- #211
Hepth
Gold Member
- 464
- 40
i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...
Hepth said:i mean't I didnt go through them looking for stories, they were the HEADLINE of the RESPECTIVE page (respective=the attributed title). I didn't think I was misleading...
lisab said:Count, did you read the victim's account of the ordeal? It may give you a different view of the guy...regardless of how good his movies are.
Count Iblis said:...then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/
Count Iblis said:Yes, and I feel that he should have been prosecuted on those charges. But he wasn't and then legally it is difficult to make the case here in Europe that he should be considered to be a convicted rapist.
The first problem is that we don't do plea bargains here (despite what mheslep wrote). We consider confessions based on an offer of a reduction of prison sentence not reliable. What then remains is what he was going to be sentenced for, and that was statutory rape. The European view on that is described here:
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/on-the-use-of-the-word-rape/
Choronzon said:...
I personally don't care what he was convicted of—he admitted to drugging and raping a thirteen, and all of Great Britain can sink into the sea before I accept their position on the matter is anything but idiocy.
seycyrus said:Yeah, this is utter malarky. So...if the european countries *shouldn't* accept his confession because it was part of a plea bargain then pretend the confession and the plea never happened.
Iblis should be insisting that the MoFo be arrested for drugging and raping a 13 yr old!
seycyrus said:So, your confusion about the arrest is merely due to your inability to see the topic outside of a strictly legalistic point of view?
Ehh cmon!
WhoWee said:Fox has a few stories filed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556301,00.html
Fox has also reported with a political reference, but I don't think it's inaccurate.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,557286,00.html?test=faces
"Whoopi Goldberg used her spot on ABC's "The View" to try to clear up the record regarding the crime to which Polanski pleaded guilty in 1978.
"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left."
I'm not sure what a "'rape' rape" is and how it's different than a rape? As for leaving the country to avoid sentencing, it's total nonsense as he didn't need to agree to a plea bargain. He had the resources to fight the charges and appeal upon conviction. He had contempt for our legal system and now he should be judged on his actions.
Pythagorean said:rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.
You only got one out of three of those correct.Pythagorean said:rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling. Statutory rape is taking advantage of someone who may be willing, but doesn't know any better (like a youth). They call it date rape when the victim changes their mind halfway through consensual sex, but the perp doesn't stop.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/RapeMost states choose to label the crime of rape as sexual assault. Sexual assault is divided into degrees: first-, second-, third-, and fourth-degree sexual assault. West Virginia provides an illustration of how rape laws are typically written. In West Virginia, a person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person and either inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone or employs a deadly weapon in the commission of the act (W. Va. Code § 61-8B-3 [1996]). Additionally, a person age 14 years or older who engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is 11 years old or less is guilty of first-degree sexual assault. A person convicted of the crime of first-degree sexual assault in West Virginia faces imprisonment for at least 15 years and not more than 35 years and may be fined from $1,000 to $10,000.
In West Virginia, a person commits sexual assault in the second degree by engaging in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without that person's consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is (1) physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; (2) threat or intimidation, either express or implied, placing the victim or another person in fear of death, bodily injury, or Kidnapping; or (3) fear by a person under 16 years of age caused by intimidation by another person who is at least four years older than the victim.
Or drugging the victimPythagorean said:rape rape is physically forcing yourself on someone who is unwilling.
WhoWee said:Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935 [Broken]
That's a dangerous game Obama is playing. When he went on the morning talk shows and snubbed Fox, it sends a message that the viewers of Fox don't matter to him. I think he's setting himself up to look more extremist by doing that.WhoWee said:Another line in the sand? Obama White House versus Glenn Beck - let the truth be known.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935 [Broken]
Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine. :grumpy:mugaliens said:...Fox delved much further into the history of the Middle East leading up to the current divisions of the countries, the backgrounds of the current leaders and how they got there, what the various Imams are saying and calling for via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81" [Broken], and the goals of the various factions vying for power throughout the region.
dlgoff said:Every time I wanted to see what was happening there on Fox, Obama was always there in a negative image. Who would imagine. :grumpy:
russ_watters said:And going after Fox on his website, Obama is treating Fox like Fox is just another politician to sling mud at, but Fox isn't and they thrive on rolling around in the mud. He's playing exactly the game that hurts him and helps them the most!
WhoWee said:You must have watched this clip?
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt-protests/2011/02/04/i-feel-ashamed-american-chris-matthews-rips-obamas-handling-egypt-crisis#
"The Hardball host berated, "And Barack Obama, as much I support him in many ways, there is a transitional quality to the guy that is chilling." He added, "I believe in relationships...You treat your friends a certain way. You're loyal to them.""
Proton Soup said:omg, i never would have thought i'd see a whinging Chris Matthews as the voice of american imperialism. and his love affair with Mubarak because he's a man that exudes strength... geeze
Nicodemus said:Mubarak exudes stregnth, just like Dubya looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. :p
WhoWee said:It's not often that I agree with Chris Matthews, but he made some very strong arguments. I read it this way - President Obama is playing a dangerous game of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Arab peoples at the expense of US allied interests. To describe President Obama as transitional (Merriam-Webster transition: passage from one state, stage, subject, or place to another to another, evolution from one form, stage, or style to another) is not a compliment.
The last thing a country (Egypt) in turmoil needs is to identify their greatest ally is undependable - Fox is keeping it's finger on the pulse.
Nicodemus said:Did you reply to the right post? I don't see how what you're saying is a response to my jibe. Oh, and "Nations don't have friends, only interests." As for winning hearts and minds, I thought that was a strategy that began during the Iraq war, so Obama would be continuing it. If you look at actual transitions, Bush W. was transitional: two wars, a change in tone, emphasis on christianity, 9.11... and so on. I think presidents for the next decade or so are just going to be riding that wave, and hopefully they'll try to turn it back in places.
WhoWee said:This thread is about Fox news and their coverage. I think running the Chris Matthews piece and since following it with another sound bite comparing the Tea Party influence to the Muslim Brotherhood activities was a good balance. I also thought the Super Bowl O'Reilly interview with President Obama was "fair and balanced".
If you'd like to discuss the two different styles of leadership Bush vs Obama - start another thread - it will be interesting.
BTW - did I use the word "friends"?
drankin said:This thread is still going? "Fair and Balanced" is marketing. Most understand that Fox is biased. But, we also understand that all media is biased. Is it criminal? Just as criminal as saying Pepsi tastes better than Coke.
Nicodemus said:You want to take examples of instances of coverage against the vast preponderance of evidence, and conclude that because Fox News sometimes allows a balanced report, it is: "Fair and Balanced"? Don't make me laugh; using the same I could find TONS (if you let me include old Dobbs episodes) from CNN that makes it look horribly right-leaning (and we know it's anything but).
How does one story in the context of the larger narrative being presented, or even a dozen stories, when we're talking about 24/7 news tell us anything?
Now, I know what the original thread is about, but you replied to my joke about Bush and Putin and then just went off on your tangent. For the record, I don't want to discuss leadership styles, I was making a comment about Mubarak's nature, W's idiotic comment about Putin, and Putin himself.
BTW - When did I ever mention "transformational"?
Nicodemus said:I'm not sure that I want to hold my media to the same standards that people have for their favorite soft drink.
Fox News: Fair & Balanced is a cable news channel that was launched in 1996. It is owned by Fox Corporation and is known for its conservative political views and coverage of current events and news stories.
This is a highly debated question and ultimately subjective. While Fox News claims to be fair and balanced in its reporting, many critics argue that it has a conservative bias and often promotes right-wing ideologies. It is important for viewers to critically evaluate the news they consume and seek out multiple sources for a well-rounded understanding of current events.
Fox News has been known to investigate various claims of corruption, particularly within the political realm. Some examples include the Benghazi attack and the Clinton email scandal. However, it is important to note that Fox News has also faced criticism for its own alleged corruption, such as sexual harassment claims against former CEO Roger Ailes.
Fox News has a team of fact-checkers and editors who are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their reporting. However, the network has faced criticism for spreading misinformation and false claims. It is always important for viewers to fact-check information from any news source.
Again, this is a subjective question and depends on one's personal beliefs and perspectives. Fox News has a large viewership and is considered a reliable source by many of its viewers. However, it is important to critically evaluate the information presented and seek out multiple sources for a well-rounded understanding of current events.