rucus7

I am not clear of the context downs syndrome was mentioned in . Was it a jibe at handicapped individuals? Is downs syndrome the butt of a joke?

Whoa, I saw this topic and hoped it was an option considered for Sarah Palin. I guess I am a heartless jerk.

Relaxed muscle is often confused with fat. (My wife buys that story)

Of land? 5 ngan would be roughly 1/2 of an acre back in the states or approximately 1 rai over here. I'm presuming also (although it's really none of my business) that it was purchased in a Thai's name.

Yes in my wife's name . . . . same last name . . . it cannot be owned by me.

Maybe this Priest enjoys recreational use. A toot before Mass, to give him the Holy Ghost. Can I get an Amen ?

We bought 5 ngan today, we paid 2 1/2 % after being told six weeks ago it would be 5% . . . go figure

Sorry for being obtuse Wino, but what are you suggesting Polanski was lying about? His guilt? He plead guilty to a lesser charge only to expedite the process? He then settled a civil suite out of court out of the goodness of his heart? To protect the 13 year old from media scrutiny? Do you think Polanski was/is the victim because of his celebrity?

What was the promised deal?

What color is the sky in your world?

It used to the Americans that got the tag as worst tourist. Now the french have surpassed us. Oh well I guess guess we are becoming second best at yet something else. I hope a French national will explain this obviously biased report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8143780.stm

I think this may change the perception of some people, it is difficult to rationalize this away.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html

Until you read her testimony, why speculate. Fairly easy to do.

A judge cannot accept a guilty plea unless the person pleading guilty acknowledges all the elements of the crime (i.e., Polanski couldn't have just said "guilty" without acknowledging that he was aware he was having sex with an underage person - as that was a significant element of the crime he was charged with). He did not say in court "well, I guess now I understand she was 13 but, at the time, I thought she was of legal age" because, had he said that, then the Court could not have accepted the guilty plea. So Polanski admitted under oath in Court that he was aware he was diddling a minor.

Yes, Polanski's guilty plea in court is very relevant. I took the time to read the transcript two or three weeks ago. Remember that this guilty plea was to a reduced charge, with that in mind, the severity becomes very clear.

Perhaps reading it will help clarify the actual events, and help to end speculation.

If I find the link I will post it here.

I believe Roman stated he did not know how old she was. After viewing an old photograph of the victim, I dare to say most people would judge her to be of legal age.

Therefore, secretly administering a sedative(Quaalude) for the purpose of rape is OK?

Should be practice some form of Voodoo. The editor will not work for me.

I think these people probably were well intentioned, for the wrong reasons. I can completely understand the Haitian peoples upset with any groups that take it upon themselves, circumventing adoption procedures. I cannot fathom the despair in Haiti. I can't help but wonder if some of the Baptist motivation is driven by the fact that 2/3 of the population of Haiti price some form of Voodoo.This article merits reading.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_americans_detained

In this instance the dog is not sleeping. As far as not being a future threat, the past has not been adjudicated yet.

In this instance the dog is not sleeping. As far as not being a future threat, the past has not been adjudicated yet.

Maybe you had to be there to see the humor . . . . . . .

So Orenthal James should not have been prosecuted ? I guess it is a matter of priorities. Your analogy escapes me.

High profile cases always take up lots of manhours........

given their big budget deficet, ....

These " man hours" are generated by individuals in exempt salaried positions. An exempt position means it is not subject to overtime. They will cost the citizens of California the same amount, whether they work on Polanski's case or someone else's case.

It may increase the backlog of criminal cases. This will keep those that are waiting for their day in court, waiting longer. Is that too high a price?

Many Americans seem to have a short term selective memory. Family values are used as a debate tool, without being defined. Sarah Palin seems to typify current American appetite for a luke warm IQ.

I know you staunch law and order people will disagree, but this is my take on the Roman issue. I have no sympathy for the crime he committed. What he did was unforgiveable. That said, the victim has forgiven him, payoff or not, she has gone on with her life and does not want Roman brought to justice. I think the prosecutors should respect her wishes. It has been 30 plus years and she has put this incident in the past. Deals are made all the time in our system and I am all for a deal. In these 30 plus year Roman, at 77 years of age, has had no further problems with the law and is no threat to the public. Why spend big money on this case when there are better uses of scarce public funds?

How is Roman Polanski's age relevant? How much are these "big money" costs? What do you base your assumption that he poses "no threat to the Public" on? His admitted guilt, along with flight from potential incarceration are the current issues. I believe it is the state of California vs. Roman Polanski. The victim has been paid in a Civil suit. Perhaps this satisfies the victim, however it has no bearing on the Criminal case.

I truthfully answered yes to two questions only. However I think this test is basically meaningless.

Gee whiz they want to maintain their monopoly, go figure

My wife and I got a one day reprieve from the kids. We are going to Pattaya for a one night stay. I am looking for ideas for entertainment for adults ( not X rated)

It sounds like the police are enforcing laws more regularly, if you use recreationally you are risking deportation and /or incarceration. I don't understand how people rationalize the trade-off.

I am not sure why California's prosecutors are so quick to spend the taxpayer's money on this case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100122/en_afp/entertainmentusfrancefilmpolanski

Maybe because drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old is a crime?