Pajamas Media

118 Comments

1. Now and Then:

I think we should give Polanski a talk radio show.

“Mark Foley is still popular and loved by many of his friends and supporters in his former Congressional District as well as throughout Palm Beach.” – Javier Manjarres, head of the Fort Lauderdale-based Conservative Republican Alliance.

Only conservatism allows one to stand for Foley, and another to stand against him, and both be definable as authentic believers of the philosophy.

Piffle, indeed.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:06 am 2. David S:

The objective truth of the matter is that there were irregularities in Polanski’s prosecution, trial and plea bargain that call into question the government’s veracity in this case. The left does not have to embrace his behavior to decry his prosecution – they are two separate matters.

Polanski faced justice, his legal counsel secured a plea bargain in return for a guilty plea, and the government now wants to renege on the deal. I don’t see why the left would want to disown supporters of the rule of law.

Peace.

DS

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:06 am 3. Booker T. Gain:

@2 DS

I don’t see why the left would want to disown supporters of the rule of law.

Clueless as usual. Judges are not obliged to implement plea deals. In this case the bugger got a sweetheart deal from the Prosecution because they didn’t want to put the victim through a trial. The rapist then fled because he was afraid the Judge would not go along with the sweetheart deal.

Leftists like you support Polanski because you have lax moral standards. You also believe the truth is what works.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:23 am 4. jb:

Good G-d~! The man drugged and raped a 13 y.o. girl!

He should have been shot at sunrise.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:30 am 5. Thomas_L......:

You forgot to say first, N&T! We’ll keep our 13 year olds away from you too. The left is a club that requires nimble opinions indeed. I can’t keep up.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:37 am 6. Dave M.:

Dearest Now and Then, Mark Foley is a former U.S. Congressman (the operative word being “former”). My conscience does not bother me, does your conscience bother you? Sign the damn petition.

Dearest David S, Blaming the prosecutuion for Polanski’s behavior is indeed embracing it. Also, a judge does not have to accept the terms of a plea bargain. A plea bargain is submitted to a judge as a suggested outcome. Generally, because of judicial economy, judges accept them. However, it is within their discretion not to. Now, sign the damn petition. War.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:50 am 7. Francis W. Porretto:

I don’t understand how anyone, artistic or otherwise, could defend a man who did what Polanski did and then fled the sentence decreed for him. The sentence, owing to the plea bargain, appears very light, though in the context of California in the anything-goes Seventies, it might have been typical. But flight from justice is always considered a felony. When the law must pursue the fleeing felon into another country, matters become even more serious.

But really, what’s most significant about this is the response of leftist political activists. They see the influence and money-generating ability of their Hollywood bastion taking a severe hit from the petition, the Whoopi Golberg and Anne Applebaum nonsense, and so forth. And it’s got them frantic, as comments from Pajamas Media’s assigned leftist trolls make quite plain.

All the same, this sort of exculpation of a politically correct figure is nothing new for the Left. Does anyone else remember Marc Rich?

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:58 am 8. bill:

David S., Now and Then,

Are you so obtuse that you don’t realize you proved the author’s point? No wonder U.S. public opinion is turning against your ilk. All it took was for one of your own to occupy the White House and the scales fall from the eyes.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:00 am 9. bgc:

Boycott The Fantastic Mr Fox movie

Excerpt: “In this spirit, I strongly advocate that those outraged by this fawning advocacy for Polanski not see “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” and write to Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp at the following address detailing (politely) why you will not be seeing their film “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” given its director (and star Anjelica Huston) signed a petition advocating the release of a convicted child rapist.”

http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2009/10/roman-polanski-and-hollywood-boycott.html

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:06 am 10. tommyd:

Oh but wait, it really wasn’t Rape-Rape, after all it was only an*l sex with a 13 year old, but I guess it all depends on what IS IS now doesn’t it.

And what does ol Jack have to say about what went on in his house that night??

And as Polanski said back then, “Nobody was hurt.”

What a low life piece of SH*T Polanski is… totally unbelievable unless you are a fellow liberal..

Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:13 am 11. Kim J:

I have no problem boycotting the work of all of those who signed the “free child rapist” petition. As a matter of fact, that is just what I plan to do. Harvey weinstein and his ilk believe that Hollywood is the best place to observe a moral compass in this country because they have “compassion”. Sad, though, that all of their compassion is reserved for those who least deserve same. It is amazing that Hollywood, like the newspaper industry, turns a blind eye to exactly why their revenues continue to steadily drop. As long as they continue to make movies which demean those of us who actually believe in the law, the constitution and real morals and values, the cash register will fail to ring. I know they won’t see any of my hard-earned money in their till.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:19 am 12. Now and Then:

8. bill:

You can’t point to any comment I’ve made that supports Polanski. You can point to me highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards of the right. Nothing obtuse about that.

Do your best to remain in reality. It’s tough, I know you prefer the alternate reality of Fox, but in the end, but if you go to a quiet place and listen closely, you can hear you soul rotting.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:28 am 13. biblio44:

“Sorry, Leftism: You Don’t Get To Disown the Polanski List,” says David Steinberg.
Really? David Steinberg?
No, no, not THAT David Steinberg.
Then … who?
I dunno.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:28 am 14. Mr Lucky:

1. Now and Then and 2. David S.

Aside from hosting a radio talk show, what should the penalty for Polanski’s crime be at this point?

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:31 am 15. Now and Then:

14 Mr. Lucky

He should serve whatever sentence was originally handed down, along with any time attached to his fleeing the country.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:52 am 16. Nancy:

As a nurse, I am well aware that it is the pedophiles that run around trying to excuse the behavior of people like Polanski. When I see a comment like the one above, relying on technicalities to justify why a child rapist should not face justice, I know that this is someone that I don’t want anywhere near my grandchildren.

I wouldn’t want Whoopi anywhere near my grandchildren, either.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:53 am 17. venividivici:

He should have been shot at sunrise.

After being castrated, of course.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:05 am 18. JL:

I don’t think lefties are more immoral than right wingers. I just think they are clueless. Lefties hurt a lot of people inadvertently, because they don’t care what the outcome of their good intentions are.

I think the reason they are clueless, is that it serves them better. The less concrete facts they are aware of, the easier it is for them to have good intentions without those facts intruding on their positive self image.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:06 am 19. Now and Then:

14. Mr Lucky:

Your turn . . . Aside from hosting a radio show, what should Foley’s penalty be?

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:07 am 20. Tim Mayhugh:

Polanski agreed to plead guilty to a lesser crime in exchange for a 90 day psychiatric confinement. He only served 42 days of his confinement. The judge was going to sentence him to the other 48 days and probabtiona and the piece of Sh!t fled the country. 90 days for raping a 13 y.o. girl? What a sweetheart deal, and he didn’t even want to face that. Throw this scum into real jail for what is left of his life and see how he likes anal rape.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:11 am 21. Now and Then:

17. venividivici:

Enlighten us. How does it feel to be castrated?

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:34 am 22. HalifaxCB:

15. Now and Then:
He should serve whatever sentence was originally handed down, along with any time attached to his fleeing the country.

No sentence was handed down; Polanski fled before sentencing. Which ever judge gets the sentencing hearing can apply a much harsher sentence than was originally offered to Polanski (by the prosecution, not by the court) if he or she so chooses. I’d vote for at least twenty years, followed by his evasion of justice sentence.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:40 am 23. Ratatosk:

This isn’t an issue of relativism… If the argument were only over statutory rape then yes, a relativistic argument could be made. After all, a 13 year old girl is past the age of consent in many parts of the world (including Vatican City, age of consent there is 12). HOWEVER, there is no relativistic argument to support drugging a child and raping them. Hollywood isn’t being relativistic, they are trying to protect their own at the cost of decency.

Stupid people can’t tell the difference between the actual concept of relativism and simple bad choices on the part of individuals.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:49 am 24. Thomas_L......:

Stop arguing out of both sides of your mouth, Every Freaking Time.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:50 am 25. Mayor:

Fleeing justice is a felony, as well. So, on top of being a monster that likes to drug and sodomize children, he also fled prosecution on top of it.

Since the wretched piece of filth ran rather than stay for the sentencing I would guess that would play a role in whether or not the judge would accept the plea deal 30 years later.

And while the sane folks hear have a few Polanski apologists on the line, let me ask you apologists one question: What do you think was the effect on that 13 year old girl growing up knowing that her rapist was not brought to justice?

She has said publicly recently that she wants this behind her because she feels she has been in prison for the last 30 years. Who’s fault is that, do you think?

Polanski should die in prison.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:51 am 26. Gringo:

Judging by the comments of David S. and Now and Then, “clueless” is definitely an appropriate description of their comments on the case.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:58 am 27. Oceanus:

The objective truth of the matter is that Polanski raped and sodomized a thirteen year old girl, confessed to the crime, did a deal to plead guilty to a lesser crime, and then jumped bail while waiting to be sentenced. He’s the one who reneged.

In fact the government has nothing to renege on – the deal was done with the Californian judiciary.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:08 am 28. trapper:

Hollywood’s defense of Polanski allows one of two possible conclusions, both disgusting: 1. Hollywood thinks normal rules of conduct do not apply to them because they are somehow special. 2. It is OK for adult men to ply children with drugs and alcohol and then rape them.
Take your choice.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:13 am 29. Now and Then:

26. Gringo:

OK, Gringo, point to one and defend your statement. Why clueless?

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:14 am 30. ex-democrat:

now and then – how about the fact you apparently need it spelled out for you?
people like you need to opine less and reflect a whole lot more.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:21 am 31. Chris Philips:

What an excellent essay. Short but to the point. Thank you.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:22 am 32. Saltherring:

Pleased to see you refer to Hollywood scum as “leftist”, Mr. Steinberg. This trash is anything but liberal.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:29 am 33. Now and Then:

30. ex-democrat:

Gringo can’t do it, so I’ll give you a chance . . . reflect on yoru opining, then point to something I wrote and explain why it’s clueless.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:31 am 34. AThinkingPerson:

Isn’t it funny how the liberals will die on their swords for a confessed pedophile? Wonder when they are all going to scamper over to the thread on Obama being dissed by the Olympic Committee and start screaming “racism”!! If there is a septic tank, a liberal will attempt to swim in it.

So predictable.

Oct 2, 2009 - 9:58 am 35. Now and Then:

34. AThinkingPerson:

Point to a single post that suggests anybody is falling on their sword for a pedophile. You can join Gringo and ex-Democrat in slinking away from your assertion. So, Dig deep. Challenge yourself. Try to offer up something that has some connection to truth.

Oct 2, 2009 - 10:10 am 36. AThinkingPerson:

Keep swimming Now and Then, keep swimming.

Oct 2, 2009 - 10:25 am 37. Now and Then:

36. AThinkingPerson:

Proof enough . . . Gringo, ex-Democrat, meet athinkingperson. No, no, trust me. He’s one of you.

Oct 2, 2009 - 10:36 am 38. AThinkingPerson:

How’s the water down there Now and Then? Look around, I’m sure you’ll see a lot of your friends bobbing around in the murk.

Oct 2, 2009 - 10:41 am 39. Gringo:

@#29 Now and Then:

OK, Gringo, point to one and defend your statement. Why clueless?

I’ll give you a bargain, two for the price of one.

1)The following statement is clueless.

@#15 Now and Then : He should serve whatever sentence was originally handed down, along with any time attached to his fleeing the country.

As Polanski fled the country before sentencing, no sentence was handed down.Yes, clueless.

2) The following statement is clueless for a number of reasons.

@#2 David S : Polanski faced justice, his legal counsel secured a plea bargain in return for a guilty plea, and the government now wants to renege on the deal. I don’t see why the left would want to disown supporters of the rule of law.

This statement is clueless because any deal in a plea bargain is contingent upon the guilty party remaining for sentencing. As Polanski fled the country before sentencing, the government is under no obligation to keep whatever deal there was over three decades ago. The government is entirely justified to “now renege on the deal,” because Polanski did not keep up his part of the deal.

This statement is also clueless because “supporters of the rule of law” do not flee the country before sentencing. If the left chooses not to disown Polanski, that is its choice. But Polanski is in no way, shape or form a “supporter of the rule of law.” His fleeing the country before sentencing shows that. Yes, clueless.

Whether Clueless in Cracow or Clueless in Coeur d’Alene I haven’t a clue, but definitely clueless.

Oct 2, 2009 - 11:23 am 40. Mr Lucky:

19. Now and Then.

“14. Mr Lucky:

Your turn . . . Aside from hosting a radio show, what should Foley’s penalty be?”

If Foley is charged with a crime, the crime will be adjudicated, and Foley should abide by that decision.

Foley should have his tongue cut out. However…

In the spirit of moral relativism, I will trade you a Foley Tongue for a Polanski Penis. Further, the deal should include a Legacy Media Humiliation of Letterman, in response to his comments about Bristol Palin. For this there will be no mention of Obama’s Olympic Humiliation, and/or Eliot Spitzer.

I suggest we both get lawyers as your tit for tatism will go back to the first skull crushing as portrayed in Kubrick’s 2001.

Oct 2, 2009 - 11:41 am 41. DavidN:

Now and Then is propounding the 70s legal persnickityness that was taken (thankfully mostly in novels, movies, and TV shows) to silly lengths such as this: Cops pull a guy over, find a severed foot in the trunk of his car, judge rules the search unconstitutional, dismembering axe murderer is freed to repeat his crime because of law enforcement incompetence, supposedly. There was even a movie called “The Star Chamber” (with Michael Douglas I think) purporting to explore what would happen if this occurred regularly.

The issue of whether the judge was biased is the favorite of those on the left who seek to discredit what supposedly happened to Polanski. However, if you look at the actual incident involved (drugging and then raping a 7th-grader) and then look at the proposed plea bargain (no mention of rape, minimal jail time, etc.) it does look outrageous, and it’s hard to imagine, even in the permissive 70s, a run-of-the-mill person getting such a lenient deal. The judge refused to accept the plea deal, the way another judge similarly refused a plea bargain in the case of those corrupt judges in Pennsylvania a few weeks ago. If the judge was biased, then Polanski had recourse: he could have appealed after whatever conviction occurred, assuming one did. Oh, and one last thing. Assume for a minute that there was actual judicial misconduct in the trial. Does that mean that the rape didn’t occur? Does that mean Polanski shouldn’t be punished for it? I’m confused…I thought crime deserved punishment, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the trial.

He fled California instead, apparently being unwilling to risk conviction for something he clearly still doesn’t consider a crime. He gave an interview some years later in which he said “everyone wants to f*** young girls”. This is the guy they’re trying to defend.

As for Foley, well there are three differences between the two cases, near as I can tell. Foley wasn’t convicted of anything because no one could find a law prohibiting what he did, and there was zero physical contact, as far as I understand. So it’s a bit different from actual rape. He was forced to leave congress anyway, so it’s affected his career (while Polanski has “suffered” through an exile in France, making movies and even winning an Oscar he couldn’t personally collect). Lastly, Foley’s target was much closer to the age of consent. I’m not excusing it, but there *is* a difference between flirting, however explicitly, with a 17-year-old, and actually raping a 13-year-old.

I gather the buzz around Hollywood is that everyone had better support Polanski, at least for now, or failing that keep their mouths shut. Speaking out in opposition to him might mean, if he succeeds in wriggling through this, that your career in Hollywood is ruined. While he’s a child rapist, he’s also a respected director, and apparently a word from him to many other film-makers would mean that you’d not get the part that would keep your career going. Now and Then, and DavidS, of course, are stupid enough to think that these people are expressing these convictions out of actual advocacy of a position they’ve thought out, when of course self-interest is most of what’s behind their opinions.

Oct 2, 2009 - 11:46 am 42. rr lyrae:

America,
the lasting and profound land of Puritanism. Nail bombs, hardly. Gentlemen, it’sthe sex that gets the hackles up here upon every would-be and accomplished mom and dad-hell even the uncles and aunts get a finger-wagging word or two on this one. Get this-women in Verona are upon this age made wives-that’s paraphrasing Shakespeare but you should know that Juliet was 14 and 13 was highly a marriageable age until very very recently and the property and alliances concluded upon such would make all this sex excitements over early-age sex nowadays seem small potatoes by very close feminist standards.The political and cultural ascendancy of children as pets and icons of studied and protestant cultural innocence lasts only as long as the Puritans and their legacy continue to sniff for sex.
The crime was statutory rape, despite the lurid details.Why? Could’t get a conviction upon the facts. Kid took her own clothes off. Hell, you go back to my 19 year old year,1969, and I want the details of my sex life withheld. Quaaludes? OopS, just a half for you. my young thing. O,my! Lions and tigers and bears! The girl, now a matron, embarrassed as much as exhausted by all the handwringing at how far we have drifted from our own sexual revolution antics long ago forgave and forgot. After 32 years it is not murder and war that we prosecute after hours, but sex! Let the Viet Nam warmasters go but get Roman-that decadant and now-limp aesthete. I saw my brother, didn’t want to but had to rape rape a girl who ran from the lace in tears. I have never forgotten the horror. But not horror like guts on the floor. Rape is still felt as a violation of family and property-how can life still go on for a deflowered girl? There is no greater CRIME for Americans? Semms we got it just a bit wrong there. But who am I to say? They’ll have the sex matrons after me soon and kill me up good for lookin’ at the white gurlz.Guts on the floor taking second place as CRIME? Well, folks, fellow Puritans, I am not as sure as you who have unleashed your moral horror at the erstwhile aesthete,Roman Polanski, that sex, even stolen sex, is even a crime like guts on the floor at all. And I’m sure many will turn themselves inside out to express their “utter revulsion” at such anti-Puritan, Euro-trash.Have at it,tall hats!

Oct 2, 2009 - 11:48 am 43. genghis:

Hurray for Holywood. In the 50’s they fervently supported the world communist conspiracy, and mourned the loss of their noble leader, Josef Stalin. Today they fervently suppport a convicted pedophile sodomizing rapiist. Not too much of a difference, there. At least they ar consistent. Attn Whoopee: your mouth is much larger than your brain. You need to rein it in. And Woody; it would do well for you to speak with a normal person and get a more objective sense of what you have developed into.

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:01 pm 44. mingus:

It occurs to me that if we combined

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:05 pm 45. erik of dale:

Man after reading the comments back and forth here I keep wondering where is the unity and the “bringing us together” that Obambi spoke so eloquently about. As for Polanski, if you search hard enough you can find the details of his rape and sodomizing of a 13 year old girl that he loaded with liquor and drugs. Not even man enough to rape her while she was straight. So if that doesn’t bother you how about this: what if that 13 year old was your sister, or daughter. How would you feel about Polanski then? Bring him back to America and let him face the judge and get his sentence. Maybe his new cell mate will be a fan…heh heh…

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:07 pm 46. mingus:

It occurs to me that if we combined NOW AND THEN with A THINKING PERSON, that would characterize both of them precisely.

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:07 pm 47. David S:

@39. Gringo:

2) The following statement is clueless for a number of reasons.

@#2 David S : Polanski faced justice, his legal counsel secured a plea bargain in return for a guilty plea, and the government now wants to renege on the deal. I don’t see why the left would want to disown supporters of the rule of law.

This statement is clueless because any deal in a plea bargain is contingent upon the guilty party remaining for sentencing.

The plea bargain included the charges and the sentencing. Even California’s governor agrees that this is worth investigating:

Schwarzenegger added that all allegations should be investigated — not only the original criminal case but also Polanski’s charges of judicial misconduct.

As Polanski fled the country before sentencing, the government is under no obligation to keep whatever deal there was over three decades ago. The government is entirely justified to “now renege on the deal,” because Polanski did not keep up his part of the deal.

Polanksi fled the country when it became clear that the government did not intend to honor the terms of the plea bargain. Plea bargains are not something that a judge can vacate, because the judge is a party to the agreement.

This statement is also clueless because “supporters of the rule of law” do not flee the country before sentencing. If the left chooses not to disown Polanski, that is its choice. But Polanski is in no way, shape or form a “supporter of the rule of law.” His fleeing the country before sentencing shows that. Yes, clueless.

Supporters of the rule of law would recognize the impact of prosecutorial and judicial conduct in this case. Polanski has a right to due process just like everyone else. His choice to flee may provide a pretext for his arrest now, but given the alternative of facing a court that was demonstrably corrupt, Polanksi made his decision. I agree with Schwarzenegger that all the allegations should be investigated – and it is the California courts that have refused to rule on the matter that brought this issue to a head now. Polanski’s lawyers were engaged in good faith efforts to resolve this situation within the California courts, which is where such adjudications should be made. Not here.

Peace.

DS

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:20 pm 48. Marie Claude:

“one-third of all men are sexually abused by the time they are sixteen, usually by a figure of authority—a priest, a cop, a coach, a parent, or a stupid film director. I don’t know the figures for women, but they are probably even higher.”

http://bit.ly/1uBlSU

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:26 pm 49. ald145:

rr lyrae, psychiatry is doing wonders with medication these days. You should look into that.

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:36 pm 50. Nash:

Mingus #46 – don’t agree with you, but chuckle for the witty play on words.
And David N.#41 – Some Hollywood show or some t.v. station should loop that interview with Polanski saying everyone wants to **** young girls. Let his own words be heard over and over.
Now and Then #14 – Yeah, they should let him finish out his original sentence. It doesn’t matter how few days he might be in jail; I can assure you just a few minutes would be enough to exact the justice that might be lacking in a properly long sentence.

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:42 pm 51. Nash:

When I saw Debra Winger defending Polanski, I was disgusted. When I saw Whoopi say ‘it’s not rape-rape’, I was pissed off. And now a Pro Polanski Petition? Enough! So, here is what I emailed earlier today to T-Mobile:

“It wasn’t rape-rape.”
-Whoopi Goldberg T-Mobile spokeswoman and co-host of The View

Dear T-Mobile

Have you no shame?
Are you seriously still running those t.v. ads with Whoopi “it wasn’t rape-rape” Goldberg?
And she is the first person we see when going to your website.
You may want to rethink your marketing on this one.

Not attached to Verizon and was a potential customer.

Nash
USA

P.S. Way to stay unaccountable – your company website has no straightforward way (this is the internet age after all) to contact you in email. Had to scour to even find this edress – mediarelations@t-mobile.com – buried in your fine print links.

Oct 2, 2009 - 12:48 pm 52. Now and Then:

41. DavidN:
“Foley wasn’t convicted of anything because no one could find a law prohibiting what he did, and there was zero physical contact”

Federal law establishes it a crime for an adult to entice a minor to sexual activity. Physical contact is not a prerequisite to being charged. The fact that Foley wasn’t charged is not a matter of law but of privilege and special treatment. Conservatives seem happy to let it slide. They shouldn’t.

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:09 pm 53. Paul:

So what’s the lefties problem with child soldiers? Why shouldn’t the Marines recruit 13 year old males?

Also, if 13 is so way OK, how about for you multi-culturalist, nine year old Aisha?

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:09 pm 54. BCT:

Really gross – David Heyman who is the producer and driving force behind the Harry Potter (children’s) movies signed the petition. Vile.

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:40 pm 55. Moira:

Question: hy does every argument have to boil down to “leftism” or “rightism”. This takes the essence out of any argument and just polarizes around the facts. It also generalizes. Left or right, Polanski is a rapist, drugged a 13 year old who said NO. But this case is old. He pleaded guilty didn’t do time. Handling of case is questionable, why now? Or rather if now, do it. Just do it. Bring him back to trial. Do it.

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:46 pm 56. Moira:

PS It is rape, Its rape rape and rape rape rape. Left, right or middle.
But this is what Samantha Geiger says the 13 year old, and she wants it to go away. What about listening to her, she says let it go. She says no.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/la-oe-samantha-geimer23-2003feb23,0,4716430.story

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:49 pm 57. FREE:

polanski = mohamid

Both kiddie skinners to the core. SCUM!

Oct 2, 2009 - 1:57 pm 58. Jadis:

All of this talk about the loathsome Mark Foley, but what about Gerry Studds? He was widely hailed in the lame-stream media after his death for being “the first openly gay Congressman”. But the only reason he was “openly gay” was because he got busted having sex with an underage page.

Why the hypocrisy?

Oct 2, 2009 - 2:09 pm 59. Gracie:

Samantha wants it to go away, because the press dogs her now.

Arrest the man, treat her as we would any rape victim.

Please, why is her face in papers, on TV? She should have been protected.

It must be difficult for her to explain to her children and friends.

RP is a scum bag along with the people who signed the petition!

We should NOT let it go. Just leave Samantha ALONE!!

Oct 2, 2009 - 2:43 pm 60. Gringo:

@ #47 Davids S.

1) Please document, and I don’t mean some using whup-ass comment from Whoopie Goldberg.

Polanksi fled the country when it became clear that the government did not intend to honor the terms of the plea bargain.

2) Please document, and I don’t mean some whup-ass comment from Whoopie Goldberg.

… given the alternative of facing a court that was demonstrably corrupt…

Interesting that your initial comment was that you previously stated the government NOW wants to renege on the deal, and you now state the reneging was from three decades ago, without offering any documentation whatsoever to suport your claim, other than the Governor stating that Polanski’s allegations of judicial misconduct should be investigated. An allegation is not proof. What was that about changing the goalposts?

A “supporter of the rule of law” appears for the sentencing, and if said supporter does not agree with the sentence handed down, then appeals it.

I stand by clueless.

Oct 2, 2009 - 2:45 pm 61. Russell:

Some of us never sympathized with a terrorist. Never excused a rapist. And never turned a blind eye to torture, even when done by the US.

Is that left or right?

Oct 2, 2009 - 2:54 pm 62. tobytylersf:

While the article was spot on, the comments were even more interesting. They also seemed to prove the article’s point about leftist moral equivocation.

It never fails: every time someone from the right mentions Obama’s deficits, someone on the left mentions Bush’s deficits. If someone on the right mentions Polanski, someone on the left mentions Mark Foley. The idea that two wrongs don’t make a right never seems to occur to people on the left. It’s quite remarkable.

I think what we’re seeing is the left imploding on itself. Once they gained power in government, in both the executive and legislative branches, their beliefs and actions are clear for all the world to see. And the world recoils in horror. How proud the left must be; no wonder they’re so angry all the time.

Oct 2, 2009 - 3:11 pm 63. KansasGirl:

How sweet it is. We now have Letterman, Obama’s loss of the Olympics, and Polanski. These people have NO moral compass. What’s next? Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter? Hey you libs, go tell somebody who cares.

Oct 2, 2009 - 3:27 pm 64. ex-democrat:

just for the record, the SACD petition signatories are overwhelmingly non-American. However, here are a few notable exceptions: (Directors:) Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Darren Aronofsky, Bernardo Bertolucci, Jonathan Demme, Stephen Frears, Costa Gavras, Terry Gilliam, Wong Kar Waï, John Landis, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Barbet Schroeder, Martin Scorsese, Wim Wenders, and Terry Zwigoff; (Oddball Writer/Actors:) Buck Henry; (Female actors:) Penelope Cruz, Sylvia Kristel, Jeanne Moreau. .

just some of those who apparently condone drugging and sodomizing 13 year old girls and then fleeing punishment so strongly that they insist on going public with their views.

Oct 2, 2009 - 3:51 pm 65. KansasGirl:

Hopefully, when Polanski goes to prison, someone will sodomize him.

Oct 2, 2009 - 3:56 pm 66. carla:

CARLA

Right. Nine out of every six prebuscent male has been sexually molested.
and seven out of ten doctors who have tried camels, …….have gone back to women.

Oct 2, 2009 - 4:03 pm 67. Francis W. Porretto:

Yo, colleagues of the conservative cause: listen up.

Now and Then, a typical leftist troll, is using one of the oldest tricks in the book on you, and some of you are falling for it. He’s playing the tu quoque / moral equivalence game, and he’s doing it so baldly and so poorly that anyone who fences with him should be embarrassed by his lack of perception.

No conservative has defended what Mark Foley did. If not criminal, it was at least reprehensible. It was Republicans and conservatives who were outraged by his behavior and demanded that he resign from Congress. How does that compare with what the Hollywood types are doing for Polanski? Why respond to a leftist troll who wants to treat them as comparable, and so seduce us away from the more important topic at hand? Do you think a conservative who dared to introduce such tangents at Kos or Huffington Post would get the same degree of consideration – whether his arguments deserved it or not?

Wise men don’t allow rhetorical misdirection to distract them from what matters. But Now and Then has an agenda: to divert us from the social and political implications of the glitterati’s defense of a child rapist who fled from justice. To the extent that you allow him to divert you, he chortles at your naivete while he racks up points for his side: the side that holds itself to be so much smarter and more moral than we are that its members should be held above the law.

Draw the moral.

Oct 2, 2009 - 4:15 pm 68. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”" 20. Tim Mayhugh:

Polanski agreed to plead guilty to a lesser crime in exchange for a 90 day psychiatric confinement. He only served 42 days of his confinement. The judge was going to sentence him to the other 48 days and probabtiona and the piece of Sh!t fled the country. 90 days for raping a 13 y.o. girl? What a sweetheart deal, and he didn’t even want to face that.

That’s the whole issue in a nutshell, so I don’t understand all the weasel words from the trolls.

Oct 2, 2009 - 4:21 pm 69. Cindy:

I think all of these Hollywood people that are making excuses for Polanski are doing it to protect their industry, for what Polanski did is a reflection on all of them. They’re so used to thinking that they are the ones who shape and form what the public thinks, they actually believe if they say so, everyone will automatically think the same.. Who knows why God gives people like this so much, talent, money, fame. And all the real people out here in the country who follow all laws, live morally straight lives and know the logical difference between right and wrong never experience the abundance that they are blessed with. They are a big part of the decline in our society, some of the stuff they put out is down right perverted and sick. Wish the tone of movies would go back to the John Wayne era. The Hollywoods, the TV, the news media, all are making the unacceptable become the norm. What’s it all going to come to???

Oct 2, 2009 - 4:56 pm 70. joh:

“Now and Then” and “David S”, what you both posted is called an “own goal”.

Oct 2, 2009 - 5:04 pm 71. Original Dave:

Yep, our trolls sure are entertaining. A darling of the left is a fugitive for drugging and raping a scared 13 year old girl and their only defense is “but, but, but, MARK FOLEY!”. Well yes, Mark Foley is a creep who used to be a Republican congressman. When his creepy text messages were discovered, the GOP showed him the door. Too bad he was not a Democrat like Jerry Studds so he could get a pass. Studds actually was having sex with pages. When exposed, the Dems slapped him on the wrist and then re-elected him six more times.

In a sane world, everyone would be repulsed by all these creeps and they all would be held responsible.

Oct 2, 2009 - 5:44 pm 72. DavidN:

52. Now and Then:

41. DavidN:
“Foley wasn’t convicted of anything because no one could find a law prohibiting what he did, and there was zero physical contact”

Federal law establishes it a crime for an adult to entice a minor to sexual activity. Physical contact is not a prerequisite to being charged. The fact that Foley wasn’t charged is not a matter of law but of privilege and special treatment. Conservatives seem happy to let it slide. They shouldn’t.

Three things:

First, I’m not letting Foley’s wrongdoing slide, I’m explaining why what happened is what happened. I have no problem with him being out of Congress. I was contrasting what happened to him with Polanski’s “punishment”.

Second, unless you’re a judge with the power to rule on these things I don’t think your opinion on whether Foley did anything prosecutable all that valid. If you really think a Republican Congressman from *anywhere*, especially the south, could do something prosecutable and *not* be brought to trial, you’re on drugs. A treasury-secretary nominee or a powerful Congressman who haven’t paid their taxes, sure, they get away with it, but a Republican caught up in a sex scandal? Yeah right…

And Third, you did just what I pointed out you’ve been doing, all along. I made a number of points, most of which apparently scored hits, and you responded to *one* with a quibble, and frankly a minor and not very well-thought-out one at that. That’s all you can do, though, isn’t it? Sit off to one side and snipe at the edges of the debate, while ignoring the central fact of what the man did. I can’t tell whether you’re playing Devil’s advocate because you’re enjoying twisting the proverbial cat’s tail, or whether you’re playing Devil’s advocate because you’re on the Devil’s side.

Oct 2, 2009 - 6:03 pm 73. Kevin S:

#52 gNAT

Foley immediately resigned. Barney Frank, after there was the disclosure of a prostitution ring operating from his premises? ummm…no. Ted Kennedy leaves a woman to die a lonely and horrible death in the cold water….ummm….no. John Edwards…look it’s easy to find sexual imbroglios with most of the members of both parties (sad to say, and the response should be to get rid of this entire political class)…it’s just that only the Republican party is to be held accountable from your point of view. And if you say that’s because the Republicans are the ones who talk about personal morals…well…think about that.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:01 pm 74. Thinkfast:

@1 and 2

Very impressive, within one minute of each other, and at 6am no less.

I think there are far fewer trolls on this site than there are troll handles.

Oct 2, 2009 - 7:16 pm 75. homero:

Bravo ..excellent article.

Oct 2, 2009 - 8:39 pm 76. Matthew:

“Only a relativist could sign that horrid thing”

A _relativist_? More like a groupthink toady. I’

Oct 3, 2009 - 3:31 am 77. Class Clown:

A lot of friends these days seem to think I’ve turned into a hard right-winger. I haven’t. I used to be a Democrat, and I don’t feel like I’ve changed very much.

What I am is a hard anti-relativist. For years, I tried to give the political left some air between the relativists and rank and file Democrats. I can’t really do that anymore.

Yes, their are conservative relativists. I’m against them to. But let’s ask ourselves an honest question here? Where is the wellspring of truth- and moral- relativism? Marx said that truth was just the propaganda of the bourgeoisie, and since then a long list of Leftist academics, from Focault to Mancuse, gave it respectability.

If one cannot see, and admit, that relativism is a creature of the Left, then one is patently dishonest. Yes, conservatives fall for it sometimes, but only when they lack the wisdom (or have the need to rationalize their own bad behavior) to reject the siren call of a leftist philosophy.

The Right sometimes falls for relativism, but the Left invented it in the first place. They own it.

Oct 3, 2009 - 3:45 am 78. Now and Then:

72 DavidN:
“If you really think a Republican Congressman from *anywhere*, especially the south, could do something prosecutable and *not* be brought to trial, you’re on drugs. ”

Wow. Stunning. Vitter. Hookers. Diapers. There are so many more.

Oct 3, 2009 - 9:09 am 79. misanthropicus:

“Lecherous dwarf” – this is how Bert Fields described in the court Woody Allen a few years ago (a conflict between Allen and his business manager over some missing money).

“Lecherous dwarf” – with Woody Allen and Letterman supporting Polansky cause he sure gests some enhancement.

Oct 3, 2009 - 9:22 am 80. misanthropicus:

RE #26/Gringo: [...] David S. and Now and Then, “clueless” is definitely an appropriate description of their comments [...]

Not clueless – it’s just the liberals’ regular discharge of (inexistent) enligtenment.

Oct 3, 2009 - 9:26 am 81. misanthropicus:

RE #42/rr lyrae: “[...] —— [...]”

412 words – and the sense that someone of intense anarho-liberal emotions has authored them.
Still, prey – can anyone come with an understandable summary?

Oct 3, 2009 - 9:34 am 82. misanthropicus:

RE #43 Errata: oops, “pray” instead of “prey”.

Errata @ Errata: reasessing the typo: maybe it was a subliminal thing, since when talking about Polanski “prey” is more fitting than “pray” -

Oct 3, 2009 - 9:40 am 83. MoonBatMessiah:

The only irregularity in the case was the fact that Scumbag Polanski fled the country.

Oct 3, 2009 - 12:12 pm 84. Sapwolf:

The comments by Letterman were about Willow, not Bristol.

Oct 3, 2009 - 12:31 pm 85. Me:

If you think Hollyweird is a cesspool, then don’t give them any of your money or you are supporting their filth. If you really want to go radical, stop paying for cable TV to pump the sewage into your living room. If you want to watch some decent movies, spend a little time doing some research to find movies that aren’t filled with crap and propaganda. They are out there, but you have to expend some energy to find them and maybe you will have to purchase them instead of just buying a movie ticket or renting from Netflix or Blockbuster or whoever rents movies. STARVE THE BEAST AND IT WILL EVENTUALLY DIE!

Oct 3, 2009 - 12:32 pm 86. Now and Then:

84. Sapwolf:
You know why Bristol Palin is so ugly? Janet Reno was her father.

Oct 3, 2009 - 12:41 pm 87. JamesJ:

Foley drugged and raped a 13 yr old?

Oct 3, 2009 - 12:58 pm 88. Ariel:

Mr. Porretto (No. 67).

Very smart, excellent, bracing advice – thank you.
Truthfully, I have never met a dedicated leftist who could hold his own in a discussion based on facts.
Not even the alleged grownups.

Oct 3, 2009 - 2:03 pm 89. misanthropicus:

RE 86. Now and Then: [...] You know why Bristol Palin is so ugly? Janet Reno was her father. [...]

“pater semper incertus”: Now & Then, when you defend Obama, don’t enter genealogy – it’ll take a while until Frank Marshall will be considered by Americans as an edifying figure.

Oct 3, 2009 - 2:07 pm 90. 2Tru2Tru:

If the left is so sure of their position on this, I suggest the President invite Roman over for his daughters birthday party sleep over.. They can have popcorn while they watch a Polanski movie, he’s a gifted director ya know, serve medical marijuana and David Letterman can be the entertainment. Better invite Bill Mahr too, the President has two daughters.

Oct 3, 2009 - 2:36 pm 91. To Hayek With You:

Just a couple of points;

There is some information to indicate that Polanski also failed to pay a settlement to the victim over a separate civil suit. If this is the case he victimized the woman twice and it adds to the pattern of behavior that has created the abyss that is Polanski’s life.

Lyrae mentioned Puritanism and evolving standards but is off the mark since no one is talking about consensual sex. He/she impugns America as being guilty of this mindset but appears to be ignorant of the fact that the French public is just as outraged and their elites are just as clueless as to why. I couldn’t make sense of anything else in that post so will leave it at that.

The reason the left has a blind spot for this sort of thing is that everything they advocate is based upon the use of force… health care, cap and trade, social programs are all based on looting one person for the benefit of another. You will submit or else. Their political philosophy by definition requires them to rationalize thievery and extortion and compulsion so it isn’t that big a leap to rationalize other aberrant behavior. The right does the same thing over song lyrics etc… but they don’t seem to have the same moral blind spot for the Ayers, Osama, Polanski sort of stuff.

Oct 3, 2009 - 4:34 pm 92. PKO Strany:

Canon law for the Latin rite establishes the age of consent for marriage as 14 for women, and has since at least 1917. (canon 1083, section 1)

I doubt that the Holy See has a lower age of consent than that established in the Code of Canon Law.

ref: http://www.deacons.net/Canon_Law/book_4.htm

Oct 3, 2009 - 4:50 pm 93. DavidN:

78. Now and Then:

72 DavidN:
“If you really think a Republican Congressman from *anywhere*, especially the south, could do something prosecutable and *not* be brought to trial, you’re on drugs. ”

Wow. Stunning. Vitter. Hookers. Diapers. There are so many more.

Funny thing about Vitter. The prosecutors would almost certainly have brought charges if they could, but guess what? The Statute of Limitations for prostitution had run out by the time the information got to the government. Things are also complicated by the fact that the D.C. Madam committed suicide rather than face prison. Regardless, you strike out. The prosecutors didn’t prosecute Vitter, not because they were letting a Republican off the hook, but because they couldn’t, according to that pesky technicality called the law.

Care to try again?

Oct 3, 2009 - 11:41 pm 94. Steamboat Jack:

Those who would conflate Roman Polanski with Thomas Foley (R-FL) are being disingenuous.

Roman Polanski purchased a child (hint: the purchase of a human being is called SLAVERY), drugged her and then sodomized her.

Thomas Foley (R-FL) sent EMAILS to under-aged boys and had relations with some that were 18 or more. I would expect that there is some confusion with Gary Studds (D-MA) who had sexual relations with 17 year old boy pages.

The difference between Foley and Studds is that the Republican Party would not defend Foley’s behavior. Studds, on the other hand, was cheered by his fellow Democrat Representatives when he beat the rap. Only a liberal would consider the sodomizing of young boys to be some kind of heroic act.

The difference seen in the treatment of Foley and Studds continues with the defense of Polanski. As in the case with Studds, Liberals find drugging children and raping them acceptable. Conservatives don’t.

Whoopi Goldberg excuses Roman Polanski and says that it wasn’t “rape-rape”. Perhaps she would find being drugged and sodomized acceptable to her. But, just out of curiosity, how would she consider being sold as a slave?

How about you, Dear Reader?

….Jay Leno: “It’s not as if he committed a real crime, like colorizing a black and white movie.”

Sometimes I wonder if these people ever step back and just listen to what they are saying.

Oct 4, 2009 - 11:08 am 95. Tina:

Had it been my daughter Mr. Polanski, my husband would have arranged a meeting between you and God long ago.

And any cretin on that list that defends this man in the sodomizing of a 13 year old drugged or not deserves two new nostrils lest it be said that they will no longer be enjoying my hard earned money.

Oh and Ms. Winger, I have enjoyed your work immensely over the years and haven’t seen you in as many years until now? On this issue? Nuff said….

Tina

Oct 4, 2009 - 11:34 am 96. DLS:

Since when has the left been OK with rape?

Oct 4, 2009 - 1:25 pm 97. beejeez:

What DLS said. I’ve been going back through the last few Democratic Party platforms and I haven’t seen anything in them about favoring raping adolescents. I have been a liberal all my life and have not heard about my fellow liberals supporting child rape. Is this something new? Because I didn’t get the memo.

Oct 4, 2009 - 9:51 pm 98. REDBALL6:

Guys and Gals, I just realized!, we’re likely to have a “Roman Holiday,”
No Obama for what 2 days, and if a trial ensues. Geezzz. think of the possibilities around the water cooler. Now if that “Nit whit” federal district attorney in Chicago will just stop going the the Bears games and do some work, we might have a fun fall. Ok whose checking “6″

Oct 4, 2009 - 10:17 pm 99. DavidN:

Steamboat Jack:

Leno was being sarcastic. I also think he was taking a stab at the rest of the Hollywood community. He hasn’t said much publicly about the Polanski thing, but if he does I’ll bet it’ll be more populist than you’re giving him credit for. He’s big enough he wouldn’t lose work over this if he’s on the wrong side of it, and he’s famously unimpressed with the perks of being a star, for himself or anyone else.

Oct 4, 2009 - 10:19 pm 100. carla:

NOW AND THEN

Your little joke about Bristol Palin reveals a whole lot about your character.

Oct 5, 2009 - 5:44 am 101. Now and Then:

100. carla:

Ah, Carla . . . not MY charcter . . .

John McCain, speaking at a Republican fundraiser in June 1998, said, “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father.”

Now, my little self-righteous and ragingly contradictory conservative, let’s talk character.

Oct 5, 2009 - 6:36 am 102. Steamboat Jack:

DavidN #99

I hope so. I sort of like Leno.

The Left has become so bizarre that I have trouble separating sarcasm and parody from their reality. At another blog I frequent, the moderators have requested that we put “sarcasm and irony alert” so that others won’t take such as serious comments.

Regards,

Steamboat Jack

Oct 5, 2009 - 7:27 am 103. carla:

NOW AND THEN

Sorry, McCain’s no conservative. And, since you appear to be ethically challenged, I repeat; your little bon mot is a marker of YOUR character, regardless of its author. I know that might be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but take a deep breadth, tense up your buttocks, squeeze shut your eyes, and try.

Oct 5, 2009 - 10:54 am 104. mingus:

Now & Then:

Have a chat with your ethicist, fella. You are responsible for your words, original or not. Sorry. It is of no consequence who or how many others say or write what you do. Once you’ve stated it, you own it.

Oct 5, 2009 - 11:22 am 105. Now and Then:

104. mingus:

I don’t blame you for trying so desperately to extricate one of your lunatic conservative reactionaries from my snare. But a snare it is. I set it. She jumped in it. It’s my way of highlighting your arbitrary principles and rampant hypocrisy. Clearly, your POV on ethics is irrelevant to me for those very reasons.

It wasn’t the first trap I set. It won’t be the last. You’ve been warned.

Oct 5, 2009 - 11:30 am 106. ginnie:

MINGUS, CARLA

re now and then;

ignore the troll. pity him for clear thinking is difficult with ones head up one’s butt. he’s just another self-absorbed leftie who is convinced he knows better and obviously skipped rhetoric in pre-kindergarden. he’ll never accept repsonsibility for HIS OWN WORDS.

Oct 5, 2009 - 12:10 pm 107. Now and Then:

106. ginnie:

Well, Ginnie, you got me. I didn’t study rhetoric in pre-kindergarten. Touché! How DO you do it?

Oct 5, 2009 - 2:28 pm 108. Jackson:

Maybe I’m misremembering, but I’m not seeing the Mark Foley/Roman Polanski parallel. Did Foley drug a thirteen year old and proceed to have sex with him/her all to the background music of him/her saying “no”?

Oct 5, 2009 - 2:31 pm 109. ginnie:

now and then

seriously, did you make it out of pre-kindergarden?

Oct 5, 2009 - 3:14 pm 110. Anonymous:

108. Jackson:
“Maybe I’m misremembering, but I’m not seeing the Mark Foley/Roman Polanski parallel. ”

Le me help you out there. Both enticed minors to have sex, a felony. Polanski admitted he actually had sex. Foley didn’t admit it.

108. Ginnie . . . Aren’t you supposed to take responsibility for your words? You didn’t say anything about “making it out of pre-kindegarten. You said. “obviously skipped rhetoric in pre-kindergarden.’ It’s ridiculous on its face. i called you on it. Now you try to to imply a quote or thought different than your original. It’s Fox News 101 on your part. You should be better than that, but you’re not.

Oct 5, 2009 - 4:44 pm 111. Jackson:

108. Jackson:
“Maybe I’m misremembering, but I’m not seeing the Mark Foley/Roman Polanski parallel. ”

Le me help you out there. Both enticed minors to have sex, a felony. Polanski admitted he actually had sex. Foley didn’t admit it.

Both enticed minors to have sex? That implies follow through. So Foley had sex with that page? IIRC the page was playing a prank on the old perv and it never actually came to anything. Not defending Foley’s actions (and never have) but they certainly don’t lessen the severity of Polanski’s crime one iota. Making the parallel is an attempt to do just that.

And, as others have said, nobody defends Foley. He got kicked to the curb by his own party. It’s rewriting history to say there’s any hypocrisy in the right’s reaction to either scandal. As much as you might want some things to be true, sometimes they just aren’t.

Oct 5, 2009 - 7:03 pm 112. Twisted_Colour:

“Sorry, Leftism: You Don’t Get to Disown the Polanski List”

Ok, then.

Sorry, Wingnuts: You don’t get to disown slavery, the KKK, lynching, Timothy McVeigh, Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, Iran-Contra, Enron, the current financial crisis, clubbing baby seals and Jonah Goldberg.

Oct 5, 2009 - 7:22 pm 113. Jackson:

“Sorry, Leftism: You Don’t Get to Disown the Polanski List”

Ok, then.

Sorry, Wingnuts: You don’t get to disown slavery, the KKK, lynching, Timothy McVeigh, Pinochet, Marcos, Suharto, Iran-Contra, Enron, the current financial crisis, clubbing baby seals and Jonah Goldberg.

If that isn’t the most ignorant post I’ve seen today, I don’t know what is. Study history much?

Oct 5, 2009 - 8:24 pm 114. RobertS:

re #112 Twisted_Colour

Wow. Amazingly stupid comment. Painfully misinformed.

Oct 6, 2009 - 6:58 am 115. Now and Then:

re: 112 . . .”There’s enough truth in it to make you squirm.” – Kenny Boy

Oct 6, 2009 - 8:05 am 116. Knotacommie:

I guarantee Mr Polanski this-If you had done that to MY 13 yo daughter you would never had had the chance to flee the country in the first place. They would have put me on trial for doing to you what Charles Manson did to your pregnant wife Sharon Tate. Thats the only thing I sympathize with you about, Polanski. In every other respect your conduct is no different than the scumbag Manson, and you deserve the same treatment Charles Manson gets.

Oct 6, 2009 - 12:32 pm 117. Twisted_Colour:

Study history much?

Why yes, yes I do. Yourself?

Oct 6, 2009 - 1:53 pm 118. Salieri's Ghost:

Twisted Colour has a very good point. It’s inane to say that because some leftists do a thing then all leftists are responsible for that that thing. That’s like saying that “a few white men lynched blacks so no white man gets to disown lynching”. It’s absurd.

Especially when we are talking about the abstract (and perhaps ultimately useless) terms of right and left. The left is nothing more than a collection of beliefs that stand in part or in whole in opposition to the right and vice versa. Marxists and american democrats have little in common, the same for libertarians and neo-conservatives.

Oct 18, 2009 - 9:29 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: