from court to court. One
> judge may sign onto what amounts to a three way agreement for a plea
> where the judge across the hall may accept the plea and the
> prosecutor's recommendation for punishment while concomitantly
> maintaining discretion of the actual sentence.
I too, consider the use of drugs, alcohol, and career pressure in this
way (quite aside from the girl's age) to be vile and worthy of
punishment.
However, I think its understandable why he fled. RP is not a US
citizen. This is a foreign country to him, with a foreign system of
justice. Just as a US citizen charged with a crime in (for example)
China or Russia might flee back to the US and try to avoid
extradition, RP did so when it looked like the US, to which he owed no
loyalty, was reneging on the deal he had made with it.
At this point, unfortunately, the pride and egos of the players in the
US justice system are on the line. I don't know what a 'fair and just'
disposition would be, but suspect that whatever happens to him if he
returns will be neither.
pt
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
The general consensus in Europe is that Bush did it.
Jym Dyer
> are on the same page on this issue.
=v= Trudeau is far too intelligent to adopt the brain-dead
Hollywood Lib'rul Celebrity stereotype. Limbaugh, OTOH, is
flogging the stereotype for political ends, regardless of
whether there's any Lib'rulism involved. In other words,
just doing his usual dishonest inflammtory crap.
=v= Limbaugh has of course made the same argument as Whoopi
Goldberg. He is dismissive of the problem of acquaintance
rape, spinning it with "date rape," which he portrays as not
being, you know, "rape rape" (in his parlance, it's just
"feminazi" troublemakking). So add another heaping helping
of hypocrisy to his already overfull plate of dishonesty.
<_Jym_>
Peter B. Steiger
> Caryn "Whoopi Goldberg" Johnson said that what Polanski did "wasn't
> rape-rape."
I'd say that's going to be the remark that haunts her for the rest of her
life and ruins her career, but that's what I thought about Tom Cruise's
bizarre S*******ogy-fueled behavior a while back and look how much he's
hurting now. Stupid short attention span of the public...
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
James Nicoll
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>> Caryn "Whoopi Goldberg" Johnson said that what Polanski did "wasn't
>> rape-rape."
>
>I'd say that's going to be the remark that haunts her for the rest of her
>life and ruins her career
I would have thought the second goal would be accomplished
by her taste in film roles.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
Dann
> =v= Limbaugh has of course made the same argument as Whoopi
> Goldberg. He is dismissive of the problem of acquaintance
> rape, spinning it with "date rape," which he portrays as not
> being, you know, "rape rape" (in his parlance, it's just
> "feminazi" troublemakking). So add another heaping helping
> of hypocrisy to his already overfull plate of dishonesty.
Cite?
I'd ordinarily ignore this, but given this week's festivities, I think
it is important to point out blatant BS.
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>On Oct 15, 8:57�am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
Ok, simplified: Roman Polanski is a moviemaker; Whoopi Goldberg and
his other supporters are in the moviemaking business, hence they're
peers. As peers, they are willing to overlook transgressions in the
name of loyalty. The whole "Hollywood Intellectuals" is ad hominem
that just doesn't fly, at least not here . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > I think (without doing the research) that he and [Limbaugh]
> > are on the same page on this issue.
>
> =v= Trudeau is far too intelligent to adopt the brain-dead
> Hollywood Lib'rul Celebrity stereotype. Limbaugh, OTOH, is
> flogging the stereotype for political ends, regardless of
> whether there's any Lib'rulism involved. In other words,
> just doing his usual dishonest inflammtory crap.
>
Well, so far it looks like that is the path Trudeau is following.
And with regards to Mr. Limbaugh, don't confuse flogging the
stereotype for political ends with flogging the stereotype for ratings
purposes. It's a tough job finding fresh red meat to keep the hordes
entertained.
BTW, how long ago did Trudeau morph Boopsie from air-headed,
stereotypical blond starlet to straight-thinking, common-sense woman?
Finally, Rudy Park had an interesting insight to the left's obsession
with Mssrs. Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Rielly:
http://comics.com/rudy_park/2009-10-15/
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT), Dann <detox...@hotmail.com>
At what point does adult sensibilities of right and wrong override
peer loyalty, or is the Hollywood, pardon me, movie maker crowd really
as insulated from reality as those on the right claim?
nickelshrink
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:14:36 +0000, Carl Fink sez:
>> Caryn "Whoopi Goldberg" Johnson said that what Polanski did "wasn't
>> rape-rape."
>
> I'd say that's going to be the remark that haunts her for the rest of her
> life and ruins her career, but that's what I thought about Tom Cruise's
> bizarre S*******ogy-fueled behavior a while back and look how much he's
> hurting now. Stupid short attention span of the public...
>
I hope it haunts her. I hope a few people who've been there
blister her for it.
She might get a fair amount of grief, and i would certainly like
her seat on The View to become available for it. I dunno about
comparison to public forgiveness of Cruise, who's got some
arrogance issues, but who's not gone further than goofy couch
jumping, and dissing use of antidepressants. I don't think he
ever excused rape or any other abusive or criminal act.
I understand wanting to avoid some searchable terms
so i won't wreck that for you, but why is pastafazoolantology
That Which Must Not Be Named?
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>At what point does adult sensibilities of right and wrong override
>peer loyalty, or is the Hollywood, pardon me, movie maker crowd really
>as insulated from reality as those on the right claim?
They're easily as insulated from reality as
most police departments in that regard.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ummmm, not having read Rudy Park in a while . . . when did Uncle
Mort get resurrected?!
--
- ReFlex76
Peter B. Steiger
> I understand wanting to avoid some searchable terms so i won't
> wreck that for you, but why is pastafazoolantology That Which
> Must Not Be Named?
Oh, just excessive paranoia on my part. Every time I read about
what they do to people who criticize them in public, I worry about
how far their lawyers can reach beyond the gates of Mordor. So I
try to avoid saying anything in print that can be linked to my
name... just in case.
pastafazoolantology, heh.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Wow, stay classy!
--
- ReFlex76
Sherwood Harrington
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Oct 15, 11:09�am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> A question for you...along with any one else living in Europe...how is
>>> this story perceived by the average person where you live?
>>>
>>> We get to hear from a lot of non-average people in the news. �I'm
>>> wondering if average people have a different opinion.
>>The general consensus in Europe is that Bush did it.
> Wow, stay classy!
Funny thing about Europe: they don't appear to have "average persons."
That sort of over-simplification seems to be far more prevalent on the
western side of the Atlantic.
Would you call yourself an "average person," Dann?
--
Sherwood Harrington
Lake Wobegon, California
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I think last year-ish. Not really explained well.
Rudy park is not one of my favorite strips- I read it mostly for
Darrin's art- but about once or twice a month I'll get a chuckle out
of it.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> >On Oct 15, 11:09 am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> A question for you...along with any one else living in Europe...how is
> >> this story perceived by the average person where you live?
>
> >> We get to hear from a lot of non-average people in the news. I'm
> >> wondering if average people have a different opinion.
>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Dann
>
> >The general consensus in Europe is that Bush did it.
>
> Wow, stay classy!
>
> --
>
> - ReFlex76
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son.".
Dann
wrote:
> Funny thing about Europe: they don't appear to have "average persons."
> That sort of over-simplification seems to be far more prevalent on the
> western side of the Atlantic.
>
> Would you call yourself an "average person," Dann?
>
> --
> Sherwood Harrington
> Lake Wobegon, California
Well no. I'm way out the "average person" envelope.
At the same time, I have a pretty good feel for what the people around
me [physically/digitally] think just from paying attention to what
they say.
--
Regards,
Dann
Dann
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:32:18 -0400, nickelshrink sez:
>
> > I understand wanting to avoid some searchable terms so i won't
> > wreck that for you, but why is pastafazoolantology That Which
> > Must Not Be Named?
>
> Oh, just excessive paranoia on my part. Every time I read about
> what they do to people who criticize them in public, I worry about
> how far their lawyers can reach beyond the gates of Mordor. So I
> try to avoid saying anything in print that can be linked to my
> name... just in case.
>
> pastafazoolantology, heh.
>
Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put 'em together and what have you got
bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
--
Regards,
Dann
Yes....I Googled.
Jim Strain
wrote:
Average? Me, neither. My family emigrated to California from Lake
Wobegon.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Jym Dyer
>> rape, spinning it with "date rape," which he portrays as
>> not being, you know, "rape rape" (in his parlance, it's
> Cite?
=v= Fertheluvvakreeipes. You know, if you have trouble figuring
out what someone's talking about, you could at least do a quick
web search:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22rush+limbaugh%22+%22date+rape%22+feminazi
I found these gems on the first page of results, in only 0.25
seconds flat:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=914298
|| The last time I called in, Rush had just announced he was
|| leaving Sacramento for a national radio show. This was
|| one of his last local shows, and astonishingly he decided
|| to spend the final hour defining date rape as something
|| distinguishable from "real rape." He kept repeating that
|| date rape was different because there was a "reason" for
|| the rape. The date and the expectations it creates was
|| Limbaugh's "reason."
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,313275,00.html
| I have a real problem with date rape. Rape is rape. I'm
| afraid that what feminists are trying to do with date rape
| is establish that the grand art of seduction can be linked
| to rape.
=v= More to the point, I *remember* all this. Perhaps you
missed the 1990s, but this topic was a much-discussed staple
of his act. Can you honestly not recall him spreading the
term "feminazi?" His infamous claim that there's no such thing
as date rape, it's just "boy meets girl?" The way he would so
relentlessly promote sloppy anti-feminist "researchers" such as
Katie Roiphe and Christina Hoff Sommers?
> I'd ordinarily ignore this, but given this week's festivities,
> I think it is important to point out blatant BS.
=v= Handy tip: when you throw around terms like "blatant BS"
you might like to make sure you're not so blatantly wrong.
I seriously don't see how anyone who would want to be taken
seriously on the topic could not notice date rape denialism
as a major theme of the Rush Limbaugh brand.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ummm, jokes are supposed to be funny . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
D'oh! So _that_ has been my problem!
Dann
news:n9khd5dbei3d94onb...@4ax.com.
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 16, 2:14�am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>>> >The general consensus in Europe is that Bush did it.
>>>
>>> � � Wow, stay classy!
>>>
>>
>>"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son.".
>
> Ummm, jokes are supposed to be funny . . .
>
Perhaps the problem is on the receiving end?
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Now also on Facebook in case you just can't get enough of me!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 16 Oct 2009, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:n9khd5dbei3d94onb...@4ax.com.
>
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 05:25:59 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>> <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 16, 2:14�am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
>>>> >The general consensus in Europe is that Bush did it.
>>>>
>>>> � � Wow, stay classy!
>>>>
>
>>>
>>>"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son.".
>>
>> Ummm, jokes are supposed to be funny . . .
>>
>
>Perhaps the problem is on the receiving end?
Nope . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Alexander Mitchell
>
> =v= Handy tip: when you throw around terms like "blatant BS"
> you might like to make sure you're not so blatantly wrong.
> I seriously don't see how anyone who would want to be taken
> seriously on the topic could not notice date rape denialism
> as a major theme of the Rush Limbaugh brand.
Of all the quotes--and I do mean ALL--that were attributed to Rush
Limbaugh in the media discussion and bloviating online during the past
week re: Limbaugh/Rams, ONLY ONE had any actual basis in fact: the one
regarding McNabb and "the media has a desire to see a black
quarterback succeed". In the actual quote, Limbaugh was NOT
disparaging McNabb or his performance, but rather the sports media
frenzy and hype about him at the time and how McNabb was not living up
to said hype. The criticism was about the SPORTS MEDIA, not McNabb.
Yes, it was "blatant BS." I've looked over the libel section of the
AP Stylebook, and I would dare to say that no matter what I thought of
Limbaugh or his politics, he would have a successful case if he were
to go after the various columnists and newspapers that printed,
without verification, the spurious quotes and attributed them to him.
A Washington Post article tracked down at least one of the quotes to a
later-redacted Wikipedia entry.
As for the term "Feminazi," Rush has been careful, over time, to
emphasize, on the air, that not everyone who is a feminist gets that
title. He (supposedly) only applies the term to the most extreme,
militant feminists--the type who attempt to claim that every sexual
contact between a man and a woman is "rape," constantly disparages men
for the mere fact of being male, etc. These characters do exists, and
their extremism is, to my eyes, worthy of being mocked and
disparaged. But he's not going to label my sister or my wife a
"feminazi" just for being "feminist" in thought--feeling women deserve
equal rights, etc.
Default User
> Yes, it was "blatant BS." I've looked over the libel section of the
> AP Stylebook, and I would dare to say that no matter what I thought of
> Limbaugh or his politics, he would have a successful case if he were
> to go after the various columnists and newspapers that printed,
> without verification, the spurious quotes and attributed them to him.
I doubt it. The bar for libel for newspapers is so high that the
columnist would basically have to know ahead of time that the
information was false.
Brian
--
Day 257 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Cindy Kandolf
> BTW, how long ago did Trudeau morph Boopsie from air-headed,
> stereotypical blond starlet to straight-thinking, common-sense woman?
It started back when BD was called up to fight in Gulf War I, so it's
been going on for a while. By the time BD lost his leg, Boopsie was
able to keep the family functioning in spite of her husband's
difficulties.
I don't believe she's entirely abandoned her New Age woowoo beliefs,
however.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: B�rum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
Cindy Kandolf
> A question for you...along with any one else living in Europe...how is
> this story perceived by the average person where you live?
>
> We get to hear from a lot of non-average people in the news. I'm
> wondering if average people have a different opinion.
I can only speak for one particular corner of Europe, but everyone
I've heard talking about it has wondered why Polanski's butt wasn't
dragged back to California long ago.
Many have also wondered whose political interests are being served by
arresting him now, after so many years.
James Nicoll
Cindy Kandolf <ci...@bizet.nethelp.no> wrote:
>Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> A question for you...along with any one else living in Europe...how is
>> this story perceived by the average person where you live?
>>
>> We get to hear from a lot of non-average people in the news. I'm
>> wondering if average people have a different opinion.
>
>I can only speak for one particular corner of Europe, but everyone
>I've heard talking about it has wondered why Polanski's butt wasn't
>dragged back to California long ago.
>
>Many have also wondered whose political interests are being served by
>arresting him now, after so many years.
>
suggested the trigger was Polanski's lawyers filing to have the charges
dismissed in part based on an argument that if the US hadn't managed
to get hold of him by now, they couldn't be serious about the charges.
JC Dill
> I hope it haunts her.
I find it odd that so many people "hopes it haunts her". IIRC, Whoopie
was raped or sexually abused herself as a young woman. She wasn't being
glib about rape. She later clarified that her comment was in reference
to the legal charges - Polanski was charged and convicted with
"statutory rape" (sex with a girl under the age of consent), not with
"rape" (sex against the girl's wishes) and that's what she was trying to
say when she said "rape-rape".
http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/01/2084644.aspx
I met Whoopie once, in the early 80s when she was a stand-up comedienne
in SF, when she came on a radio show. I ran out to put some quarters in
the meter for her, and she was driving an ancient rust bucket VW van. I
believe she was homeless and lived in the van for some of that period,
and also that she was briefly on welfare.
jc
Alexander Mitchell
>
> I find it odd that so many people "hopes it haunts her". IIRC, Whoopie
> was raped or sexually abused herself as a young woman. She wasn't being
> glib about rape. She later clarified that her comment was in reference
> to the legal charges - Polanski was charged and convicted with
> "statutory rape" (sex with a girl under the age of consent), not with
> "rape" (sex against the girl's wishes) and that's what she was trying to
> say when she said "rape-rape".
>
The girl was not only underage, but (according to many online and
paper accounts) was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol
supposedly administered by the SOB, and THEN she supposedly said "no"
several times DURING the altercation IN SPITE OF the drugs/alcohol.
And the guy pled guilty. And then fled.
If I did the above to, oh, I dunno, pick any random 13-year-old
female--oh, hell, the gender's irrelevant--would *I* get the luxury of
"it wasn't rape-rape"?
Freezer
> An article I cannot now find and which I may be misremembering
> suggested the trigger was Polanski's lawyers filing to have the charges
> dismissed in part based on an argument that if the US hadn't managed
> to get hold of him by now, they couldn't be serious about the charges.
The problem with that idea - if that's what they were going for - is that
you can't "dismiss the charges" after a guilty plea has already been
entered into the record. Including those you never withdrew because you
were too busy running.
As for the *case* being dismessed, that wasn't likely. The U.S. judicial
system tends to take a dim view of rewarding law breaking (in this case,
skipping out on his sentencing).
As I'd heard why it took so long, it was because Polanski was careful not
to stay too long in places where there was an extridition treaty that
allowe him to be snapped up like he was.
Apparently, France doesn't, but Switzerland - in an attempt to get people
to overlook that whole "piggy bank for criminals" thing - enacted one.
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
http://mst3kfreezer.livejournal.com/
Freezer
> She later clarified that her comment was in reference
> to the legal charges - Polanski was charged and convicted with
> "statutory rape" (sex with a girl under the age of consent), not with
> "rape" (sex against the girl's wishes) and that's what she was trying to
> say when she said "rape-rape".
And as others have pointed out; there's a difference between what he pled
to (Statutory) and what he confessed to on the record (No-two-ways-about-it
rape). I'm willing to give Whoopi the benefit of the doubt that she - like
many others prior to Polanski's recapture, myself included - thought that
statutory was all there was to it. That sort of thing I can accept.
That the truth is has been pretty well disseminated by now and people STILL
are standing up for Polanski? Not so much.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I'm pretty sure I saw the article James is recalling, or one like it.
IIRC, Polanski's lawyers did poke the anthill by trying to get the sentence
dropped or commuted or something. I think a US judge said something like
"present yourself in court and we'll talk", and when Polanski refused it
kind of re-lit the extradition thing.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Carl Fink
> nickelshrink wrote:
>
>> I hope it haunts her.
>
> I find it odd that so many people "hopes it haunts her". IIRC, Whoopie
> was raped or sexually abused herself as a young woman. She wasn't being
> glib about rape. She later clarified that her comment was in reference
> to the legal charges - Polanski was charged and convicted with
> "statutory rape" (sex with a girl under the age of consent), not with
> "rape" (sex against the girl's wishes) and that's what she was trying to
> say when she said "rape-rape".
She's a public figure and shouldn't spout off without reading at least a
brief summary of the actual case. In reality, Polanski confessed to
drugging a 13-year old girl, then forcibly having sex with her while she
repeatedly said "No, no." That's what he AGREED IN COURT THAT HE DID. The
technical legal term is "allocution".
That's also "rape rape." Full stop.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
>Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> BTW, how long ago did Trudeau morph Boopsie from air-headed,
>> stereotypical blond starlet to straight-thinking, common-sense woman?
>
>It started back when BD was called up to fight in Gulf War I, so it's
>been going on for a while. By the time BD lost his leg, Boopsie was
>able to keep the family functioning in spite of her husband's
>difficulties.
>
>I don't believe she's entirely abandoned her New Age woowoo beliefs,
>however.
>
She *really* showed it when BD's affair was revealed, kicking him
out, and forcing him to move in with Mike for a while . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Paul Ciszek
In article <t4imd5pv9dgk8vlkb...@4ax.com>,
Whoa, I don't remember that. When did that happen?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <t4imd5pv9dgk8vlkb...@4ax.com>,
>Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2009 22:16:02 +0200, Cindy Kandolf <ci...@bizet.nethelp.no>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> BTW, how long ago did Trudeau morph Boopsie from air-headed,
>>>> stereotypical blond starlet to straight-thinking, common-sense woman?
>>>
>>>It started back when BD was called up to fight in Gulf War I, so it's
>>>been going on for a while. By the time BD lost his leg, Boopsie was
>>>able to keep the family functioning in spite of her husband's
>>>difficulties.
>>>
>>>I don't believe she's entirely abandoned her New Age woowoo beliefs,
>>>however.
>>
>> She *really* showed it when BD's affair was revealed, kicking him
>>out, and forcing him to move in with Mike for a while . . .
>
>Whoa, I don't remember that. When did that happen?
It's been a while, but I recall it happening in the summer of 1991,
maybe '92; the affair happened when during the GW1 storyline, when BD
got R&R on a cruise ship; admitedly, BD and Boopsie were not married
at that time, but clearly in a commited relationship. Things came to
a head when she appeared at their doorstep hoping to restart things
with BD (she dumped him when she found out he was not an officer,
unlike her), and Boopsie answered the door; some officer-bashing humor
followed as she tells Boopsie everything, yet never figures out she's
BD's SO . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
*checks*
Yup, 1991! A few more things:
- The other woman's name, at least as much as was revealed: Meg,
Captain in the US Army as of 1991.
- The affair is covered in the "Welcome to Club Scud" collection.
- The "hit the fan" moment is covered in "What is it Tink, is Pan in
Trouble?"
- Running gag: she keeps calling Boopsie BD's cleaning lady.
--
- ReFlex76
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Aleks A.-Lessmann <al...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>On 15 Oct 2009 03:10:56 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>He's not "accused" of anything. He pled guilty then fled justice, so
>>he's *convicted* and a fugitive.
>
>No he didn't. As far as my information goes he did time.
>
>Aleks
Are you saying that he didn't plea guilty or that he is not a fugitive?
As for how long he may have sat in a holding cell, it's not for the
criminal to say how that counts against a sentence, especially since
he fled before the sentence was delivered.
Dann
consulting.com> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2009 03:10:56 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>
> >He's not "accused" of anything. He pled guilty then fled justice, so
> >he's *convicted* and a fugitive.
>
> No he didn't. As far as my information goes he did time.
He was ordered to jail while awaiting sentencing and ordered to
undergo 90 days of psychiatric evaluations. He was released after 42
days.
While that time certainly does count towards any sentence that might
be imposed, it is not a "sentence" by any stretch of the imagination.
He fled before he was sentenced. That is an additional crime on top
of the rape charges.
--
Regards,
Dann
JC Dill
> If I don't reply to this JC Dill post, the terrorists win.
>
>> She later clarified that her comment was in reference
>> to the legal charges - Polanski was charged and convicted with
>> "statutory rape" (sex with a girl under the age of consent), not with
>> "rape" (sex against the girl's wishes) and that's what she was trying to
>> say when she said "rape-rape".
>
> And as others have pointed out; there's a difference between what he pled
> to (Statutory) and what he confessed to on the record (No-two-ways-about-it
> rape).
Correct.
In the quote in question, Whoopie wasn't talking about the actual crime,
she was talking about what he was convicted of.
> I'm willing to give Whoopi the benefit of the doubt that she - like
> many others prior to Polanski's recapture, myself included - thought that
> statutory was all there was to it. That sort of thing I can accept.
>
> That the truth is has been pretty well disseminated by now and people STILL
> are standing up for Polanski? Not so much.
I'm with you there.
I don't think Whoopi is "standing up for Polanski". She's not
supporting the petition:
jc
Dann
news:Jym.16Oct20...@econet.org.
> =v= Handy tip: when you throw around terms like "blatant BS"
> you might like to make sure you're not so blatantly wrong.
> I seriously don't see how anyone who would want to be taken
> seriously on the topic could not notice date rape denialism
> as a major theme of the Rush Limbaugh brand.
Here's one for you as well. You should listen to what someone is saying
before you criticize them for it.
Your response demonstrates that you have not listened to what Rush has said
about date rape or about "feminazis".
James Nicoll
Aleks A.-Lessmann <al...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>On 19 Oct 2009 21:52:32 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>In article <3hkpd5tnfhu28hkq9...@4ax.com>,
>>Aleks A.-Lessmann <al...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>>>On 15 Oct 2009 03:10:56 GMT, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>He's not "accused" of anything. He pled guilty then fled justice, so
>>>>he's *convicted* and a fugitive.
>>>No he didn't. As far as my information goes he did time.
>
>90, it was not his sentence but some kind of psychological assessment
>jail thing - I dunno the technical details - and not the sente4nce per
>se, I was mislead by a source of information I had saying that he had
>been sentenced to 90 days.
>
Why did you think the US was extraditing him, then?
Charlie Foxtrot
>On 16 Oct 2009, Jym Dyer said the following in
>news:Jym.16Oct20...@econet.org.
>
>
>> =v= Handy tip: when you throw around terms like "blatant BS"
>> you might like to make sure you're not so blatantly wrong.
>> I seriously don't see how anyone who would want to be taken
>> seriously on the topic could not notice date rape denialism
>> as a major theme of the Rush Limbaugh brand.
>
>Here's one for you as well. You should listen to what someone is saying
>before you criticize them for it.
>
>Your response demonstrates that you have not listened to what Rush has said
>about date rape or about "feminazis".
Most people who criticize Rush Limbaugh don't listen to him. They
listen to what others have told them he's said.
I mean, sure, they listened to him a few times and got all mad, balled
up their little fists and turned red in the face and decided that they
hated him and everything they believe he stands for. From that point
on, most of them rely upon others to tell them the evil that Rush
does.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Alexander Mitchell
>
> I don't think Whoopi is "standing up for Polanski". She's not
> supporting the petition:
>
>
I'm thinking, judging from a cursory look at the list, that you have
to go to France to actually sign some piece of paper, rather than just
allege to sign an e-petition. After all, imagine the havoc you could
cause by signing someone else's name to such a "petition"--Barack
Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Hillary Clinton, etc. would probably all have
been added by someone by now.
So, any hour now, when we see "The View" broadcasting live from the
City Of Light.............
On the other hand, my respect for Terry Gilliam has just dropped
several notches.........
Pat O'Neill
> On 20 Oct 2009 16:37:20 GMT, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Oct 2009, Jym Dyer said the following in
> >news:Jym.16Oct20...@econet.org.
>
> >> =v= Handy tip: when you throw around terms like "blatant BS"
> >> you might like to make sure you're not so blatantly wrong.
> >> I seriously don't see how anyone who would want to be taken
> >> seriously on the topic could not notice date rape denialism
> >> as a major theme of the Rush Limbaugh brand.
>
> >Here's one for you as well. You should listen to what someone is saying
> >before you criticize them for it.
>
> >Your response demonstrates that you have not listened to what Rush has said
> >about date rape or about "feminazis".
>
> Most people who criticize Rush Limbaugh don't listen to him. They
> listen to what others have told them he's said.
>
> I mean, sure, they listened to him a few times and got all mad, balled
> up their little fists and turned red in the face and decided that they
> hated him and everything they believe he stands for. From that point
> on, most of them rely upon others to tell them the evil that Rush
> does.
>
> Foxtrot
Let me ask you and Dann this: Does Rush explain what he means by "femi-
nazis" every time he uses the phrase? Or does he just throw it out
every time some woman says something he disagrees with? If I'm a
sometime listener, or come across him while skimming the buttons on my
radio, am I expected to research his every past statement before
making the judgment that he's a bigoted blowhard?
BTW, that description of an angry liberal Rush listener sounds
slightly biased as well. How'd you like it if I described his most
dedicated fans as a bunch of nodding bobble-heads, mindlessly agreeing
with his every vehement spew?
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> BTW, that description of an angry liberal Rush listener sounds
> slightly biased as well. How'd you like it if I described his most
> dedicated fans as a bunch of nodding bobble-heads, mindlessly agreeing
> with his every vehement spew?
>
I'd say you were accurate?
Let's just keep in mind that Rush (like Hannity and O'Riely and
Olberman) is an entertainer first. He just discovered that the best
way to pump up the ratings is to play up the fears and concerns of
others. I'd be surprised if he really believes even half the stuff he
prattles, just asHoward Stern can't be as much as a misanthrope as he
plays on the radio.
That's not to say that such actions are admirable ore desirable in a
free democratic society.
Carl Fink
> Second, my understanding was that he had been sentenced based on a deal
> but afterwards the judge withdrew his decision, did not accept the deal
> and wanted to make an example of him and "Hollywood perversion".
He was not sentenced. The prosecutors made a deal with Polanski which the
judge, as is his duty if he feels it unjust, rejected. Faced with an actual
trial, Polanski fled.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
consulting.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:20:06 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
> > Why did you think the US was extraditing him, then?
>
> coming from the US, especially from its legal system (Guantánamo is only
> the biggest extreme of it), especially when it comes to sex.
>
> Second, my understanding was that he had been sentenced based on a deal
> but afterwards the judge withdrew his decision, did not accept the deal
> and wanted to make an example of him and "Hollywood perversion".
>
> system appears to me as everything but - especially when it comes to
> sex.
>
> Aleks
Rrape has nothing to do with sex- it is an assault and a means of
exerting power over another person.
cryptoguy
consulting.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:20:06 +0000 (UTC), James Nicoll wrote:
>
> coming from the US, especially from its legal system (Guantánamo is only
> the biggest extreme of it), especially when it comes to sex.
>
> Second, my understanding was that he had been sentenced based on a deal
> but afterwards the judge withdrew his decision, did not accept the deal
> and wanted to make an example of him and "Hollywood perversion".
>
> I didn't expect such a move to be logical, because parts of your legal
> system appears to me as everything but - especially when it comes to
> sex.
I don't have a high opinion of the US 'justice' system, but I ask you
to research what Polansky actually admitted to doing: Using drugs and
alcohol on a 13 year old girl, along with his position as a
powerbroker in the business she want to work in, to
coerce her into sex (including anal sex). Sex she did not want, and
repeatedly protested against during the act.
The prosecutor tried to cut a deal for him to plead guilty to a much
reduced charge, to avoid putting the girl through the trauma of a
trial.
If its illogical to want a child rapist punished, then I'll be
illogical.
pt
Peter B. Steiger
> Let's just keep in mind that Rush (like Hannity and O'Riely and
> Olberman) is an entertainer first. He just discovered that the best way
> to pump up the ratings is to play up the fears and concerns of others.
> I'd be surprised if he really believes even half the stuff he prattles,
> just asHoward Stern can't be as much as a misanthrope as he plays on the
> radio
Mod parent up +5 insightful. Years ago when Rush started gaining
popularity/notoriety, I commented at the time that he was just Howard
Stern with shorter hair. I don't care which way your politics lean, if
you listen to the angry rants of commentators whose jobs depend on
ratings which depend on controversy, you've already lost the critical
thinking race and you might as well just pay somebody else to vote for
you.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com.
Peter B. Steiger
> On the other hand, my respect for Terry Gilliam has just dropped several
> notches
Oh, he didn't. Say he didn't. {sigh}
James Nicoll
Aleks A.-Lessmann <al...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>
>I didn't expect such a move to be logical, because parts of your legal
>system appears to me as everything but - especially when it comes to
>sex.
Which part of the Canadian legal system did you have in mind,
exactly?
Dann
>
> Let me ask you and Dann this: Does Rush explain what he means by "femi-
> nazis" every time he uses the phrase? Or does he just throw it out
> every time some woman says something he disagrees with? If I'm a
> sometime listener, or come across him while skimming the buttons on my
> radio, am I expected to research his every past statement before
> making the judgment that he's a bigoted blowhard?
>
> BTW, that description of an angry liberal Rush listener sounds
> slightly biased as well. How'd you like it if I described his most
> dedicated fans as a bunch of nodding bobble-heads, mindlessly agreeing
> with his every vehement spew?
I want to qualify my comments by noting that I don't listen to Rush
very much anymore. I probably get 15-20 minutes about once a month.
I haven't listened to him for a while.
But I was listening during a great deal of time when date rape was the
subject of his....erm....pontifications. He's been using the term
"feminazi" for quite some time as well. I can't tell you about his
current rotation of issues, but the date rape issue was not a long
term topic whereas he will toss out the term "feminazi" on a regular
basis.
Rush has asserted...and I happen to agree...that you have to give him
a solid 3 hours a day for at least six weeks in order to "get" his
show. I think it takes more like twelve weeks, but in any case it
isn't a show that you will "get" in an afternoon.
["get" does not mean "agree with"]
Quite simply Rush is engaged in using the events of the day to
illustrate a few basic themes. The most prominent of those themes
being the value of individual liberty, the value of western
civilization/culture, and the value of hard work.
[I fully recognize the hypocrisy of Rush being a confessed drug abuser
that still demonizes pot smokers. I fully realize that there are
other instances of hypocrisy in his life and in what he says from time
to time. I'm not trying to defend him or his show. I'm just trying
to provide the context needed to understand the issues being raised in
this thread.]
If you just drop in for an hour and he is using a current event to
illustrate one of his themes, then you probably are not going to
understand what he is saying. He will sound like a wind bag. He will
sound extreme.
However if you are constant listener, then you will get the benefit of
a longer conversation. Something that will include phone calls from
people that agree and disagree. In almost every case, that give and
take regarding a single event will occur over a period of days and
perhaps weeks. An in almost every case, that give and take will
clarify a rigid position into something that is certainly more nuanced
if not necessarily agreeable to your point of view.
A good case in point would be the discussion on date rape.
[For the record, I am a husband to a wife. I am father to a
daughter. I don't want any woman to have any sort of unwanted/
unwelcome sexual experience. I've got skin in this game.]
His diatribes on the subject came from a time when feminists were
pushing hard on the general issue of rape. Sometimes you have to push
too far just to get the result you really need in the first place.
Culturally, we were predisposed to question women over allegations of
rape rather than questioning their attackers. Part of the push at the
time was to condemn anyone that questioned a woman who claimed to have
been raped. Activists held that questioning the victim was
unacceptable behavior. If women claimed to have been raped, then the
activists of the day would assert that no further rhetorical proof of
rape was required.
Over the course of several weeks, Rush certainly clarified his
position. Clearly guys that drugged women and then raped them were
rapists. Clearly nonconsensual rape existed and was a bad thing.
However what do we do when an evening of drunken debauchery turns into
a morning of regret? If everyone was mutually consenting at the time
of intercourse, is it fair to claim rape the next day?
And what do we do when a young lady says "no", and when her suitor
complies then asks him if he always gives up so easily?
These are not easy questions. Or at least, they shouldn't be seen as
easy in a culture that values justice for the accused and for the
accuser. I'm not trying to provide answers, just context.
They are easy questions if the only proof of rape [or any other crime]
required is a victim's allegations. Given the news events of the last
year or so, clearly the pursuit of justice must means that we must
have more than simply one person's word against another. That isn't
nice. It isn't easy for the victim. But IMO, cavalierly dismissing
legitimate questions raised by the defense is not in keeping with the
standard of justice that we like to think we pursue.
The above discussion(s) occurred at a time when political correctness
was sweeping through our institutions of higher learning. When
college students were being told that certain political views could
not be legally* expressed while attending their respective
institutions of higher learning.
[* when a college administrator can bounce you from college for what
you say, then there is a legal proscription in effect, IMO]
One of the greatest of western values, IMO, is the ability to question
the status quo and to explore alternative modes of existence.
Rush is an imperfect advocate of western civilization; including the
aforementioned ability to question the status quo. From his
perspective, political correctness as currently practiced prevents the
questioning of certain points of view.
[IMO, that argument has merit. But is a much longer conversation that
is much further off topic. FWIW]
I believe that Rush wouldn't have any problem saying that political
correctness is rather closely tied to a leftist/socialist/communist
perspective/movement. Nor would he have a problem saying that leftist
support for political correctness is a ploy to short circuit debate
regarding acceptable beliefs in our ever developing culture.
Having everything to the right of Bertol Brecht be off limits is
acceptable to hard core leftists. I exaggerate.
Slightly.
[Broad brush note. Not all colleges are bastions of communism. Not
all professors are leftists. I can think of more than one professor
that is left of center, but not unreasonably so and certainly willing
to have an open conversation. I can also think of more than one
professor that is a socialist asshole. The former outnumber the
latter by a wide margin, IMO. The latter enjoy far greater authority
[and thus notoriety] than is prudent, also IMO.]
Why did Rush discuss date rape? Because some people were using date
rape as an issue to further their larger agenda to undermine
individual liberty and western civilization. The fact that OTHER
people that were not interested in undermining western civilization
but were interested in preventing date rape were involved was not a
factor for Rush. His interest is in defending and extending western
civilization and individual liberty.
Hypocrisy and other inconsistencies duly noted.
As far as the term "feminazi" goes, Rush does not provide a verbal
asterisk referencing every time he uses a term or phrase that has a
specific meaning within his program. He does provide that sort of
explanation periodically which is why you have to invest a lot of time
in order to pick up on all of his verbal cues.
As Ivy suggested, Rush believes that there are only a handful of
"feminazis" in the world. They are typified by holding some pretty
extreme views including that all heterosexual inter gender intercourse
is rape. He says essentially that from time to time when extreme
feminism is the subject of the day. A regular listener, regardless of
whether they agree with Rush or not, would know this.
And finally, I'd say that Charlie's description is condescending but
reasonably accurate. At least my experience has been that most people
that I have met that hate Rush Limbaugh have never spent more than a
few minutes listening to him and have spent considerably more time
reading or listening to criticisms of Rush. They aren't interested in
listening to Rush because they don't like their perceived image of
Rush.
My apologies for any typing or grammatical errors.
--
Regards,
Dann
Paul Ciszek
In article <9a62f8c6-e539-44ac...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Let's just keep in mind that Rush (like Hannity and O'Riely and
>Olberman) is an entertainer first. He just discovered that the best
>way to pump up the ratings is to play up the fears and concerns of
Remember, when Michael Steele said that Rush Limbaugh was an entertainer,
not the head of Republican party, he was forced to appologize to Rush.
And when prominant Republicans are asked about Michael Steele, they are
likely to reply "Michael who?" Rush may deny in now, but he is the
defacto head of the Republican party.
jcdill
> BTW, that description of an angry liberal Rush listener sounds
> slightly biased as well.
I dunno, it sounds pretty accurate to me...
> How'd you like it if I described his most
> dedicated fans as a bunch of nodding bobble-heads, mindlessly agreeing
> with his every vehement spew?
and that sounds pretty accurate too.
jc
jcdill
> Let's just keep in mind that Rush (like Hannity and O'Riely and
> Olberman) is an entertainer first. He just discovered that the best
> way to pump up the ratings is to play up the fears and concerns of
> others. I'd be surprised if he really believes even half the stuff he
> prattles,
I'd be surprised if he doesn't - clearly his followers believe it, so
why is it so hard to assume he believes it as well?
It's also well known that if you say something over and over, you start
to believe it. He might not have believed it in the beginning, but it's
highly unlikely he is just "entertaining" and doesn't believe it now.
> That's not to say that such actions are admirable ore desirable in a
> free democratic society.
Meanwhile the FCC is all riled up about the occasional obscenity on TV
as if it would somehow corrupt the country.
jc
jcdill
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:43:42 -0700, Blinky the Wonder Wombat sez:
>> Let's just keep in mind that Rush (like Hannity and O'Riely and
>> Olberman) is an entertainer first. He just discovered that the best way
>> to pump up the ratings is to play up the fears and concerns of others.
>> I'd be surprised if he really believes even half the stuff he prattles,
>> just asHoward Stern can't be as much as a misanthrope as he plays on the
>> radio
>
> Mod parent up +5 insightful.
Or +5 funny, or both.
> Years ago when Rush started gaining
> popularity/notoriety, I commented at the time that he was just Howard
> Stern with shorter hair. I don't care which way your politics lean, if
> you listen to the angry rants of commentators whose jobs depend on
> ratings which depend on controversy, you've already lost the critical
> thinking race and you might as well just pay somebody else to vote for
> you.
This is why I've stopped watching Olberman. While I usually agree with
his viewpoint, his angry frothing is no more appealing than the frothing
from Hannity or O'Reilly or Rush. I'd rather watch The Daily Show.
jc
Paul Ciszek
In article <2b63e915-f443-44d6...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Quite simply Rush is engaged in using the events of the day to
>illustrate a few basic themes. The most prominent of those themes
>being the value of individual liberty, the value of western
So long as that "individual liberty" does not take the form of non-
heterosexuality, criticising the President when the President is a
Republican, using marijuana, being a feminist, or for that matter
being a woman and doing pretty much anything...there really isn't
very much "individual liberty" that Limbaugh supports.
Pat O'Neill
> Rush has asserted...and I happen to agree...that you have to give him
> a solid 3 hours a day for at least six weeks in order to "get" his
> show. I think it takes more like twelve weeks, but in any case it
> isn't a show that you will "get" in an afternoon.
>
> ["get" does not mean "agree with"]
Then neither he nor you can really object when the occasional
listener...or those who get their "Rush" in newsclips...misunderstand
him. I don't have the time in mid-day to spend three hours listening
to him...or anyone else on the radio, for that matter. Here's a
communications tip for Rush--if you want to be heard by anyone except
your dedicated fans, if you want to do more than preach to the choir,
learn to make your point in such a way that I don't have to devote a
lifetime to figuring you out.
> Quite simply Rush is engaged in using the events of the day to
> illustrate a few basic themes. The most prominent of those themes
> being the value of individual liberty, the value of western
> civilization/culture, and the value of hard work.
Of course, his idea of the values of western civilization/culture and
mine may be very different; further, valuing your own culture does not
have to mean devaluing or dismissing that of others...as too often
seems to be Rush's rhetorical method. One hundred years ago, "western
culture/civilization" in this nation was defined as that valued by
Anglo-Saxon and nothern European peoples...I suspect in another
hundred years, we will be including Islamic culture in that mix, just
as we include Italian, Greek and eastern European culture now.
> Over the course of several weeks, Rush certainly clarified his
> position. Clearly guys that drugged women and then raped them were
> rapists. Clearly nonconsensual rape existed and was a bad thing.
>
> However what do we do when an evening of drunken debauchery turns into
> a morning of regret? If everyone was mutually consenting at the time
> of intercourse, is it fair to claim rape the next day?
As it always does when this argument arises, I am reminded of a
favorite scene from "The Philadelphia Story." At the end of an evening
of champagne and moonlight swims, Jimmy Stewart carries a semi-
conscious Kate Hepburn to her room, deposits her on her bed, and
leaves. The next morning, upon becoming aware of what happened,
Hepburn is offended that nothing more happened. "Was I so off-putting?
So forbidding?" she asks. (I'm paraphrasing here.) Stewart replies,
"On the contrary. You were also, however, somewhat the worse--or the
better--for the wine...and there are rules about that." I tend to
think those rules--despite this being a 70-year-old movie--still
apply. "Consent" given during a night of "drunken debauchery" is
clearly not to be taken seriously.
> They are easy questions if the only proof of rape [or any other crime]
> required is a victim's allegations.
You are aware that, until very recently, the victim's allegations
weren't even considered enough to begin an investigation?
Dann
news:hbo4ms$4j2$1...@reader1.panix.com.
> In article
> <2b63e915-f443-44d6...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Quite simply Rush is engaged in using the events of the day to
>>illustrate a few basic themes. The most prominent of those themes
>>being the value of individual liberty, the value of western
>
> So long as that "individual liberty" does not take the form of non-
> heterosexuality, criticising the President when the President is a
> Republican, using marijuana, being a feminist, or for that matter
> being a woman and doing pretty much anything...there really isn't
> very much "individual liberty" that Limbaugh supports.
>
Try this one more time:
[I fully recognize the hypocrisy of Rush being a confessed drug abuser
that still demonizes pot smokers. I fully realize that there are
other instances of hypocrisy in his life and in what he says from time
to time. I'm not trying to defend him or his show. I'm just trying
to provide the context needed to understand the issues being raised in
this thread.]
What part of your post did you think I didn't understand before you
posted it?
Dann
46ac-8e93-d...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com.
> On Oct 21, 4:55�ｿｽpm, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Rush has asserted...and I happen to agree...that you have to give him
>> a solid 3 hours a day for at least six weeks in order to "get" his
>> show. �ｿｽI think it takes more like twelve weeks, but in any case it
>> isn't a show that you will "get" in an afternoon.
>>
>> ["get" does not mean "agree with"]
>
> Then neither he nor you can really object when the occasional
> listener...or those who get their "Rush" in newsclips...misunderstand
> him. I don't have the time in mid-day to spend three hours listening
> to him...or anyone else on the radio, for that matter. Here's a
> communications tip for Rush--if you want to be heard by anyone except
> your dedicated fans, if you want to do more than preach to the choir,
> learn to make your point in such a way that I don't have to devote a
> lifetime to figuring you out.
He's out for ratings. If he can get and hold one listener for 3 hours,
then he is happy.
My point in the above was simply to point out that there is some nuance
to his program that you may not get in 5 minutes. I'm told similar rules
apply in theater, music, sculpture, etc.
BTW, I forgot to mention that I have heard several occasions where a
"liberal" will call and get on the air. As long as they remain polite
and engaged in the issue, Rush gives them all the time in the world.
When they become rude and call names then he ends the call.
He's clearly not preaching just to the converted.
>> Quite simply Rush is engaged in using the events of the day to
>> illustrate a few basic themes. �ｿｽThe most prominent of those themes
>> being the value of individual liberty, the value of western
>> civilization/culture, and the value of hard work.
>
> Of course, his idea of the values of western civilization/culture and
> mine may be very different; further, valuing your own culture does not
> have to mean devaluing or dismissing that of others...as too often
> seems to be Rush's rhetorical method. One hundred years ago, "western
> culture/civilization" in this nation was defined as that valued by
> Anglo-Saxon and nothern European peoples...I suspect in another
> hundred years, we will be including Islamic culture in that mix, just
> as we include Italian, Greek and eastern European culture now.
Yup. We sure have made progress over the last 100 years.
Pity that some of what you are talking about really means going
backwards.
>> Over the course of several weeks, Rush certainly clarified his
>> position. �ｿｽClearly guys that drugged women and then raped them were
>> rapists. �ｿｽClearly nonconsensual rape existed and was a bad thing.
>>
>> However what do we do when an evening of drunken debauchery turns into
>> a morning of regret? �ｿｽIf everyone was mutually consenting at the time
>> of intercourse, is it fair to claim rape the next day?
>
> As it always does when this argument arises, I am reminded of a
> favorite scene from "The Philadelphia Story." At the end of an evening
> of champagne and moonlight swims, Jimmy Stewart carries a semi-
> conscious Kate Hepburn to her room, deposits her on her bed, and
> leaves. The next morning, upon becoming aware of what happened,
> Hepburn is offended that nothing more happened. "Was I so off-putting?
> So forbidding?" she asks. (I'm paraphrasing here.) Stewart replies,
> "On the contrary. You were also, however, somewhat the worse--or the
> better--for the wine...and there are rules about that." I tend to
> think those rules--despite this being a 70-year-old movie--still
> apply. "Consent" given during a night of "drunken debauchery" is
> clearly not to be taken seriously.
I agree with your morals and with that convention.
However I question the wisdom of establishing the legal principle that
two drunken adults cannot legally engage in consensual relations.
>> They are easy questions if the only proof of rape [or any other crime]
>> required is a victim's allegations. �ｿｽ
>
> You are aware that, until very recently, the victim's allegations
> weren't even considered enough to begin an investigation?
>
If you had read my post, you would have seen where I specifically
acknowledged that fact.
Pat O'Neill
> > Of course, his idea of the values of western civilization/culture and
> > mine may be very different; further, valuing your own culture does not
> > have to mean devaluing or dismissing that of others...as too often
> > seems to be Rush's rhetorical method. One hundred years ago, "western
> > culture/civilization" in this nation was defined as that valued by
> > Anglo-Saxon and nothern European peoples...I suspect in another
> > hundred years, we will be including Islamic culture in that mix, just
> > as we include Italian, Greek and eastern European culture now.
>
> Yup. We sure have made progress over the last 100 years.
>
> Pity that some of what you are talking about really means going
> backwards.
What part would that be? Is it going backwards to admit that your
culture doesn't know everything? That the perceptions and
understandings of others have value? That those who do not believe
everything you do are not necessarily wrong?
> I agree with your morals and with that convention.
>
> However I question the wisdom of establishing the legal principle that
> two drunken adults cannot legally engage in consensual relations.
Why? We accept that a person who is impaired by drugs--legal or
illegal--cannot operate machinery, cannot consent to a contract,
cannot even be legally interrogated by the police. Why should that
person be able to consent to sex?
Dann
4bdf-b31d-6...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.
> What part would that be? Is it going backwards to admit that your
> culture doesn't know everything? That the perceptions and
> understandings of others have value? That those who do not believe
> everything you do are not necessarily wrong?
There is nothing wrong with being open minded. There is something wrong
with being unwilling to accept that some alternatives are worse than
others.
> Why? We accept that a person who is impaired by drugs--legal or
> illegal--cannot operate machinery, cannot consent to a contract,
> cannot even be legally interrogated by the police. Why should that
> person be able to consent to sex?
Because that person should have the freedom to do so.
The alternative is unacceptable.
IMO.
Alexander Mitchell
>
> What part would that be? Is it going backwards to admit that your
> culture doesn't know everything? That the perceptions and
> understandings of others have value? That those who do not believe
> everything you do are not necessarily wrong?
>
this--is that I don't believe I should respect the values of those who
specifically believe that I should be killed for my beliefs or lack
thereof. Or, for that matter, that their belief system makes it OK to
oppress women, or that there should be an official state religion to
which all within the borders are required to subscribe...... Sorry,
but I cannot abide by "perceptions and understandings" that impinge
upon the basic human right to be free--said thoughts do NOT have
value.
Are you willing, and assertive enough, to demand that our "opponents"
must abide by the same sense of respect for others--i.e., ourselves--
that you demand of us with those questions above? If so, how do you
intend to enforce said respect, if at all? Yet another UN resolution?
Freezer
> On 2009-10-21, Aleks A.-Lessmann
> <XaXlX...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>
>> Second, my understanding was that he had been sentenced based on
>> a deal but afterwards the judge withdrew his decision, did not
>> accept the deal and wanted to make an example of him and
>> "Hollywood perversion".
>
> He was not sentenced. The prosecutors made a deal with Polanski
> which the judge, as is his duty if he feels it unjust, rejected.
> Faced with an actual trial, Polanski fled.
I'd heard that the judge accepted the deal, but openly stated he was
going to hit Polanski with the max sentence (5 years, IIRC).
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
http://mstfreezer.livejournal.com/
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 21 Oct 2009, Pat O'Neill said the following in news:0f9ebcd1-cc7f-
>4bdf-b31d-6...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com.
>
>> What part would that be? Is it going backwards to admit that your
>> culture doesn't know everything? That the perceptions and
>> understandings of others have value? That those who do not believe
>> everything you do are not necessarily wrong?
>
>There is nothing wrong with being open minded. There is something wrong
>with being unwilling to accept that some alternatives are worse than
>others.
>
There's one good thing I can say about KKK members, it's that they
say what they mean, without trying to cover up their bigotry with
"some alternatives," or other euphemisms . . .
>> Why? We accept that a person who is impaired by drugs--legal or
>> illegal--cannot operate machinery, cannot consent to a contract,
>> cannot even be legally interrogated by the police. Why should that
>> person be able to consent to sex?
>
>Because that person should have the freedom to do so.
>
>The alternative is unacceptable.
>
>IMO.
Great, if someone gets your daughter drunk and has sex with her,
I'm sure you won't mind; after all, it's her freedom!
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Amazing the rant someone can squeeze out of "Islamic Culture," and
nothing else! The words "fundamentalist," or "radical" were not
there, yet this is what came out; thats quite the hole to dig!
While this can't be undone, there's always a chance to get out of
that unfillable hole; here's to using that chance to correct what
should be an obvious mistake in hindsight!
--
- ReFlex76
Charlie Foxtrot
<patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>Let me ask you and Dann this: Does Rush explain what he means by "femi-
>nazis" every time he uses the phrase? Or does he just throw it out
>every time some woman says something he disagrees with? If I'm a
>sometime listener, or come across him while skimming the buttons on my
>radio, am I expected to research his every past statement before
>making the judgment that he's a bigoted blowhard?
>
>BTW, that description of an angry liberal Rush listener sounds
>slightly biased as well. How'd you like it if I described his most
>dedicated fans as a bunch of nodding bobble-heads, mindlessly agreeing
>with his every vehement spew?
>
>
I'd say I accomplished what I set out to do quite well.
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
Charlie Foxtrot
<XaXlX...@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote:
>
>First of all, we in Europe are accustomed to pretty whacko thinking
>coming from the US, especially from its legal system (Guant�namo is only
>the biggest extreme of it),
I have a great idea, Aleks! Since we are such rotten people for the
whole Guantanamo thing... Why don't you take the Gitmo prisoners into
your country and let them roam free? After all, they couldn't,
possibly, have any sort of bad ideas in their heads regarding those
who don't worship Allah.
You should get on your government about that. I'm sure they'll be all
for it since, odds are, they've condemned our horrible, horrible
treatment of those poor, innocent people.
Dann
> If I don't reply to this Carl Fink post, the terroists win.
>
> > On 2009-10-21, Aleks A.-Lessmann
>
> >> Second, my understanding was that he had been sentenced based on
> >> a deal but afterwards the judge withdrew his decision, did not
> >> accept the deal and wanted to make an example of him and
> >> "Hollywood perversion".
>
> > He was not sentenced. The prosecutors made a deal with Polanski
> > which the judge, as is his duty if he feels it unjust, rejected.
> > Faced with an actual trial, Polanski fled.
>
> I'd heard that the judge accepted the deal, but openly stated he was
> going to hit Polanski with the max sentence (5 years, IIRC).
I don't know about California in the 1970s. However, judges generally
have a bit of discretion when it comes to plea agreements. A plea is
not a contract with court similar to the one you sign when you buy a
cell phone.
IMO, had Mr. Polanski stayed away from little girls after pleading
guilty [there was at least one photo of him with underage girls in his
lap], kept his mouth shut [I have read one account where he verbally
dismissed the seriousness of his actions], and generally stayed of the
judicial radar, I'm sure the judge would have sentenced him to time
served.
He didn't do that. The judge got PO'd. Mr. Polanski ran.
--
Regards,
Dann