• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?

Should Roman Polanski be punished for his crime?


  • Total voters
    100
I know exactly what the term means and I applied it correctly.

Well you would be wrong again, as is typical with many of your highly emotional outbursts. The notion that my arguments are somehow elitist requires the willing suspension of disbelief; something you are quite good at I might add.

:rofl

I'm fairly certain that derailment of this thread occurred when you asked me who I voted for.

Well, you would be wrong again but at least you are consistent. I would say it began with this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ski-punished-his-crime-32.html#post1058299474

As is typical with someone who always wears their emotional hyperbole on their sleeves, you never fail to try to make this all about me rather than post anything related to the thread topic or argument at hand.

I think there is a term for it.....oh yes; we call that trolling and baiting.

Carry on. It is obvious you have no other purpose here and just want to bore me with more of your absurd notions about what an elitist I am. :2wave:
 
Well you would be wrong again, as is typical with many of your highly emotional outbursts. The notion that my arguments are somehow elitist requires the willing suspension of disbelief; something you are quite good at I might add.

:rofl
Again, you fail to refute my claim. Hardly surprising. Amusing that it comes from someone who always claims that everyone else's posts are not substance-based.



Well, you would be wrong again but at least you are consistent. I would say it began with this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...ski-punished-his-crime-32.html#post1058299474

As is typical with someone who always wears their emotional hyperbole on their sleeves, you never fail to try to make this all about me rather than post anything related to the thread topic or argument at hand.

I think there is a term for it.....oh yes; we call that trolling and baiting.

Carry on. It is obvious you have no other purpose here and just want to bore me with more of your absurd notions about what an elitist I am. :2wave:
I have posted plenty of times on the topic at hand. Again, your confirmation bias blinds you to the obvious. Oh well.
 
None of the people I have voted for on a national level have won. This does not mean I am going to quit voting for people I believe will better the country.

In other words, none of your votes have done anything to make the country better.

Think about that for a minute while you contemplate the reality that you really only have TWO choices that are actually going to get elected and get back to me.

How is Ron Paul the lesser of two evils? :doh

Who made this argument?

...And now the concept of irony has been successfully lost on you. Quite an eventful day for you, eh? ;)

How amusing, and yet you don't find the FACT that voting for someone who doesn't have a chance to get elected as not being ironic?

Fascinating. Okay, I am done toying with you; you’re not even an intellectual challenge.
 
In other words, none of your votes have done anything to make the country better.

Think about that for a minute while you contemplate the reality that you really only have TWO choices that are actually going to get elected and get back to me.
Ah, but you, perpetuating the status quo, have done so much good? :lol:

Who made this argument?
Read the part of your post I responded to.

How amusing, and yet you don't find the FACT that voting for someone who doesn't have a chance to get elected as not being ironic?

Fascinating. Okay, I am done toying with you; you’re not even an intellectual challenge.
Ah, what a shame. I'll never be as smart as you. :2rofll:
 
Nobody puts Mikeey in a corner :lol: Back the **** off my boy

Mikeey rules

I think proper punctuation puts Mikeey in the corner.
 
Why? The individual clearly wants this dropped. She was the victim, not you or I. Neither you nor myself have degrees in psychology or the ability to analyze and evaluate the victim's mental state, so to say that she is psychologically damaged and imply that her desires are therefore skewed is absurd.

I am not saying that it should be dropped because she is or is not psychologically damaged… I am saying that her opinion is irrelevant to the fact that the DA can and should pursue charges against a person accused of the crime because that is in the best interest of the state.

Sure, she wants to let it go, and that is fine… but she is putting her interest ahead of society. Society wants and needs those that break laws to face the consequence of their action, and in the case of felonies, off of the street. Can you imagine if we just let a murderer of my daughter go because the I wanted them to and the murderer came over and murdered your mother?

If the victim wanted to press charges, I would be on board.

You are not addressing the aspect of a consequence.

I do not even know how to respond to such an ill-informed accusation. What "socialist agenda" am I pushing?

No idea… you probably aren’t, but it sounded funny. It was just a thought that perhaps you are getting brainwashed by some doofy professors at university. I was simply noting that you seem to have changed, from analytical to emotional or something, that is all…
 
I am not saying that it should be dropped because she is or is not psychologically damaged… I am saying that her opinion is irrelevant to the fact that the DA can and should pursue charges against a person accused of the crime because that is in the best interest of the state.

Sure, she wants to let it go, and that is fine… but she is putting her interest ahead of society. Society wants and needs those that break laws to face the consequence of their action, and in the case of felonies, off of the street. Can you imagine if we just let a murderer of my daughter go because the I wanted them to and the murderer came over and murdered your mother?
What society are we protecting? He's not in our country anymore, he is no longer a threat to you or I.

No idea… you probably aren’t, but it sounded funny. It was just a thought that perhaps you are getting brainwashed by some doofy professors at university. I was simply noting that you seem to have changed, from analytical to emotional or something, that is all…
It's the psychedelics. Altering one's perceptions of reality has a tendency to shake the foundations of things one thought they might know.
 
What society are we protecting? He's not in our country anymore, he is no longer a threat to you or I.

Oh god... are you trying to be obtuse? :lol:

If back in the day, she decided not to want to have him prosocuted, he would still be in and around Hollywood making movies at some level, most likely... our society. Even in France, they are mostly the same. He was caught and about to be convicted, so he ran, perhaps that scared him straight, but if she was allowed to just let him off then even that would not have happened. That is why we don't get to decide, the DA or authorities do, they are IMPARTIAL.


It's the psychedelics. Altering one's perceptions of reality has a tendency to shake the foundations of things one thought they might know.

Perceptions are constantly changing, even if only minutely... Gotta be careful about being too radical, sometimes what we think we know and then challenge was actually correct in the first place. Emotions can be a mess to altering perceptions.
 
Oh god... are you trying to be obtuse? :lol:

If back in the day, she decided not to want to have him prosocuted, he would still be in and around Hollywood making movies at some level, most likely... our society. Even in France, they are mostly the same. He was caught and about to be convicted, so he ran, perhaps that scared him straight, but if she was allowed to just let him off then even that would not have happened. That is why we don't get to decide, the DA or authorities do, they are IMPARTIAL.
Horribly incorrect. DAs are not impartial. In fact, most of them tote their number of convictions as a badge of honor when election time rolls around. The more they convict, the safer the herd feel. The DA does himself a favor by prosecuting Polanski, regardless of whether "justice" is served.

Perceptions are constantly changing, even if only minutely...
I concur. Waking consciousness is something developed and practiced on a daily basis by myself. It's one of the main reasons I am so fond of Buddhism.

Gotta be careful about being too radical, sometimes what we think we know and then challenge was actually correct in the first place.
Can you be more specific?

Emotions can be a mess to altering perceptions.
I concur. Although, I would disagree that my argument is emotional. I simply think we are coming at this from different angles.
 
Horribly incorrect. DAs are not impartial. In fact, most of them tote their number of convictions as a badge of honor when election time rolls around. The more they convict, the safer the herd feel. The DA does himself a favor by prosecuting Polanski, regardless of whether "justice" is served.

Well, of course they are actually not "impartial" since they are human, but that is supposed to be their job. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the legal system as a whole which is a larger issue than what we are discussing.
 
Horribly incorrect. DAs are not impartial. In fact, most of them tote their number of convictions as a badge of honor when election time rolls around. The more they convict, the safer the herd feel. The DA does himself a favor by prosecuting Polanski, regardless of whether "justice" is served.

About like the Defense is suppose to do all that they can to get their client off of a charge. In the end the facts speak for themselves.

And in this case from what I understand his dna was found on the girls panties. That alone is enough to convict anyone.
 
Well, of course they are actually not "impartial" since they are human, but that is supposed to be their job. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the legal system as a whole which is a larger issue than what we are discussing.
I have a problem with DAs perpetuating the myth that more convictions somehow equals an increase in safety.
 
I have a problem with DAs perpetuating the myth that more convictions somehow equals an increase in safety.

I have never heard that they did... just that getting convicted criminals off of the streets increases safety, since there are less criminals committing crimes, kinda logical though.
 
I have never heard that they did... just that getting convicted criminals off of the streets increases safety, since there are less criminals committing crimes, kinda logical though.

This is 100% correct. It has been shown that MOST crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the population and that crime rates are reduced dramatically by keeping those repeat offenders OFF the streets.

This is a no brainer for any one with a modicum of intelligence or honesty. The problem we have in the current mental state of the country is that there are those of the Librul persuasion want to make excuses for the criminals and there appears to be little appetite among them to keep these thugs locked up.
 
This is 100% correct. It has been shown that MOST crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the population and that crime rates are reduced dramatically by keeping those repeat offenders OFF the streets.

This is a no brainer for any one with a modicum of intelligence or honesty. The problem we have in the current mental state of the country is that there are those of the Librul persuasion want to make excuses for the criminals and there appears to be little appetite among them to keep these thugs locked up.
All I said was that perpetuating the more that "more convictions = safer streets" sends the message that you could care less about a fair trial, you are simply concerned with convicting as many people as possible.
 
All I said was that perpetuating the more that "more convictions = safer streets" sends the message that you could care less about a fair trial, you are simply concerned with convicting as many people as possible.

The way our system is I think that's all that a DA should worry about. As that is their job. Their job is to prosecute. The system is balanced because the defense lawyer is suppose to do everything that they can to get the person they represent proven innocent. It pretty much evens itself out. Kind of like how polar opposites attract each other. They meet in the middle and in effect cancels each others momentum.
 
About like the Defense is suppose to do all that they can to get their client off of a charge. In the end the facts speak for themselves.

And in this case from what I understand his dna was found on the girls panties. That alone is enough to convict anyone.

Not Bill Clinton......:lol:
 
The way our system is I think that's all that a DA should worry about. As that is their job. Their job is to prosecute. The system is balanced because the defense lawyer is suppose to do everything that they can to get the person they represent proven innocent. It pretty much evens itself out. Kind of like how polar opposites attract each other. They meet in the middle and in effect cancels each others momentum.
Fair enough.
 
All I said was that perpetuating the more that "more convictions = safer streets" sends the message that you could care less about a fair trial,

This is absurd.....

....you are simply concerned with convicting as many people as possible.

This is beyond absurd.....but then, feigning absurdity appears to be one of your fortes.

:2wave:
 
My dad is pretty sure that Polanski was that one to order a hit on his wife (Tate) by the Manson family.

Maybe so he could go on ****ing little girls.
 
Roman Polanski is a pervert and sexual deviant. In other words, he's a darling of the liberals.
 
Roman Polanski is a pervert and sexual deviant. In other words, he's a darling of the liberals.

Do you actually think this through, or do you just go around blaming the big bad liberals for everything you don't like? Seriously, it's hard to take someone seriously who "debates" like this.

As to the OP, yes Polanski should be tried for his crimes. He has openly admitted to them, so there isn't a question of guilt or innocence. He needs to stand trial and answer for what he did.
 
So your argument is "it is absurd because I disagree." Glad we cleared that up.

You would be wrong again which is typical for you. Your idiotic assertions about me are what are absurd. But then, you knew that, you just want to run from your foolish comments and claims; I cannot say that I blame you.

Carry on. :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom