You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘sexism’ category.
one answer
another answer
and another
Oh, and since he keeps referring to “our party in his scolding – latest refusal to join the Ds
here’s the one with my answer
000đ
Not much I can add to this…
via The Confluence
Roman Polanski is miffed and boy, do we all get a talking to!. He writes – many times and in each paragraph
I can remain silent no longer!
There’s scolding to be done!
The narcissistic rapist is outraged that his cushy escape life has been rudely interrupted
had landed with a view to receiving a lifetime award for my work from the representative of the Swiss Minister of Culture,
and for what? For raping a 13 years old?
Polanski is very annoyed with us – and especially with the judge who refused to abide to the wrist slapping code
33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison. That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence. By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil (sic) the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States.
“Common law crimes”? Sounds like “crimes for commoners. What were they, Roman? Bueler? Anyone?
Of course he, Polanski had to flee the jurisdiction – he was a celebrity damn it! And he already did hard time in the joint for what? An entire Forty two days and NOT even in a VIP prison? Oh, the humanity!
Polanski is outraged that the documentary designed to rehabilitate him (not unlike the interview after the crime bragging he foiled justice) blew in his face
The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland,
Roman Polanski is outraged that his victim(“I told him I wanted to go home, but he pulled me back in the room”) – to whom he never even paid the damages the settlement he promised to pay – couldn’t make a criminal case go away
I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victimâs numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more.
I say, give that celebrity a pat on the back.
Shawshank Redemption this ain’t..
Update
Jeralyn wants to free him still.
He acknowledged the facts establishing unlawful sexual intercourse with a person who was not his wife. He acknowledged  knowing her age. That’s it.
THAT’s IT?
New generations of girls await.
Remember the good old times when Democratic candidates for POTUS were telling voters that women’s right to chose is at stake because of the SCOTUS nominations? I sound very old here – as I doubt Obama made this argument – although his strategists trumpeted on Obama TV that Roe was the “ace in the hole” to bring  back the women he demeaned in the primaries. We know how well this worked for them.
When Obama picked Sotomayor, he made a point in saying he didn’t even asked her about her views on women right to chose. I am old enough to remember when Democrats were accused of posing a “litmus test” on this – Obama ended this “R” worry.
In fact we are now sliding further down with this scary headline from WaPo
Abortion rulings could bring scrutiny of possible Supreme Court pick Wood
Suddenly, being for women’s right to chose (or as the RW an their media put it “abortion rights”) is no longer a Democratic principle, but a SCOTUS candidate “Achille’s heel”.
CHICAGO — If President Obama nominates U.S. Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, social conservatives say they intend to make her rulings on abortion rights the primary point of contention.
“That’s her Achilles’ heel,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which opposes Wood’s rulings on abortion. “It tells you that she’s probably not going to be selected, because Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.“
Let me repeat this again
Obama doesn’t have the stomach for this to be about an abortion debate.“
This is pretty much telegraphing that Obama is ready to sell women in the SCOTUS pick.
While it made a modicum of sense for Obama to declare that HCR was not about the abortion debate, to say that a SCOTUS pick can be about anything else is to practically send all women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
And while I don’t know much about Diane Wood, I get an idea from Glenn Greenwald’s simile
f one were to analogize the search for Justice Stevens’ replacement to the recently concluded health care debate, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood would be the public option.
Just as the truly left-wing health care approach (a single-payer system) was eliminated from consideration before the process even began, so, too, have the truly left-wing candidates to replace Justice Stevens (Pam Karlan, Harold Koh) been ruled out as “not viable.”  As a result, the moderate-progressive compromises (i.e., the public option for health care and Diane Wood for Stevens’ replacement) are falsely depicted as some sort of liberal extremism, merely because they’re the least conservative options allowed to be considered.
So, the standards – for everything – are moved to the right with the speed of light.
Women’s rights of choice have been dubbed “abortion rights” and they are now considered “the Achille’s heel” of a SCOTUS nominee. It’s a matter of time – very short – until they’ll be both outlawed and be reason for burning at the stake by our new overlords.
Women who voted for “the Feminist” – it’s on you more than it is on the men. Because you should have known better.
,
Slowly, the madness that was the 2008 primaries is unraveling to koolaid hangover ridden participants. Suddenly, things that we were screaming then are allowed in print. Like this from the B0bots
B0bots: âWhen Obama praised Reagan we thought he was just BS-ingâ
Now, the reality check comes from the bowels of the media source that most distorted reality, making an unchanged Fox seem reasonable by comparison: MSNBC.
|
6
|
I don’t know what made Craig Crawford resign now. But he considers that now it can be told -how the manufacturing of the reality was maddening to him at the time. He first commented on a blog
i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.”
I had stopped watching that channel since the South Carolina primaries so I was glad when he elaborated
As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. Thatâs the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there.
He put it well. The media (MSNBC and everything else) has tried and executed Hillary as evil racist bitch from the very start. Sorta like Osama Bin Laden – only much worse, because she was also a woman and her last name was Clinton.
This was the premise of all commentary during primaries. “Us vs them”
Supporting Hillary was making you one of those enemies – forever. You were automatically a racist – and worse. There was never an amnesty for that crime, BTW, even if the badmouthing of Hillary had to reluctantly end (sorry, Dana Millbank).
But Craig Crawford was hardly a Hillary supporter. My guess – from his comment about the “lefty games” I take it his personal inclinations go more towards the GOP. But I do remember him as the more level headed pundit there, the one that was – occasionally – trying to inject some common sense in the hyperbole that was their campaigning for Obama. And in those dark times of “you’re either with us or a filthy racist that should die”, this was enough.
The hysteria at MSNBC, the rest of the media and B0bot quarter was such, that the mere “Woa! Slow down a little” from one was deemed high treason.
I think it bears keeping in mind – especially as a response to the sweeping revisionism from the other side “Both sides did it” It was never “both sides” – as this thing was one sided from the very start.
And it also explains why I experience so much schadenfreude when I see the most rabid B0bots having to batten down the hatches in their bunker in B0botland for a change.
So, even if a bit late, thank you Craig for helping set the record straight. They have to live with what they did.
Recent Comments