Decocrats defend rapists!

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,970
Reaction score
2,154
Hollywood stars flock to causes. An A-list name can boost the profile of a charity, highlight a far-off tragedy or reverse a grave injustice. So when Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on the way to a film festival, it is perhaps no wonder that the great and the good of the film world rushed to plead for his freedom.

The list of supporters giving Polanski their impassioned support read like a Who's Who of the cream of the movie-making world. It included, among many others, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodóvar and Ethan Coen.
Click to expand...

Yup, the Democcrats will keep Rush Limbaugh in business for a long, long time.

Perhaps it is no wonder that many in Hollywood have described his plight in terms that make Polanski himself the martyr. Weinstein said the arrest was a "terrible situation". Actress Debra Winger said the Swiss had been involved in "Philistine collusion" in allowing the arrest. Goldberg, in now notorious remarks, said: "I don't believe it was 'rape-rape'."

But, as the outrage has grown, especially in the wake of Goldberg's remarks, the sheer scale of Hollywood's misjudgment in rallying so enthusiastically to Polanski's cause has begun to be exposed. One of Goldberg's fellow presenters on the ABC TV show The View, Sherri Shepherd, condemned Polanksi outright. Details of the victim's testimony in 1977 have been published and widely circulated through the media and via the gossip website The Smoking Gun. It makes for grim and unpleasant reading.

The girl graphically described being given champagne and a quaalude, a popular recreational drug in the 1970s, by Polanski before he had sex with her. She testified that she repeatedly said no but that he did not stop, committing numerous sexual acts as she protested.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh!! Why do liberals support rape?

i've got an idea!

lets rape all the democrats who think it's ok to let other's be raped like this and have No legal recourse. I'd be more than happy to rape and waterboard them (hey, i'm on a roll, don't stop me).

I'll start with that male prostitute loving and limp wristed bully, Barney Frank
 
this may come as a shock to you, but I don't "support" Polanski "getting off". I believe everyone should have their day in court. Polanski AND the woman he attacked.

the main difference between the artists who "support" Polanski (whatever that may mean) is that they are simply stating their OPINION -

the douche-bags in congress want to PASS LAWS PREVENTING innocent people from having their day in court to redress a crime they have suffered from.

The assholes in congress want to affect COUNTLESS people in the future. and they are giving a message that it's OK to rape people by PASSING LAWS.

you can ignore a person's opinion, but you can't ignore a stupid {bleep} anti-Constitutional law
 
People are really dumb to support Polanski. I wonder why it took the police this long to capture him it's not like it was in hiding. That's neither here nor there as he should be serving time for his crimes.

Red I appreciate your attempt to equate the 2 situations. They cannot be equated. In one sense we have Democrats supporting Polasnki. They may be Democrats but they aren't in government and aren't running the party. Their actions are ones of individuals exercising their first ammendment rights. Stupidly I may add. In the 2nd situation we have Republican, who we know are Republicans as they are the elected officals, not only failing to support a law which is a great idea as it protects individual rights over that of a corporation but actively arguing that gang rape wasn't a big deal. Stupidly again but the Republicans impact our lives.
 
faethor said:
Stupidly again but the Republicans impact our lives.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point. Most people in the US are not likely to be raped by Roman Polanski - or even ever have to deal with him. You are much more likely to have to interact with a corporation or two.

As to Polanski - he should have just used the "Manson murdered my wife" defense. You could cruise a long time on that one.
 
Good point Fluffy. To me the problem isn't so much the corporation, the government is at fault for empowering them. The government is by the people, for the people. So why do they spend so much time catering to the corporations? the answer is obvious, however, there need to be safeguards against it. Perhaps when the US was founded no one ever imagined the power of a corporation, and it's doubtful they ever wanted them to have the power they now have.

It still puzzles me that small town, Christian America supports the Republican party which seems to cater mostly to the corporate execs. They are the reverse of Robin Hood. They steel from the poor and give to the rich, not by taxes mind you, but by removing any form of regulation or safe guard. Yes, I want to vote for the party that will give me the freedom to get gang raped without recourse or retribution. Umm... No thanks!
 
This is clearly a retort to the other thread but the two situations are hardly the same.

I don't think anyone really has to explain the differences.
 
Robert said:
This is clearly a retort to the other thread but the two situations are hardly the same.

I don't think anyone really has to explain the differences.
Click to expand...
some people are so stupid they don't understand there's a difference
 
cecilia said:
Robert said:
This is clearly a retort to the other thread but the two situations are hardly the same.

I don't think anyone really has to explain the differences.
Click to expand...
some people are so stupid they don't understand there's a difference
Click to expand...

Rape is rape! Shame on you!!!
 
haha... No. I think they meant there's a difference between elected officials and a bunch of Hollywood big shots.
 
Glaucus said:
haha... No. I think they meant there's a difference between elected officials and a bunch of Hollywood big shots.
Click to expand...

Any "Republican" in office who for votes in a way that is seen as supporting rapists will be voted out come election time. Democrats in office and the Hollywood left OTOH are fungible.
 
There is a big difference between a bunch of actors saying that something that some director did 30 years ago (that the victim no longer wishes to pursue) should be let to rest versus legislators passing law enabling corporations to allow and cover up rapes and not be answerable for them now and into the future.

That is the difference between Hollywood types asking for clemency for an old rape versus legislators giving the power to corporations to protect their employees from justice for all future rapes.
 
redrumloa said:
cecilia said:
Robert said:
This is clearly a retort to the other thread but the two situations are hardly the same.

I don't think anyone really has to explain the differences.
Click to expand...
some people are so stupid they don't understand there's a difference
Click to expand...

Rape is rape! Shame on you!!!
Click to expand...

Dear, oh dear.
I stand corrected.

There are none so blind.... :roll:
 
For those who seems to think this rape was somehow less of a rape for whatever reason.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 25067.html

So now we know. If you are a 44-year-old man, you can drug and anally rape a terrified 13-year-old girl as she sobs, says "No, no, no," and pleads for her asthma medication – all according to the victim's sworn testimony – and face no punishment at all. You just have to meet two criteria – (a) you have to run away and stay away for a few decades; and (b) you need to direct some good films. If you do, not only will you walk free, there will be a huge campaign to protect you from the "witch-hunt" and you will be lauded as a hero.

Roman Polanski admitted his crime before he ran away and, for years afterwards, he boasted from exile that every man wanted to do what he did. He chuckled to one interviewer in 1979: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see?

"But... {bleep}, you see... and the young girls. Judges want to {bleep} young girls. Juries want to {bleep} young girls. Everyone wants to {bleep} young girls!"
Click to expand...

Nice guy you are defending here.

Do these defenders of Polanski understand what they are saying? Harris has four children. If a great film director drugs and rapes them tomorrow, will he call the police, or will he say it would be "disgusting" to do so? Would he say the police and prosecutors trying to protect his children were a "lynch mob"? If the rapist ran off, would he say that after three decades on the run (boasting about his crime) he should walk free?

Now the campaign has succeeded. So congratulations to Whoopi and Bernard and Robert: an unrepentant, bragging child-rapist won't face his day in court, thanks in part to you. Have fun at the victory party. But you may want to leave your daughters at home.
Click to expand...
 
It's not so much that Polanski is defended for what he did, it's that the US legal system botched this case. Remember, he did plead guilty and he even served time for it, but when he was released they decided to send him back in for more time. From your own link:

The acclaimed director of "Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist" was accused of plying his victim with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a 1977 modeling shoot and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy, but pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse.

In exchange, the judge agreed to drop the remaining charges and sentence him to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation. However, he was released after 42 days by an evaluator who deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

The judge responded by saying he was going to send Polanski back to jail for the remainder of the 90 days and that afterward he would ask Polanski to agree to a "voluntary deportation." Polanski then fled the country on the eve of his Feb. 1, 1978, sentencing.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that Polanski is serving his "voluntary deportation" quite nicely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top