Libtard Finally Admits to Raping A Child...Then Declares The Matter Is OVER...Because He Says So.

[hadit]

Did the girl by any chance force Polanski to sodomize her at gunpoint? Did she by any chance steal his wallet? Those are things he would have no control over. He did, however, have control over his dick, so really bad comparison. But let's look at it, since you brought it up.

Think it over carefully. In essence, you're saying that a rape victim is responsible for being raped if she dresses a certain way, or drinks too much, or walks alone at night. She might be foolish, she might be "asking for it", but the rapist is the one who chooses to commit the crime.

Polanski knew she was underage, he knew what he was doing is wrong, and he chose to do it anyway

again- the sex was consensual, so it wasn't rape.

You can call this girl a 'victim' all day, but she knew what she was doing.

She had done it before. Well, maybe not the butt stuff. We know you get all upset about the butt stuff.

I've asked before, and you ignored, can a 13 year old girl really have consensual relations in a situation where she has no power, is under the influence of a Quaalude, and is being pressured by a middle aged man who is not taking 'no' for an answer?

Your disdain (look up the word if you wonder what it means) for young teenaged girls won't let you consider the question. You note (apparently approvingly) that historical figures had sex with young girls and that supposedly makes what Polanski did okay. Do you maintain that those girls also knew what they were doing and had truly consensual relations with those historical figures?

Now, did you do your homework and write down what those trigger words made you feel?

 

[JoeB131]

I've asked before, and you ignored, can a 13 year old girl really have consensual relations in a situation where she has no power, is under the influence of a Quaalude, and is being pressured by a middle aged man who is not taking 'no' for an answer?

Works on a lot of assumptions. Clearly, she had no problem having sex or taking drugs before or after that incident.

Your disdain (look up the word if you wonder what it means) for young teenaged girls won't let you consider the question.

No, I have disdain for THIS woman, who is still a grifter 40 years later looking for her 15 minutes of fame.

You note (apparently approvingly) that historical figures had sex with young girls and that supposedly makes what Polanski did okay. Do you maintain that those girls also knew what they were doing and had truly consensual relations with those historical figures?

Well, I already pointed out that since they were slaves and cult members, probably less choice than this teen...

Now, did you do your homework and write down what those trigger words made you feel?

You seem to be the one who is triggered by the butt sex. the butt sex definitely upsets you. NOt really my thing, but I don't get worked up over it like you do.

 

[hadit]

I've asked before, and you ignored, can a 13 year old girl really have consensual relations in a situation where she has no power, is under the influence of a Quaalude, and is being pressured by a middle aged man who is not taking 'no' for an answer?

Works on a lot of assumptions. Clearly, she had no problem having sex or taking drugs before or after that incident. [\quote]

She was 13. There's a reason we treat minors differently, have a juvenile court system, etc.

Your disdain (look up the word if you wonder what it means) for young teenaged girls won't let you consider the question.

No, I have disdain for THIS woman, who is still a grifter 40 years later looking for her 15 minutes of fame. [\quote]

Didn't you say she wanted it all to go away? That seems contradictory.

You note (apparently approvingly) that historical figures had sex with young girls and that supposedly makes what Polanski did okay. Do you maintain that those girls also knew what they were doing and had truly consensual relations with those historical figures?

Well, I already pointed out that since they were slaves and cult members, probably less choice than this teen... [\quote]

Which leads back to the original point, which is that Polanski is innocent because Jefferson?

Now, did you do your homework and write down what those trigger words made you feel?

You seem to be the one who is triggered by the butt sex. the butt sex definitely upsets you. NOt really my thing, but I don't get worked up over it like you do.

Not being a 13 year old girl, I can only imagine how much more traumatic would be the experience. Apparently, you can only conceive of the experience from one point of view. If it doesn't hurt you, it must be okay...

Why don't you interview 100 women and ask them if it would be more traumatic to be sodomized or vaginally raped? Give us the breakdown.

 

[JoeB131]

Not being a 13 year old girl, I can only imagine how much more traumatic would be the experience. Apparently, you can only conceive of the experience from one point of view. If it doesn't hurt you, it must be okay...

Why don't you interview 100 women and ask them if it would be more traumatic to be sodomized or vaginally raped? Give us the breakdown.

[

I'm sure she thought she was raped when the check bounced.

 

[hadit]

Not being a 13 year old girl, I can only imagine how much more traumatic would be the experience. Apparently, you can only conceive of the experience from one point of view. If it doesn't hurt you, it must be okay...

Why don't you interview 100 women and ask them if it would be more traumatic to be sodomized or vaginally raped? Give us the breakdown.

[

I'm sure she thought she was raped when the check bounced.

Polanski didn't pay her what he was obligated to pay? Surprise, surprise. Again, she didn't hold a gun to his head, he drugged her and sodomized her. You're just not going to get around that, no matter how mad you are at that babysitter that made you go to bed.

 

[JoeB131]

Polanski didn't pay her what he was obligated to pay? Surprise, surprise. Again, she didn't hold a gun to his head, he drugged her and sodomized her. You're just not going to get around that, no matter how mad you are at that babysitter that made you go to bed.

Yes, I know you are mad about the Butt stuff, but most people kind of don't care.

He didn't hold a gun to her head, either. She took the drugs and had the sex on her own.

It wasn't like he gave her roofies or some shit like that.

 

[hadit]

Polanski didn't pay her what he was obligated to pay? Surprise, surprise. Again, she didn't hold a gun to his head, he drugged her and sodomized her. You're just not going to get around that, no matter how mad you are at that babysitter that made you go to bed.

Yes, I know you are mad about the Butt stuff, but most people kind of don't care.

He didn't hold a gun to her head, either. She took the drugs and had the sex on her own.

It wasn't like he gave her roofies or some shit like that.

He was the adult. He could have walked away and none of this would have happened. He is ultimately responsible, because she could not force him to have sex with her, but he could force her. Every man is in control of his penis.

Something inside him wanted to have sex at all costs with this very young girl, something that overrode common sense and ordinary decency. That doesn't bother you, but you are in a very small minority.

You keep trying to blame her, to cast her as an evil blackmailing villain, out to take him down. If that's really the case, it gives even more reason for him to run, not walk, the other way. You act like she was known for pulling similar stunts in the past. Why was he then so stupid as to have anything to do with her? Answer: at heart, he really likes young girls and needs to be kept away from them. You can't tempt someone with something if they're not attracted to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

He was the adult. He could have walked away and none of this would have happened. He is ultimately responsible, because she could not force him to have sex with her, but he could force her. Every man is in control of his penis.

I'm sure he could have. And I'm sure he's not as perfect as you are, having never, ever made a mistake and shown poor judgement.

Something inside him wanted to have sex at all costs with this very young girl, something that overrode common sense and ordinary decency. That doesn't bother you, but you are in a very small minority.

Or he had a consensual encounter with someone who wanted a consensual encounter. He shouldn't have, but people are human and they make mistakes. He's paid for his.

You keep trying to blame her, to cast her as an evil blackmailing villain, out to take him down. If that's really the case, it gives even more reason for him to run, not walk, the other way. You act like she was known for pulling similar stunts in the past. Why was he then so stupid as to have anything to do with her? Answer: at heart, he really likes young girls and needs to be kept away from them. You can't tempt someone with something if they're not attracted to it.

I agree, you can't. But this absurd notion that he's some kind of masher because he made a mistake, once, is kind of silly.

But everyone can't be as perfect as you, right?

 

[hadit]

He was the adult. He could have walked away and none of this would have happened. He is ultimately responsible, because she could not force him to have sex with her, but he could force her. Every man is in control of his penis.

I'm sure he could have. And I'm sure he's not as perfect as you are, having never, ever made a mistake and shown poor judgement.

Something inside him wanted to have sex at all costs with this very young girl, something that overrode common sense and ordinary decency. That doesn't bother you, but you are in a very small minority.

Or he had a consensual encounter with someone who wanted a consensual encounter. He shouldn't have, but people are human and they make mistakes. He's paid for his.

You keep trying to blame her, to cast her as an evil blackmailing villain, out to take him down. If that's really the case, it gives even more reason for him to run, not walk, the other way. You act like she was known for pulling similar stunts in the past. Why was he then so stupid as to have anything to do with her? Answer: at heart, he really likes young girls and needs to be kept away from them. You can't tempt someone with something if they're not attracted to it.

I agree, you can't. But this absurd notion that he's some kind of masher because he made a mistake, once, is kind of silly.

But everyone can't be as perfect as you, right?

Kind of a big "mistake". And no, I've never sodomized a 13 year old girl to whom I had given a Quaalude. If you want to say that's an absurd level of perfection, go ahead, but to me, it's not a difficult standard to meet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Kind of a big "mistake". And no, I've never sodomized a 13 year old girl to whom I had given a Quaalude. If you want to say that's an absurd level of perfection, go ahead, but to me, it's not a difficult standard to meet.

Oh, okay, your mistakes didn't involve the butt stuff....

But I bet if we found out the worst thing you did, you could find someone who felt you weren't' adequately punished for it.

 

[hadit]

Kind of a big "mistake". And no, I've never sodomized a 13 year old girl to whom I had given a Quaalude. If you want to say that's an absurd level of perfection, go ahead, but to me, it's not a difficult standard to meet.

Oh, okay, your mistakes didn't involve the butt stuff....

But I bet if we found out the worst thing you did, you could find someone who felt you weren't' adequately punished for it.

I'm sure that's true, but it has nothing to do with Polanski not allowing justice to be done. In all this, I didn't say he wasn't punished enough. I said he needed to come back to the states and wrap this whole thing up. If his lawyers can show prosecutorial malfeasance, or the victim can plead for him to get mercy, okay. In fact, it should be a slam dunk if the foul up is as obvious as you keep saying.

That is why I carefully distinguished between the legal and moral aspects of the case, something you evidently didn't pick up on. I know you think the justice system messed up, that was obvious from the start. What was surprising, however, was your inability to condemn the action beyond a weak, 'he shouldn't have done it'. I believe that to be because you can't allow yourself any true condemnation of Polanski at all. Nor sure exactly why.

The bottom line remains, Polanski did a bad thing. It wasn't a simple mistake. It's not like he knocked over a mailbox because his mind drifted for a moment. I don't need to reiterate what he did because you are firmly rooted in denial, but he earned the disapproval he still gets. There's been no acknowledgement of wrong doing and his cheerleaders (you know who you are) still maintain what he did was no big deal, even though they know exactly what would happen to them if they were to do the same thing, or even let on that they were planning to.

Guys talk, they brag about what they intend to do. "I'm going to take that blond home with me tonight. Watch this". No problem, right?

"See that 13 year old girl over there all by herself? I'm going to take her home and boink her silly".

If you don't see the difference between the two, stay away from children.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure that's true, but it has nothing to do with Polanski not allowing justice to be done. In all this, I didn't say he wasn't punished enough. I said he needed to come back to the states and wrap this whole thing up. If his lawyers can show prosecutorial malfeasance, or the victim can plead for him to get mercy, okay. In fact, it should be a slam dunk if the foul up is as obvious as you keep saying.

again, only a fool would put himself at the mercy of people who tried to screw him over.

That is why I carefully distinguished between the legal and moral aspects of the case, something you evidently didn't pick up on. I know you think the justice system messed up, that was obvious from the start. What was surprising, however, was your inability to condemn the action beyond a weak, 'he shouldn't have done it'. I believe that to be because you can't allow yourself any true condemnation of Polanski at all. Nor sure exactly why.

Because since most girls lose their virginity before the age of consent, I can't see this as a big deal.

and this girl wasn't even a virgin.

Whenever I hear some holy-roller fake talking about "morals', I pretty much just want to scream. You show me some real harm that was done to Little Grifter, then you can talk to me about "morals".

The bottom line remains, Polanski did a bad thing. It wasn't a simple mistake. It's not like he knocked over a mailbox because his mind drifted for a moment. I don't need to reiterate what he did because you are firmly rooted in denial, but he earned the disapproval he still gets. There's been no acknowledgement of wrong doing and his cheerleaders (you know who you are) still maintain what he did was no big deal, even though they know exactly what would happen to them if they were to do the same thing, or even let on that they were planning to.

It wasn't a big deal.

If he gave her a disease or got her pregnant, then you might have point.

Show me ACTUAL HARM, and then we can talk about wrongdoing.

What is the ACTUAL HARM done here?

 

[Lysistrata]

That's funny. When a liberal like Polanski or Hillary commits heinous crimes, the Left can't get away from them fast enough, but 25 years from now, they will still be ripping on Trump for things he never even said or did.

Ms. Clinton did not commit any "heinous crime," though. The current sexual pervert in the Oval Office has said things himself, into a microphone, about what he has done and there seems to be plenty of witnesses. The people who constantly refer to sexual wrongdoing by Ms. Clinton's husband seem to believe the allegations against him without any hesitation, but then turn around and disbelieve allegations against trump automatically. Why the difference?
Frankly, trump and his sidekick pence are dirty for many other reasons that do not involve their personal sexual conduct.

 

[hadit]

I'm sure that's true, but it has nothing to do with Polanski not allowing justice to be done. In all this, I didn't say he wasn't punished enough. I said he needed to come back to the states and wrap this whole thing up. If his lawyers can show prosecutorial malfeasance, or the victim can plead for him to get mercy, okay. In fact, it should be a slam dunk if the foul up is as obvious as you keep saying.

again, only a fool would put himself at the mercy of people who tried to screw him over.

That is why I carefully distinguished between the legal and moral aspects of the case, something you evidently didn't pick up on. I know you think the justice system messed up, that was obvious from the start. What was surprising, however, was your inability to condemn the action beyond a weak, 'he shouldn't have done it'. I believe that to be because you can't allow yourself any true condemnation of Polanski at all. Nor sure exactly why.

Because since most girls lose their virginity before the age of consent, I can't see this as a big deal.

and this girl wasn't even a virgin.

Whenever I hear some holy-roller fake talking about "morals', I pretty much just want to scream. You show me some real harm that was done to Little Grifter, then you can talk to me about "morals".

The bottom line remains, Polanski did a bad thing. It wasn't a simple mistake. It's not like he knocked over a mailbox because his mind drifted for a moment. I don't need to reiterate what he did because you are firmly rooted in denial, but he earned the disapproval he still gets. There's been no acknowledgement of wrong doing and his cheerleaders (you know who you are) still maintain what he did was no big deal, even though they know exactly what would happen to them if they were to do the same thing, or even let on that they were planning to.

It wasn't a big deal.

If he gave her a disease or got her pregnant, then you might have point.

Show me ACTUAL HARM, and then we can talk about wrongdoing.

What is the ACTUAL HARM done here?

Whether he got her pregnant or gave her a disease doesn't matter, his actions would be the same regardless. You can say it wasn't a big deal all you want, but you cannot deny the truth that you would get in real trouble for even admitting you wanted to do what he did.

You hold the minority opinion on this.

And as always, test it. Tell your buddies in a bar that you're going to drug a 13 year old girl and sodomize her, but it's okay because she had sex before and was asking for it. You will never do that, because you know what would happen. Tell them you want to take the 30 year old blonde bimbo home, no problem. Tell them you want a 13 year old girl, problem. But hey, it's no big deal, right? No REAL harm done, right? Where is the strength of your convictions?

I know where they are. They're in your mind alone because you know how society views them. So keep in claiming it was no big deal. Very few will agree with you.

Tell you what, let's ask the women on this board. How do you view Polanski's actions? Should he be soundly condemned or should we just say she was asking for it because she wasn't a virgin?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lysistrata]

No adult person, male or female, straight or gay, should ever get away with assaulting a teenager, from Polanski, to Pamela Smart, to the Robertson "Duck" guy. This Robertson has actually openly advocated that adults sexually pursue teenagers, the same as NAMBLA has. He is no different than the child-sex advocates of NAMBLA, but seeks to excuse himself through his perverted brand of "Christianity." All of them should be in jail.

 

[JoeB131]

Whether he got her pregnant or gave her a disease doesn't matter, his actions would be the same regardless. You can say it wasn't a big deal all you want, but you cannot deny the truth that you would get in real trouble for even admitting you wanted to do what he did.

again, because we have stupid laws doesn't mean they are correct or even sensible.

What was the ACTUAL HARM Little Grifter suffered?

The rest of it is a lot of bluster about fake morals, and frankly, kind of bores me. Society tends to be a bunch of phonies when they say they are horrified by this and then sexualizes teens.

All those guys forgotten what they were like when they were teens, where they'd have gotten laid in a heartbeat, if they could.

Tell you what, let's ask the women on this board. How do you view Polanski's actions? Should he be soundly condemned or should we just say she was asking for it because she wasn't a virgin?

Why do you think I care what anyone else thinks. Do you go through life wanting approval from other people for your opinions.

Are you such a delicate creature you need constant validation.

This is a bullshit case. It was a bullshit case 40 years ago, and the fact they are still going on about it 40 years later is even more bullshit.

 

[hadit]

Whether he got her pregnant or gave her a disease doesn't matter, his actions would be the same regardless. You can say it wasn't a big deal all you want, but you cannot deny the truth that you would get in real trouble for even admitting you wanted to do what he did.

again, because we have stupid laws doesn't mean they are correct or even sensible.

What was the ACTUAL HARM Little Grifter suffered?

Those laws are in place because society has deemed young teenagers to be too immature to make those kinds of decisions for themselves, and thus we protect them. Whether she suffered actual harm or not is immaterial because Polanski would have done the same actions in either case. He was lucky that she suffered no permanent damage, but that's all he was, lucky.

The rest of it is a lot of bluster about fake morals, and frankly, kind of bores me. Society tends to be a bunch of phonies when they say they are horrified by this and then sexualizes teens.

All those guys forgotten what they were like when they were teens, where they'd have gotten laid in a heartbeat, if they could.

You keep saying that as if it meant something. Polanski was NOT a teenager, he WAS a rich, famous middle aged man fully capable of finding his own action for the night, yet he felt it necessary to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl. That's despicable, and you are the only one I've seen who thinks there's nothing wrong with what he did.

Tell you what, let's ask the women on this board. How do you view Polanski's actions? Should he be soundly condemned or should we just say she was asking for it because she wasn't a virgin?

Why do you think I care what anyone else thinks. Do you go through life wanting approval from other people for your opinions.

Are you such a delicate creature you need constant validation.

I'm demonstrating over and over again just how much in the minority you really are. Here's reality. You WON'T tell your drinking buddies that you're going to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl because you KNOW what their reaction would be. You DON'T want to hear what the women on the board think about the varying degrees of trauma between vaginal and anal rape because you KNOW what they would think.

This is a bullshit case. It was a bullshit case 40 years ago, and the fact they are still going on about it 40 years later is even more bullshit.

The moral aspect of the case hasn't changed. It was a despicable thing to do then, and it's still a despicable thing to do. Stay away from children, it's for your own good.

 

[JoeB131]

Those laws are in place because society has deemed young teenagers to be too immature to make those kinds of decisions for themselves, and thus we protect them.

Okay, so a 13 year old is too immature to decide to have sex, but she's mature enough to decide to have an abortion. How does that work again?

You keep saying that as if it meant something. Polanski was NOT a teenager, he WAS a rich, famous middle aged man fully capable of finding his own action for the night, yet he felt it necessary to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl. That's despicable, and you are the only one I've seen who thinks there's nothing wrong with what he did.

I get bored when moralists on the right who would snatch food from the mouths of children to give tax breaks to billionaires try to tell me what is "Wrong".

I'm demonstrating over and over again just how much in the minority you really are. Here's reality. You WON'T tell your drinking buddies that you're going to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl because you KNOW what their reaction would be.

I wouldn't tell them that because I'd never do that. Here's reality. teens are getting laid all the time. Most of us like to pretend it doesn't happen, but it does.

The moral aspect of the case hasn't changed. It was a despicable thing to do then, and it's still a despicable thing to do. Stay away from children, it's for your own good.

Go fuck yourself, this isn't about me. It's about how you want revenge on someone because you don't like his politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

Because I don't see you DEMANDING the imprisonment of Ted Nugent, who has admitted he banged Courtney Love when she was 12.

But I won't see you going on for 50 pages about that.

 

[hadit]

Those laws are in place because society has deemed young teenagers to be too immature to make those kinds of decisions for themselves, and thus we protect them.

Okay, so a 13 year old is too immature to decide to have sex, but she's mature enough to decide to have an abortion. How does that work again?[\quote]

It doesn't. I'm quite opposed to minor girls being able to have surgery done on them without parental involvement but not being able to take an Aspirin at school on their own. That's not what we're talking about, however.

You keep saying that as if it meant something. Polanski was NOT a teenager, he WAS a rich, famous middle aged man fully capable of finding his own action for the night, yet he felt it necessary to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl. That's despicable, and you are the only one I've seen who thinks there's nothing wrong with what he did.

I get bored when moralists on the right who would snatch food from the mouths of children to give tax breaks to billionaires try to tell me what is "Wrong".

Now we're getting to the root of your problem. You won't condemn Polanski because you can't bear to write something that agrees with "moralists on the right". That leads you into some very tight corners.

I'm demonstrating over and over again just how much in the minority you really are. Here's reality. You WON'T tell your drinking buddies that you're going to drug and sodomize a 13 year old girl because you KNOW what their reaction would be.

I wouldn't tell them that because I'd never do that. Here's reality. teens are getting laid all the time. Most of us like to pretend it doesn't happen, but it does. [\quote]

13 year old girls are not getting laid all the time by middle aged men who have given them sedatives. You keep ignoring that part.

The moral aspect of the case hasn't changed. It was a despicable thing to do then, and it's still a despicable thing to do. Stay away from children, it's for your own good.

Go fuck yourself, this isn't about me. It's about how you want revenge on someone because you don't like his politics. Nothing more, nothing less.[\quote]

What are his politics? I assume they are somewhere left of sane, given his connections with the glitterati and your devotion to whitewashing his actions. And again, where did I say he needed to be punished more? And yes, it is about you and your ambivalence on young girls behind sexually abused.

Because I don't see you DEMANDING the imprisonment of Ted Nugent, who has admitted he banged Courtney Love when she was 12.

But I won't see you going on for 50 pages about that.

Let's get this straight. You say Nugent admitted to "banging Courtney Love when she was 12", and offer this clip as supporting evidence? Did you even listen to it? The clip does not support your accusation. In fact, it doesn't even support the "banging" accusation. All it does is give Love's statement that she performed oral sex on Nugent. Get your story straight. Nugent says he doesn't remember the incident. If you can find where he admitted having intercourse with 12 year old Love, please post it. If not, feel free to admit that you're pulling crap out of your butt and flinging it around.

And again, we're supposed to think what Polanski did is okay because Nugent? Tell you what, start a thread about how Nugent is being unfairly abused because of that incident, take the position that what he did was no big deal, and we'll go for 50 pages on it. Now, if you can find where I DEMANDED the imprisonment of Polanski, please reference it, because my position has been that he should come back, stand before a judge and let justice be done, either by serving whatever sentence he gets or by having his name cleared. If you can't find where I took a different position, feel free to shut up.

Now, you brought up Nugent, apparently in an attempt to get me to back off Polanski because I wouldn't want to condemn Nugent. Let's flip that around and ask if you think what Love is accusing Nugent of doing is a big deal or not.

I've noticed that you have a problem with making wild accusations that don't hold up under even moderate scrutiny. You shouldn't do that.

 

[JoeB131]

Wooooooo..... Looks like I hit a sore spot going after your boy Ted.

No "Wild Accusations" at all.

Ted even sang about it....

Ted Nugent – Jailbait Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

Jailbait you look so good to me
Jailbait won't you set me free
Jailbait you look fine, fine, fine
And I know I've got to have you in a matter of time

Well, I don't care if you're just thirteen
You look too good to be true
I just know that you're probably clean
There's one little think I got do to you

Unlike Polanski who engaged in this behavior the one time, plead guilty and went to jail, Nugent has never been held to account for his actions. And the right considers him more a "hero" than the Left considers Polanski a "hero".

Right Wing Hypocrisy.... never gets old.