Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 55 of 55
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Boondocks
    Posts
    35,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Rear Admiral View Post
    He votes for Hillary?
    This will probably be the most reasonable answer to my question.
    I'm your mama, I'm your daddy
    I'm that nigga in the alley
    I'm your doctor when in need
    Want some coke, have some weed
    You know me, I'm your friend
    Your main boy, thick and thin

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

    Ain't I clean, bad machine
    Super cool, super mean
    Dealin' good for the Man,
    Superfly, here I stand
    Secret stash, heavy bread
    Baddest bitches in the bed

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    10,608
    Quote Originally Posted by Breed View Post
    If you think a grown man sexually molested a 7 year old child. Why are you fine with him not being convicted and facing no repercussions?



    Requires overwhelming proof? What system are you referring to?
    In many parts of the world it is difficult to convict the famous and the well off. Again, I have no clue if he did anything with a 7 year old - but I will say that if he did, she was likely not his first young un that he went too far with. Maybe others will come forward

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Breed View Post
    The jump is easier to make when the dude, very likely creeped with, definitely hooked up with then stayed with and is still with what used to be his step-daughter.

    On the other hand.....I can relate...not to getting with my step-daughter, but to getting with young girls in general.
    It is, and he may be guilty here. I don't know. However, a 17 or 20 year old isn't the same as a 7 year old.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  4. #49
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    8,577
    He's guilty

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Boondocks
    Posts
    35,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastradamus View Post
    It is, and he may be guilty here. I don't know. However, a 17 or 20 year old isn't the same as a 7 year old.
    True and if we're gonna be totally honest. This, rich powerful men getting with young and in some cases, really young women/maybe not quite a woman, is pretty SOP. And while I know they weren't blood kinfolk, ****in your step-daughter who was at one time, young enough to be your daughter, baby daughter even. And she probably called you daddy and you tucked her in, read her bedtime stories, maybe dropped her off and picked her up from grade school. Is somewhere in the realm of real creepy ass sh*t.
    I'm your mama, I'm your daddy
    I'm that nigga in the alley
    I'm your doctor when in need
    Want some coke, have some weed
    You know me, I'm your friend
    Your main boy, thick and thin

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

    Ain't I clean, bad machine
    Super cool, super mean
    Dealin' good for the Man,
    Superfly, here I stand
    Secret stash, heavy bread
    Baddest bitches in the bed

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Stephens City, VA
    Posts
    24,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Bear View Post
    Wait, what? You were saying that since Woody Allen slept with a 20 year old, that he must have had those same feelings for her when she was under 18, which I have no idea how you know that. But then you continue to posit that since Woody had feelings for Soon Yi prior to the age of 18 (which is baseless), then he must lust after prepubescent children, a.k.a. a pedophilia.....
    Pornographic pics of a 19 year old Previn were found... I'm not saying that it necessarily mean for certain that he is a pedo, but it doesn't make it look really good now does it? My main point on this front is that I sincerely doubt that Woody just one day convinced Soon Yi out of the blue to take dirty pics.... I'm guessing one needs to build up to that, though admittedly I'm not an expert in this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Bear
    So to sum up, since Woody was caught with a 20 year old, he must desire prepubescent girls (prepubescent being the definition of a pedophile).

    Gigantic leap in my estimation.
    I am not a court of law. Ergo, I do not have to prove a fuggin' thing beyond a reasonable doubt... I'm telling you that it tilts me pretty far toward the, "I wouldn't be surprised if...." camp... Capice?



    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Bear
    Number one, your statement is inaccurate. Woody Allen was never Soon Yi's legal guardian. She was adopted by Andre Previn who remains her adopted father.
    Did Soon Yi live under their roof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Bear
    Secondly, if you have a problem with the magical line, take it up with you legislator, unless, that is, you're trying to outlaw May-December romances.
    Nah, its that damned inconvenient law that has an issue with that... I just happen to be one of those guys who adheres to such things...

    Quote Originally Posted by Wounded Bear
    Lastly, I'm not condoning his behavior, nor am I saying that Woody Allen didn't molest Dylan Farrow.

    I am saying, however, that I need proof before I get all Salem Witch Trial on his ass and stigmatize him with the label of "pedophile."

    Dylan Farrow claimed she was molested by Woody Allen in 1993 when she was 7. Medical testimony would make this accusation more credible. A DNA test, which was available in 1993, would cinch it for her.
    Again, I'm just giving my opinion based on what I know... Feel free to equate Woody with Tituba if that's how you view this... I think the entire Soon Yi situation shows us that sexually, the 53 year old Woody certainly didn't let social mores get in the way of what he desired on that front. Big red flag for me... Don't really care if you'd like to whistle past the graveyard on this one... We're sharing our thoughts on this... MY issue with you was that when I said 20, you seemed to take issue with it. When griz pointed out that Woody was in his 50s and Soon Yi was 18 or 19 and that he was despicable, you suddenly were, "On board"...

    What a difference a year makes?
    Last edited by Payton34; 02-09-2014 at 06:42 AM.
    "Yeah, everything that guy just said is Bullsh!t..... Thank you.." -Vincent LaGuardia Gambini-

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    The Boondocks
    Posts
    35,876
    Quote Originally Posted by griz View Post
    In many parts of the world it is difficult to convict the famous and the well off. Again, I have no clue if he did anything with a 7 year old - but I will say that if he did, she was likely not his first young un that he went too far with. Maybe others will come forward
    Plausible. Its also plausible that if Woody did kanoodle another child. He paid the parents and/or child off and she's off somewhere all ****ed up smokin meth and knee deep in rough trade.

    It would seem ol' Woody's not so neurotic as he portrays himself on film though.
    I'm your mama, I'm your daddy
    I'm that nigga in the alley
    I'm your doctor when in need
    Want some coke, have some weed
    You know me, I'm your friend
    Your main boy, thick and thin

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

    Ain't I clean, bad machine
    Super cool, super mean
    Dealin' good for the Man,
    Superfly, here I stand
    Secret stash, heavy bread
    Baddest bitches in the bed

    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman
    I'm your pusherman

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Duchy of Grand Fenwick
    Posts
    33,257
    Quote Originally Posted by Breed View Post
    If you think a grown man sexually molested a 7 year old child. Why are you fine with him not being convicted and facing no repercussions?

    Requires overwhelming proof? What system are you referring to?
    IN THEORY, our legal system requires overwhelming proof of guilt for anybody to be convicted. You are surely much closer than I am to lots of instances in which that theory has not held up. Still, that's what we're taught about how it SHOULD work, and I think that's the ideal we should try to have be true.

    By that standard, some guilty people will go free. I think that's a very acceptable price for having a system not punish more people who are innocent.

    Drilling down, WHY do we want to see criminals punished. There are in essence three kinds of reason:

    1. Keeping those specific individuals away from the opportunity to commit more crimes.
    2. Deterring other would-be criminals.
    3. Vengeance on the evil-doers.

    I care about #1 and #2 much more than I do #3.
    APF doesn't come in screaming at others about how stupid they are. APF doesn't spam NST with the same tired topic 30 times a month. APF doesn't link to some kook in his mom's basement telling you how to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid" of the world falling down around you. And, when APF is proven wrong, he acknowledges he made a mistake and moves on, rather than harping about "sheeple."

    -- Cory Bonini

    Welchie summarized

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Too Far From Home
    Posts
    6,267
    Having read all the rebuttels and the rebuttels to the rebuttels, I am still on the Farow side of things and think that Woody got away with a serious crime.

    He is not guilty just like MJ is not guilty of the same crime, IMO.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    The High Seas
    Posts
    36,980
    Quote Originally Posted by AndromedaPatFan View Post
    IN THEORY, our legal system requires overwhelming proof of guilt for anybody to be convicted. You are surely much closer than I am to lots of instances in which that theory has not held up. Still, that's what we're taught about how it SHOULD work, and I think that's the ideal we should try to have be true.

    By that standard, some guilty people will go free. I think that's a very acceptable price for having a system not punish more people who are innocent.

    Drilling down, WHY do we want to see criminals punished. There are in essence three kinds of reason:

    1. Keeping those specific individuals away from the opportunity to commit more crimes.
    2. Deterring other would-be criminals.
    3. Vengeance on the evil-doers.

    I care about #1 and #2 much more than I do #3.
    You're all kinds of flucked up on this post and I would suggest you stick to things you know about. MANY, and I don't mean a few, innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit. What you are suggesting here is the THEORY (admittedly) of how our justice system is SUPPOSED TO WORK. You glaringly omit that our system is an ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM, which means it's a ZERO SUM GAME. There are those who WIN, and those who LOSE. The power of the state to bring a prosecution, in most cases, far outweighs the resources of the defendant, and the wording of law itself, read to jurors during jury instructions prior to deliberation, is very often HEAVILY WEIGHTED in favor of the prosecution, whether they be spinning non-fiction or pot of gold fairy tales.

    The reality is that those with MONEY who can afford competent, if not dastardly and divine at the same time depending on the case, defense counsel often avoid even prosecution - while those who cannot afford such representation are not only prosecuted but often convicted, some times for things they didn't do.

    Prosecutors, most of them, are 'in it to win it'. I have seen many who couldn't care less about the guilt of the accused - we see this particularly often due to the VAWA act, on rape charges, and in divorce court - where a WAR ON MEN has been openly declared in this country and kangaroo courts enforce it in search of Federal Funding that rewards statistical conviction quotas so these Cretins can 'climb the corporate ladder' - only this is the 'public system of justice ladder' and the victims are tax paying citizens. In these venues women can do no wrong, are believed wholesale on any litany of lies they can dream up, and men are GUILTY AS ACCUSED. If you are not aware of it, you spend too much surf time on your software and stock sites and it just hasn't happened to you yet - praise Mickey Mouse for that but by all means avoid Jury Duty.

    It is interesting that we hear this jarbog trotted out to rationalize the iniquities of the 'justice system' when the Woody Allens of the world are afforded their escape.

    Oh, and vengeance should have no place in the Justice System; that is the province of the Lord and left to the minds of those left in the wake of a truly convicted perpetrator. Retribution and atonement would be the appropriate aim, thus the dubbing of institutions as 'penitentiaries' -- of course, it doesn't work out quite that way because it's run by sickos who, like Prosecutors, some Judges even Jurors and internet posters, become jaded by the company they keep.
    Last edited by Rear Admiral; 02-09-2014 at 02:42 PM.
    Gang Way!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.