Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
You truly should apologize at this point. For you are wrong.
"Rape Rape"
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
You truly should apologize at this point. For you are wrong.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Stay classy, Alias/DY.
Unbelievable.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
UH; how am I in error??
icedancer2theend
Verified User
She made reference to me and Loyal in this thread before I said a thing to her or about her. I happen to know her obsession up close and personal like- and have the pictures of my caller ID to prove it. She's a cunning stunt who plays her games behind the scenes- I merely keep it out in the open to remind her she does not intimidate me. You don't like it put me on ignore.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You said you had me on ignore, liar.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
No problem there, Christie-slut.
It's weird to hear you talk about "obsession," though. From any casual observer's perspective, you're crazy-obsessed with her. Like, bananas...
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He won't though.
In the OP post of this "rape rape" thread. The reason you associate the two in your head. Actually read the post, it says, "Whoopi said something stupid, but the FBI has now changed how it reports rape numbers." <-short version, not an actual quote.
Dear gawd Damo, your political site is now a porn site...between Stankee and Stankeecyberbride I can see why you can't get caught reading at work!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You're one to talk when you were clearly wrong here and we don't see an apology coming from you.
Here's clue Freak. When you "sign off" you do so with a sentence fragment after the last sentence in your post. If you want to describe someone then use a complete sentence. If you want to refer to someone at the end of a sentence then do so after a comma.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Funny, only her dawgs, think so.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I bet your mate WWW must be chomping at the bit to get on but she can't, now that's what I call Karma.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
LOL you are always drooling over what Loyal is doing- go play with your blow up dolly tom.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
zappasguitar
Well-known member
See how she's got all that worked out in her diseased little mind?
If you don't agree with her then you're "obsessed" with Darla and are one of her "dawgs"...
That's how I became "associated" with Rana and the others. I refused to side with ID, a.k.a. *****, as she was known back in the day...when she'd make up some sick, pornographic bullshit about Darla and attempt to spread it all over the old AOL boards. Naturally I got lumped in with the others who refused to buy into ID and disloyal's particular brand of crazy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
The girl Polanski raped was 13, not 16. Too bad the "outraged" people can't get their facts straight. I mentioned Goldberg because her "it wasn't rape-rape" comment became notorious in feminist circles, and the Ms. Magazine "Rape is Rape" campaign used that wording for a reason. A campaign which I participated in btw, and will continue to do so because until the FBI Director signs off on this, it's not official. I doubt any of the "outraged" righties have bothered to so much as sign a petition or make a phone call.
I don't bark for anyone. Anyone here who doesn't know my opinions on sex assault, including on female collaborators, is an idiot. Their opinion is irrelevant, their "orders" hysterically funny.
How sad that such an important issue was used by animals. It is perhaps an attempt to intimidate me from beginning threads.
I really think that'll work. I'm very timid.
I don't bark for anyone. Anyone here who doesn't know my opinions on sex assault, including on female collaborators, is an idiot. Their opinion is irrelevant, their "orders" hysterically funny.
How sad that such an important issue was used by animals. It is perhaps an attempt to intimidate me from beginning threads.
I really think that'll work. I'm very timid.
Yet...its pinheads on YOUR side of the political spectrum that continue to make the stupid observations like Whoopie....won't you ever get it?....Doesn't it make you stop and think.....even think a little....
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Seeing as the Polanski case has been mentioned, I found this blog article from the Washington Post. I think it makes a lot of sense.
The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski
Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.
Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
By Anne Applebaum | September 27, 2009; 3:13 PM ET
The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski
Of all nations, why was it Switzerland -- the country that traditionally guarded the secret bank accounts of international criminals and corrupt dictators -- that finally decided to arrest Roman Polanski? There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision was bizarre -- though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.
Here are some of the facts: Polanski's crime -- statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl -- was committed in 1977. The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children. There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment. Polanski's mother died in Auschwitz. His father survived Mauthausen. He himself survived the Krakow ghetto, and later emigrated from communist Poland. His pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered in 1969 by the followers of Charles Manson, though for a time Polanski himself was a suspect.
I am certain there are many who will harrumph that, following this arrest, justice was done at last. But Polanski is 76. To put him on trial or keep him in jail does not serve society in general or his victim in particular. Nor does it prove the doggedness and earnestness of the American legal system. If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
By Anne Applebaum | September 27, 2009; 3:13 PM ET