I'm glad Roman Polanski finally got caught! - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-09-2009, 01:59 AM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
really ?

he disclosed no more than he had to
and only after the Grand Jury indictment and the arrest of Halderman, he tried to get in front of the story by minimizing and misrepresenting his actions.

how could he do anything less than what he did?

You may not be aware of some of the details, sometime during the last 12 months Letterman gave Birkitt a ride home (the home she shared with her boyfriend, Halderman) Haldrrman saw Letterman giving her long passionate kisses in the car. This was after he was married.

So if this is true, and I believe it is, he lied on TV saying the relationship ended before he got married.


i'm not about to give Letterman a medal or anything, i just appreciated how he came out, before any of us knew anything, and said that, yes, he had sex with women who worked for him.

no finger wagging, no tearful descriptions of tangoing in Argentina. just something straightforward.

the Republicans could learn a thing or two, imho.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 03:04 AM   #227
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm not about to give Letterman a medal or anything, i just appreciated how he came out, before any of us knew anything, and said that, yes, he had sex with women who worked for him.
I don't know. It could have been so much better. I mean even more than two decades later Jimmy Swaggart's confession is still a classic. Now that's how to beg for forgiveness!
__________________

__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 03:12 AM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if Polanski had consensual sex with a 13 year old -- and, yes, legally an underaged person cannot give consent -- that would be one kind of crime. i.e., "unlawful sex with a minor." but in this situation, he drugged and anally raped a 13 year old. how is that not "rape-rape"?

you really can't get around that, hiphop.
Agreed. But that´s not my point here.

And you can read that in my post and also in the article. Irvine - you´re intelligent enough for that (that´s why your reply surprises me a tad bit). But obviously, before of continuing the discussion, it apparently is my social duty to agree with your "you can´t get around that". Funny.

(this reminds me of the mindset of conservatives at the start of the Iraq war: if you were against the war, you FIRST had to make clear you did not excuse brutal dictator Saddam´s actions, if you did not want to be branded as someone who supports dictators. often enough displayed in FYM)

The point is this: "That resulted in a pretty severe backlash that seemingly brought her [Goldberg] one step closer to the edge of being fired. Three strikes, you’re out, afterall, and especially if you say something that mainstream America does not want to hear."

I am against people - whoever it is, Goldberg or other celebs or you and me - being judged and having to face consequences just because they voice their opinion. After all, Goldberg did not rape or drug anyone as far as we know.

I am also disgusted by idiotic "ah, Woody Allen signed, haha, look at those rape and pedophilia buddies" comments.
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 03:40 AM   #229
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
So if this is true, and I believe it is, he lied on TV saying the relationship ended before he got married.
I would have preferred if Letterman would have said "Fuck you, my private fucking life is none of your fucking business".

The women he had sex with did not accuse him of anything. So what´s your point? What´s the point of all this pseudo-moralist discussion? Finger pointing?
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 04:20 AM   #230
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
I would have preferred if Letterman would have said "Fuck you, my private fucking life is none of your fucking business".

The women he had sex with did not accuse him of anything. So what´s your point? What´s the point of all this pseudo-moralist discussion? Finger pointing?


It's shameful that we live in a society where he felt he had to publicly confess. It's none of our business. His consensual sex life should not be up for public dissemination.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 05:25 AM   #231
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
I am against people - whoever it is, Goldberg or other celebs or you and me - being judged and having to face consequences just because they voice their opinion.
Everyone faces that. You are judging people who think differently on this issue than you.

I've read and heard a lot of similar comments to yours and most tack on the "she's supposed to have free speech" thing (which I know you didn't do, even though it feels to me as if you think it's a free speech issue). In the US people have the right to say pretty much anything (with certain exceptions -- for instance, you don't talk about bombs or hijackings or guns in an airport) without censorship or restraint by the government.

However, free speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of what you say. In Goldberg's case the consequences could be having her comments raked over the coals by various talking heads (hmm...pretty much the same thing she does to others on The View), and perhaps losing her job on The View if her bosses there feel she is a liability rather than an asset.

We all deal with the consequences of our actions (some delay it for a few decades... ) and we are all judged by the things we say.
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 07:28 AM   #232
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Maybe that´s just reality indra, but that doesn´t make it right.

Free speech? To say, oh yeah, theoretically you have te right to say everything you want, BUT you will have to deal with the negative consequences - is the opposite of free speech.

That´s as cynical as Stalin urging a soldier to tell what he really thinks, and later sending him to the Gulag for it. If I support your view, we´re there.

OF COURSE the theory of free speech includes that the one who speaks out freely should (or has the right to) NOT face negative consequences, including NOT getting thrown into prison or an asylum for it, NOT being killed or tortured for it, and NOT losing your job for speaking out.
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 10:29 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
Maybe that´s just reality indra, but that doesn´t make it right.

Free speech? To say, oh yeah, theoretically you have te right to say everything you want, BUT you will have to deal with the negative consequences - is the opposite of free speech.

That´s as cynical as Stalin urging a soldier to tell what he really thinks, and later sending him to the Gulag for it. If I support your view, we´re there.

OF COURSE the theory of free speech includes that the one who speaks out freely should (or has the right to) NOT face negative consequences, including NOT getting thrown into prison or an asylum for it, NOT being killed or tortured for it, and NOT losing your job for speaking out.
What would you have people do? Assume for a minute (with the perils of assumption duly noted) that people are so offended by what Whoopi said that sponsors stop buying ad spots for The View. Should they have to keep her on, lost revenue be damned? Or are you arguing the truly abstract "what she said shouldn't matter to the buying public"? Because I think in her case it probably ought to matter. Sure it shouldn't matter to me what my taxi driver thinks of Roman Polanski, as long as he's a good driver...but how does somebody decide whether they like/dislike a talk show panelist other than based on the things she says?

As an aside I've always generally liked Whoopi Goldberg, and I find what she said pretty disappointing. Because it was "rape-rape" (unless you think she lied about saying no). When somebody says "it wasn't rape-rape" what comes to mind is somebody getting a little tipsy, losing their inhibitions, and doing something they normally wouldn't do, and regretting it. That's not what happened (again assuming she didn't lie)...so it's every bit "rape-rape" as much as if I dragged some jogger off the path into the woods. I understand that she was trying to say, I think...that in reality Polanski is probably less of a "danger to society" than the guy prowling the bushes or scoping out the playground. He's less of a danger to my child, for example, because I wouldn't allow her into that situation, whereas the random prowler is a danger to everybody. The prowler is more opportunistic; Polanski was more situational (if that makes sense)...the future danger is likely different, but the guilt is the same, and that's what people are missing I think - he may not be just as dangerous moving forward, but he most certainly is just as guilty of the crime of rape.
__________________
CTU2fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 10:39 AM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Whoopi Goldberg also went on, on that same View show, to make "jokes" about molesting herself. She's playing the Rosie role on that show, only she goes about it in a much nicer way than Rosie ever did. I can't take her opinion of the Roman Polanski situation seriously at all. A CHILD was RAPED. Period.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 10:42 AM   #235
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post


It's shameful that we live in a society where he felt he had to publicly confess. It's none of our business. His consensual sex life should not be up for public dissemination.

agreed, but at least he didn't do the "wide stance/hiking on the appalachian trail" defense.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 10:46 AM   #236
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:59 PM
He didn't have to publicly confess, how did he have to? I think he chose to, for strategic reasons or for reasons of people possibly bringing up all of his past jokes about Clinton, et al (as he made that exact joke a few nights ago) and the perceived hypocrisy of that on the part of some people or because he figured it's all going to come out eventually? I don't know why he did, obviously only he does- but I don't think he was forced to either.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 10:57 AM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the "wide stance/hiking on the appalachian trail" defense.
Although I agree with VintagePunk that one's consensual sex life shouldn't be our business, I can't help getting getting a huge kick out of explanations such as these. Comedy gold!
__________________
indra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 11:02 AM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:59 AM
CTU2fan:

I don´t understand the difference between rape-rape and rape anyway. It´s not rape when "somebody getting a little tipsy, losing their inhibitions, and doing something they normally wouldn't do, and regretting it" (presumed it happens consensual and legal age); it is rape when it´s not consensual and she/he says no (regardless of age, of course underage makes the crime worse).

"Polanski was more situational (if that makes sense)...the future danger is likely different, but the guilt is the same"

I agree with that.

Still it seems strange that

a) he is arrested for a crime that happened over 30 years ago - why not earlier, and why with all the fabricated media attention

b) it doesn´t make a difference that the victim spoke out for him
(juridically it does not, but talking of public perception)

c) now it´s a big media contest where every talkshow host, journalist, writer, and every single person can prove how morally intact his/her views are.

As to the media world, imo it is morally bankrupt to profit professionally from a crime someone else committed and someone else was the victim of. I would not want to profit from writing a story or, why not a book, about Polanski and the whole affair. We´ll see who does.

This is not defending Polanski or the crime he committed in any way.
__________________
hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 01:18 PM   #239
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
Free speech? To say, oh yeah, theoretically you have te right to say everything you want, BUT you will have to deal with the negative consequences - is the opposite of free speech.
Either I'm really misunderstanding what you're saying (and please correct me if I am), or what you're saying is really out of whack.

It's a very far cry between saying "I disagree with what you say, and I'm going to speak out about it, and criticize you for it" and "I disagree with what you say, so into the gulag you go!"

There are consequences to what you say. People are free to say what they feel, but don't be all outraged when someone might disagree with you.

Is she being raked over the coals too much? Maybe. I thought what she said was rather appalling, but that's the way of the media these days - it gets over-reported and over-analyzed ad nauseum.

But in no way is her freedom of speech being tromped on.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2009, 01:40 PM   #240
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
CTU2fan:

I don´t understand the difference between rape-rape and rape anyway. It´s not rape when "somebody getting a little tipsy, losing their inhibitions, and doing something they normally wouldn't do, and regretting it" (presumed it happens consensual and legal age); it is rape when it´s not consensual and she/he says no (regardless of age, of course underage makes the crime worse).
It just didn't make sense to me (what Whoopi said). It was almost as if she was attempting to call the Polanski thing date-rape, or something other than/less than rape. But people will tell you that if a person's judgement is impared (by alcohol or whatever) then they're not capable of consenting, so if sex happens it's technically rape...but to use Whoopi's words it probably isn't "rape-rape". But Polanski's victim said no; trying to differentiate between that and "rape" seems silly to me.

Quote:
Still it seems strange that

a) he is arrested for a crime that happened over 30 years ago - why not earlier, and why with all the fabricated media attention

b) it doesn´t make a difference that the victim spoke out for him
(juridically it does not, but talking of public perception)

c) now it´s a big media contest where every talkshow host, journalist, writer, and every single person can prove how morally intact his/her views are.
a. He remained in places (France etc) that denied extradition, and if he did visit other countries he apparently was able to slip in and out without the US gov't being tipped off.

b. That rarely matters. It maybe should, but the public as an entity has a unique ability to whip themselves into a righteous frenzy. And victims often rather move on, rather than take action or dwell on the incident...but the outsiders who have no stake in it call for punishment at all costs.

c. They're catering to the masses. For public figures, taking the popular tack and trashing Polanski is good for business/ratings etc.

Quote:
As to the media world, imo it is morally bankrupt to profit professionally from a crime someone else committed and someone else was the victim of. I would not want to profit from writing a story or, why not a book, about Polanski and the whole affair. We´ll see who does.

This is not defending Polanski or the crime he committed in any way.
I agree. It's why I really get irritated by these TV personalities. My wife loves Nancy Grace, and watches her regularly, and I'm always disgusted by how self-righteous she gets over the latest story (usually some disgusting crime against a child)...because every new story that happens gives her something more to holler about, and puts eyeballs on her show & cash in her pocket.

I don't really compare this to Letterman though. While there's certainly an appearance of impropriety when you've got a power dynamic (the women worked for him), I don't think you can automatically assume coercion. Of course it's possible, but it's also completely possible that the activities were 100% voluntary. With Polanski we know a crime took place.
__________________

__________________
CTU2fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Earth, Sky, Fire and Rain - Epilogue (29/6/08) Alisaura PLEBA Archive 7 07-04-2008 09:48 PM
The Edge of Reason EdgeIsTooSexy PLEBA Archive 13 12-04-2007 06:40 PM
I finally got caught bonosloveslave Zoo Confessionals 24 11-07-2003 07:20 PM
My procrastinating has finally caught up with me... Naya Zoo Confessionals 4 04-27-2002 12:44 AM
i am irresponsible and its finally caught up with me zooropamanda Zoo Confessionals 6 04-12-2002 03:46 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com