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

[hadit]

He pled guilty and fled the country. Again, reach way down deep inside and see if you can find sent condemnation of child rape.

Nope. Can't get worked up about a promiscuous teen doing something she had done before.

He plead to a misdemeanor because the prosecutors realized they had a shit case. Which is fine. Prosecutors do that all the time. and a lot of the time, they actually let REAL rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

As we said in the College Rape discussion, only 3% of rapists see the inside of a jail cell. So you guys already had Polanski in a jail cell for 42 days. That is better than most do.

He can't. Mentally and emotionally this is the way predators think. It's her fault. She was trying to trap him.

There is no help for these individuals.

again, can't get worked up about your hangups where you went to court because some lesbians asked you to paint a picture. If your Avis are an example of your painting, they kind of suck.

My point- which you guys miss- is that I believe in the rule of law.

It is better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to prison.

Here you had a case where the prosecutors didn't think hard time was warranted. The doctors didn't think it was. The so-called "victim" didn't think it was because then she wouldn't get any money. But a judge wanted to get him a celebrity scalp.

The fact that you still refuse to condemn child rape in any fashion is telling. Have you tried the experiment I suggested? Go to your next frat house party, find a drunk coed, take her to your dorm room and ask her for sex. When she says no, sodomize her. Tell us how it went from your jail cell. Better yet, do it to her 13 year old sister when she visits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

The fact that you still refuse to condemn child rape in any fashion is telling. Have you tried the experiment I suggested? Go to your next frat house party, find a drunk coed, take her to your dorm room and ask her for sex. When she says no, sodomize her. Tell us how it went from your jail cell. Better yet, do it to her 13 year old sister when she visits.

Since that isn't what Polanski did, why is that a comparison?

Hey, so let's talk about what he actually did. someone came over to his house and had sex with him. Because we live in a society where we put celebrities on pedestals and people throw themselves at them.

You see, your whole argument is that Little Grifter said no, even though nobody else who was there that night supports that account.

If she willingly had sex with him, it wasn't rape. (and, no, I don't care what they call "Statutory rape", which he was not charged with in the end). It was having sex with a minor, which is a misdemeanor. He plead guilty to that, served out an agreed jail term, and that should be the end of the matter.

Again, REAL rapists only have a 3% chance of doing jail time.

and if LA County is STILL spending money trying to get Polanski on something, pretty please, can we get him on something more 40 years later, that's money they aren't spending putting real rapists in prison, right now, because they aren't allocating the resources.

 

[hadit]

The fact that you still refuse to condemn child rape in any fashion is telling. Have you tried the experiment I suggested? Go to your next frat house party, find a drunk coed, take her to your dorm room and ask her for sex. When she says no, sodomize her. Tell us how it went from your jail cell. Better yet, do it to her 13 year old sister when she visits.

Since that isn't what Polanski did, why is that a comparison?

Hey, so let's talk about what he actually did. someone came over to his house and had sex with him. Because we live in a society where we put celebrities on pedestals and people throw themselves at them.

You see, your whole argument is that Little Grifter said no, even though nobody else who was there that night supports that account.

If she willingly had sex with him, it wasn't rape. (and, no, I don't care what they call "Statutory rape", which he was not charged with in the end). It was having sex with a minor, which is a misdemeanor. He plead guilty to that, served out an agreed jail term, and that should be the end of the matter.

Again, REAL rapists only have a 3% chance of doing jail time.

and if LA County is STILL spending money trying to get Polanski on something, pretty please, can we get him on something more 40 years later, that's money they aren't spending putting real rapists in prison, right now, because they aren't allocating the resources.

And you still can't muster up condemnation of child rape. She was 13, alone with a middle aged man. I don't care how she was acting, he was the adult and should have known better. Unlike him, she could not force him to have sex with her.

Like I said, try doing what he did. Have a 13 year old girl come to a party under the pretense of doing a photo shoot, give her a Quaalude, then sodomize her behind closed doors in a hot tub. Do you REALLY think "Nobody else heard her say no" would let you get away with it, given that you don't have the connections to the glitterati that Polanski did, even if no one other than you heard her say no? I can see the expressions of disgust on the jurists' faces now. Here's another question. You keep saying that we only have her word that she said no. Did Polanski ever say she did not? If he never claimed that she was lying, you have no standing to keep making that claim for him.

What would it take for you to condemn a REAL rapist, if you won't condemn a middle aged man who, at the VERY least, took sexual advantage of a confused young girl? Do you applaud what he did? What would you say to other middle aged men today if they are at a party with a 13 year old girl? Should they give her drugs and sodomize her if "she was asking for it", or should they turn around and stay the heck away from her?

The bottom line is, since many men ARE falsely accused of rape, he should never have been alone and naked with her, EVER. He wanted to have sex with her, he took actions to make sure she could not prevent him from having sex with her, and thus rightly wears the label "child molester".

 

[JoeB131]

And you still can't muster up condemnation of child rape. She was 13, alone with a middle aged man. I don't care how she was acting, he was the adult and should have known better. Unlike him, she could not force him to have sex with her.

Yes, I can't call a horse a unicorn, either, because you stuck a party hat on it's head.

He had sex with a minor. Just like thousand of people do every day, even though most of them are also minors.

Like I said, try doing what he did. Have a 13 year old girl come to a party under the pretense of doing a photo shoot, give her a Quaalude, then sodomize her behind closed doors in a hot tub. Do you REALLY think "Nobody else heard her say no" would let you get away with it, given that you don't have the connections to the glitterati that Polanski did, even if no one other than you heard her say no? I can see the expressions of disgust on the jurists' faces now. Here's another question. You keep saying that we only have her word that she said no. Did Polanski ever say she did not? If he never claimed that she was lying, you have no standing to keep making that claim for him.

Okay, but here's the thing, the prosecutors had that kind of evidence, and didn't put in front of a jury. And the reason why they didn't is because they did a background check on Little Grifter and Momma Grifter and it probably wasn't pretty.

The fact is, the prosecutors had on one side a mother who was willing to whore out her daughter for fame, and on the other hand, a famous director who had survived the Holocaust and whose wife was murdered by a cult. So they cut the best deal they could. And you know what, I have no problem with the fact that he plead guilty to the misdemeanor and spent 42 days in jail (more than 97% of actual rapists spend in prison)

Also, just because I wouldn't do something, doesn't mean it should be a criminal offense. I wouldn't take drugs, but I think the millions of lives we ruin in the War on Drugs is a travesty.

What would it take for you to condemn a REAL rapist, if you won't condemn a middle aged man who, at the VERY least, took sexual advantage of a confused young girl? Do you applaud what he did?

Okay, buddy, you are going into serious histronics here, and I can't be responsible for your emotional breakdown. I totally condemn "real" rapists. this isn't rape. It's sex with a minor, which is a crime, and was punished in this case. Case closed. I don't applaud what he did, but I also don't think we should still be chasing the man 40 years later because some politicians got egg on their faces.

What would you say to other middle aged men today if they are at a party with a 13 year old girl? Should they give her drugs and sodomize her if "she was asking for it", or should they turn around and stay the heck away from her?

I would say, 1) "Don't do it" and 2) "Where the fuck are your parents!"

The bottom line is, since many men ARE falsely accused of rape, he should never have been alone and naked with her, EVER. He wanted to have sex with her, he took actions to make sure she could not prevent him from having sex with her, and thus rightly wears the label "child molester".

Except that's not what he was charged with. I mean, I guess you can accuse him of anything you want, but at the end of the day, the prosecutors plead him down to a misdemeanor.

So now you are arguing that he should have been convicted of a crime because other men were falsely accused, and he should have known better.. Bud you keep moving the goalposts.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep saying that we only have her word that she said no. Did Polanski ever say she did not? If he never claimed that she was lying, you have no standing to keep making that claim for him.

Yes, actually, he has said that, many times. That has been his position since this started. The thing is, the shrinks who examined him and the prosecutors believed him.

 

[hadit]

And you still can't muster up condemnation of child rape. She was 13, alone with a middle aged man. I don't care how she was acting, he was the adult and should have known better. Unlike him, she could not force him to have sex with her.

Yes, I can't call a horse a unicorn, either, because you stuck a party hat on it's head.

He had sex with a minor. Just like thousand of people do every day, even though most of them are also minors.

Like I said, try doing what he did. Have a 13 year old girl come to a party under the pretense of doing a photo shoot, give her a Quaalude, then sodomize her behind closed doors in a hot tub. Do you REALLY think "Nobody else heard her say no" would let you get away with it, given that you don't have the connections to the glitterati that Polanski did, even if no one other than you heard her say no? I can see the expressions of disgust on the jurists' faces now. Here's another question. You keep saying that we only have her word that she said no. Did Polanski ever say she did not? If he never claimed that she was lying, you have no standing to keep making that claim for him.

Okay, but here's the thing, the prosecutors had that kind of evidence, and didn't put in front of a jury. And the reason why they didn't is because they did a background check on Little Grifter and Momma Grifter and it probably wasn't pretty.

The fact is, the prosecutors had on one side a mother who was willing to whore out her daughter for fame, and on the other hand, a famous director who had survived the Holocaust and whose wife was murdered by a cult. So they cut the best deal they could. And you know what, I have no problem with the fact that he plead guilty to the misdemeanor and spent 42 days in jail (more than 97% of actual rapists spend in prison)

Also, just because I wouldn't do something, doesn't mean it should be a criminal offense. I wouldn't take drugs, but I think the millions of lives we ruin in the War on Drugs is a travesty.

What would it take for you to condemn a REAL rapist, if you won't condemn a middle aged man who, at the VERY least, took sexual advantage of a confused young girl? Do you applaud what he did?

Okay, buddy, you are going into serious histronics here, and I can't be responsible for your emotional breakdown. I totally condemn "real" rapists. this isn't rape. It's sex with a minor, which is a crime, and was punished in this case. Case closed. I don't applaud what he did, but I also don't think we should still be chasing the man 40 years later because some politicians got egg on their faces.

What would you say to other middle aged men today if they are at a party with a 13 year old girl? Should they give her drugs and sodomize her if "she was asking for it", or should they turn around and stay the heck away from her?

I would say, 1) "Don't do it" and 2) "Where the fuck are your parents!"

The bottom line is, since many men ARE falsely accused of rape, he should never have been alone and naked with her, EVER. He wanted to have sex with her, he took actions to make sure she could not prevent him from having sex with her, and thus rightly wears the label "child molester".

Except that's not what he was charged with. I mean, I guess you can accuse him of anything you want, but at the end of the day, the prosecutors plead him down to a misdemeanor.

So now you are arguing that he should have been convicted of a crime because other men were falsely accused, and he should have known better.. Bud you keep moving the goalposts.

No. As I said, the state's reaction is a different issue. What matters here is whether it is right or wrong for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl who is under the influence of a Quaalude. That this happened is not under dispute. You can condemn what he did while maintaining that the prosecution is too harsh, you know. Or are you afraid it will dilute the strength of your argument if you offer any condemnation of Polaski's actions at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

No. As I said, the state's reaction is a different issue.

No, actually, it's kind of relevant, because it's not what happened, it's what you can prove in court.

What matters here is whether it is right or wrong for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl who is under the influence of a Quaalude. That this happened is not under dispute.

Well,that's a different question, isn't it. is it wrong to have sex with a 13 year old? Of course it is. It's when you want to keep insisting up and down that it's "Rape" I have an issue with.

That she took a Quaalude knowing what it was isn't relevant.

You can condemn what he did while maintaining that the prosecution is too harsh, you know. Or are you afraid it will dilute the strength of your argument if you offer any condemnation of Polaski's actions at all?

I guess I can't get worked up enough about it to condemn it.

The girl wasn't a virgin and she knew what she was doing.

My problem wasn't that the prosecution was "too harsh". My problem with it was that they agreed to a sentence, that all parties including the victim thought was appropriate, Polanski complied with the agreed upon conditions, and then they tried to pull backsies by illegally violating his fifth and sixth amendment rights.

So on a scale of one to ten, having sex with Little Grifter was maybe a two- kind of disgusting but not a big deal and what the state did was a flat out ten.

Happy now?

 

[WillowTree]

And just for comparison- I just checked- remember Dennis Hastert- the Conservative, Republican, former Speaker of the House- who confessed to raping boys and got a slap on the wrist- and was sentenced just last year?

Neither easyt65 or toobfreak ever once condemned Dennis Hastert- or his actions. Neither ever applauded his conviction or sentencing.

Just pointing out the obvious- neither gives a damn about child rape.

Both just are looking for something to use in their partisan attacks on liberals and Democrats.

Donald Trump could screw a 12 year old on national TV and easy would start a thread about Obama and Benghazi.

And, apparently you give no shits whatsoever about libtard attacks on women and children. Good show of faux outrage!

 

[hadit]

No. As I said, the state's reaction is a different issue.

No, actually, it's kind of relevant, because it's not what happened, it's what you can prove in court.

What matters here is whether it is right or wrong for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl who is under the influence of a Quaalude. That this happened is not under dispute.

Well,that's a different question, isn't it. is it wrong to have sex with a 13 year old? Of course it is. It's when you want to keep insisting up and down that it's "Rape" I have an issue with.

That she took a Quaalude knowing what it was isn't relevant.

You can condemn what he did while maintaining that the prosecution is too harsh, you know. Or are you afraid it will dilute the strength of your argument if you offer any condemnation of Polaski's actions at all?

I guess I can't get worked up enough about it to condemn it.

The girl wasn't a virgin and she knew what she was doing.

My problem wasn't that the prosecution was "too harsh". My problem with it was that they agreed to a sentence, that all parties including the victim thought was appropriate, Polanski complied with the agreed upon conditions, and then they tried to pull backsies by illegally violating his fifth and sixth amendment rights.

So on a scale of one to ten, having sex with Little Grifter was maybe a two- kind of disgusting but not a big deal and what the state did was a flat out ten.

Happy now?

Tell you what, do the experiment. Give a 13 year old girl a Quaalude, then sodomize her. See if you get charged with rape. Try the "she was asking for it" defense. There's a reason 13 year old girls are not considered mature enough to consent to sex with middle aged men and we expect the men to stay away from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Tell you what, do the experiment. Give a 13 year old girl a Quaalude, then sodomize her. See if you get charged with rape. Try the "she was asking for it" defense. There's a reason 13 year old girls are not considered mature enough to consent to sex with middle aged men and we expect the men to stay away from them.

Guy, just because I wouldn't personally do something doesn't mean it should be a crime.

Lot's of stuff I would never do. A lot them shouldn't be crimes.

Point was, AT THE TIME, the prosecutors didn't think they had a good case. They agreed to a lesser charge. Then they tried to impose a tougher one later by doing an end-run around the fifth and sixth amendment rights.

Now, the thing that has changed since then and now is you can't bring up the victims sexual history. I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing. The fact that this girl was a promiscious drug user is relevant.

 

[hadit]

Tell you what, do the experiment. Give a 13 year old girl a Quaalude, then sodomize her. See if you get charged with rape. Try the "she was asking for it" defense. There's a reason 13 year old girls are not considered mature enough to consent to sex with middle aged men and we expect the men to stay away from them.

Guy, just because I wouldn't personally do something doesn't mean it should be a crime.

Lot's of stuff I would never do. A lot them shouldn't be crimes.

Point was, AT THE TIME, the prosecutors didn't think they had a good case. They agreed to a lesser charge. Then they tried to impose a tougher one later by doing an end-run around the fifth and sixth amendment rights.

Now, the thing that has changed since then and now is you can't bring up the victims sexual history. I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing. The fact that this girl was a promiscious drug user is relevant.

Okay, take it out of the crime arena. I maintain that it is completely wrong for a middle aged man to give a Quaalude to a 13 year old girl, then sodomize her. I simply don't care if the girl had done it many times before, I expect the man to know better and to act accordingly.

I understand your argument that the judge was wrong to do what he is accused of doing. That's not what I'm focusing on, but I still maintain that if he wants to travel to the US, he needs to deal with the outstanding charges against him. If they are wrong, they can be thrown out. If they are right, he needs to let justice be done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, take it out of the crime arena. I maintain that it is completely wrong for a middle aged man to give a Quaalude to a 13 year old girl, then sodomize her. I simply don't care if the girl had done it many times before, I expect the man to know better and to act accordingly.

Okay, guy, the thing is, he only "sodomized" her because she said she wasn't on the pill, but still wanted to have sex. I mean, you can go into histrionics all you want, but these are two people showing bad judgement. Lots of people show bad judgement.

and he went to prison for 42 days for it, which is more time than 97% of actual rapists spend in prison.

I understand your argument that the judge was wrong to do what he is accused of doing. That's not what I'm focusing on, but I still maintain that if he wants to travel to the US, he needs to deal with the outstanding charges against him. If they are wrong, they can be thrown out. If they are right, he needs to let justice be done.

Here's the problem with that argument. Given the extraordinary lengths the state has gone to "get" this guy, when people who do far worse things are let off with a slap on the wrist, why should he have any expectation of justice.

Again, you go to a restaurant and you find a big old cockroach in your salad, you maybe write a really scathing review on Yelp, you tell your friends how much it sucks, but usually you won't go back to see if they get it right this time.

 

[hadit]

Okay, take it out of the crime arena. I maintain that it is completely wrong for a middle aged man to give a Quaalude to a 13 year old girl, then sodomize her. I simply don't care if the girl had done it many times before, I expect the man to know better and to act accordingly.

Okay, guy, the thing is, he only "sodomized" her because she said she wasn't on the pill, but still wanted to have sex. I mean, you can go into histrionics all you want, but these are two people showing bad judgement. Lots of people show bad judgement.

and he went to prison for 42 days for it, which is more time than 97% of actual rapists spend in prison.

I understand your argument that the judge was wrong to do what he is accused of doing. That's not what I'm focusing on, but I still maintain that if he wants to travel to the US, he needs to deal with the outstanding charges against him. If they are wrong, they can be thrown out. If they are right, he needs to let justice be done.

Here's the problem with that argument. Given the extraordinary lengths the state has gone to "get" this guy, when people who do far worse things are let off with a slap on the wrist, why should he have any expectation of justice.

Again, you go to a restaurant and you find a big old cockroach in your salad, you maybe write a really scathing review on Yelp, you tell your friends how much it sucks, but usually you won't go back to see if they get it right this time.

Then he needs to stay where he is, hopefully away from other underage girls

And again, it's incumbent on the older man to help it zipped, even if "she's asking for it"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Then he needs to stay where he is, hopefully away from other underage girls

Because clearly there are no girls in Europe, anywhere.

Here's the thing, in a celebrity culture, people throw themselves at celebrities. It's a level of temptation that frankly, you or i will never know.

And again, it's incumbent on the older man to help it zipped, even if "she's asking for it"

Probably. But frankly, people show bad judgement every day.

you've never done anything in your life you've regretted?

 

[hadit]

Then he needs to stay where he is, hopefully away from other underage girls

Because clearly there are no girls in Europe, anywhere.

Here's the thing, in a celebrity culture, people throw themselves at celebrities. It's a level of temptation that frankly, you or i will never know. [\quote]

That still boils down to an attempt to absolve Polanski of his responsibility. He had much greater responsibility than she did. In fact, being a celebrity ratcheted that up several notches. He had no business even being alone with her, much less naked in a hot tub.

And again, it's incumbent on the older man to help it zipped, even if "she's asking for it"

Probably. But frankly, people show bad judgement every day. [\quote]

Sodomizing a 13 year old girl under the influence of a Quaalude is one HUGE bit of bad judgement, wouldn't you say? Again, I don't care how the girl was acting, we expect better from men.

you've never done anything in your life you've regretted?

Of course, and I've accepted the consequences of those actions and learned from them. It does not, however, sound like Polanski has. If he wants this to go away, he has to go before a judge and convince him to make it so. He created the mess and only he can fix it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

[

That still boils down to an attempt to absolve Polanski of his responsibility. He had much greater responsibility than she did. In fact, being a celebrity ratcheted that up several notches. He had no business even being alone with her, much less naked in a hot tub.

He took responsibility. He plead guilty to the misdemeanor and he paid Little Grifter $600K.

[Sodomizing a 13 year old girl under the influence of a Quaalude is one HUGE bit of bad judgement, wouldn't you say? Again, I don't care how the girl was acting, we expect better from men.

you might. I don't. Shit, your side just elected a guy who bragged about grabbing women's pussies because you were scared shitless of someone with a vagina being in the white house.

you've never done anything in your life you've regretted?

[
Of course, and I've accepted the consequences of those actions and learned from them. It does not, however, sound like Polanski has. If he wants this to go away, he has to go before a judge and convince him to make it so. He created the mess and only he can fix it.
]

Again, why should he pay for the same real estate twice.

He plead guilty to the misdemeanor.
He served the 42 days in jail.
He paid Little Grifter 600K.

Sounds to me like he accepted the consequences. What he doesn't accept is your morality. And that's what has you sooooooo upset.

 

[Ame®icano]

Except, she choose to be there, she choose to get naked with him in the hottub, she chose to take the drugs, and she had had sex before that. Oh yeah, and she shook him down for $600,000.

So we can both selectively quote facts.

But it does a disservice to call this bad judgement on both sides "rape", because it diminishes women who have actually been raped.

Did she chose to be 13, or was she chosen because she was 13?

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Either we have constitutional protections or we don't. Either 13 year olds are responsible for their actions or they aren't. (Which means we need to stop prosecuting teens as adults, which we still do when we are horrified enough by their crimes.)

Suddenly, leftist is talking about personal responsibility.

Newsflash, she was 13 at the time and easy pray for the pedophile.
Statutory rape is still a rape. Even if she consented, he should've known better.

This is a bullshit prosecution over a non-crime. It's the kind of state abuse we should all be outraged about, not because Polanski is a wonderful man (he isn't. He isn't even a good director, IMO).

When the state is pushing a prosecution 40 years later that even the victims doesn't want (because she got her payoff), because some politician (a liberal democrat, no less) looks bad because he bungled the case, that should concern all of us.

What's the difference between what Polanski did and Weinstein?

 

[hadit]

[

That still boils down to an attempt to absolve Polanski of his responsibility. He had much greater responsibility than she did. In fact, being a celebrity ratcheted that up several notches. He had no business even being alone with her, much less naked in a hot tub.

He took responsibility. He plead guilty to the misdemeanor and he paid Little Grifter $600K.

[Sodomizing a 13 year old girl under the influence of a Quaalude is one HUGE bit of bad judgement, wouldn't you say? Again, I don't care how the girl was acting, we expect better from men.

you might. I don't. Shit, your side just elected a guy who bragged about grabbing women's pussies because you were scared shitless of someone with a vagina being in the white house.

you've never done anything in your life you've regretted?

[
Of course, and I've accepted the consequences of those actions and learned from them. It does not, however, sound like Polanski has. If he wants this to go away, he has to go before a judge and convince him to make it so. He created the mess and only he can fix it.
]

Again, why should he pay for the same real estate twice.

He plead guilty to the misdemeanor.
He served the 42 days in jail.
He paid Little Grifter 600K.

Sounds to me like he accepted the consequences. What he doesn't accept is your morality. And that's what has you sooooooo upset.

One, where is the evidence he paid her what he was obligated to pay? Remember,w don't take anyone's private word in this case, so him claiming he did isn't sufficient.
Two, Trump talked about being allowed to grab adult women who knew better, not a confused 13 year old girl who had a penis shoved into her anus.
Three, you just reduced Hillary Clinton's value and impact on the election to nothing more than her body parts. Why am I not surprised?
Four, a convicted criminal doesn't get to decide his punishment is wrong and flee the country to avoid it, then announce that it should all be over because reasons.
Five, it's not just my morality. Have you tried the experiment yet? You will find that there are a LOT of people who would find sodomizing a 13 year old girl after she took a Quaalude to be something worth condemning. Heck, you don't even have to do it. Go down to a bar and announce that you intend to lure a 13 year old girl to a party under the pretense of a photo shoot, that you will give her a Quaalude, then close the doors, get in the hot tub naked with her and sodomize her. I would say I'll visit you in the hospital, but I won't.

In short, you hold the minority opinion on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

Did she chose to be 13, or was she chosen because she was 13?

guy, you are hung up on a number, I'm really not.

Newsflash, she was 13 at the time and easy pray for the pedophile.
Statutory rape is still a rape. Even if she consented, he should've known better.

No, statutory rape isn't 'rape'. Just like a horse with a party hat isn't a unicorn.

Otherwise, you should lock up every teen who has sex below the age of consent.

What's the difference between what Polanski did and Weinstein?

Well, to start with, Weinstein is years of behavior. Secondly, Weinstein abused his employees.

 

[JoeB131]

One, where is the evidence he paid her what he was obligated to pay? Remember,w don't take anyone's private word in this case, so him claiming he did isn't sufficient.

Okay, if you want to write your own narrative about this, you can... you've been doing that all along.

Two, Trump talked about being allowed to grab adult women who knew better, not a confused 13 year old girl who had a penis shoved into her anus.

I don't think little Grifter was confused at all.

Three, you just reduced Hillary Clinton's value and impact on the election to nothing more than her body parts. Why am I not surprised?

I think you can try to keep reversing this, but your side voted for Trump knowing what he was, knowing he was a guy who bragged about assaulting women.... and you didn't care.

Four, a convicted criminal doesn't get to decide his punishment is wrong and flee the country to avoid it, then announce that it should all be over because reasons.

Well, I think he totally did. The thing was, he agreed to a punishment, then the state decided to change it because they looked bad.

Five, it's not just my morality. Have you tried the experiment yet?

Guy, you can keep obsessing about your expirament all day. The point is, Little Grifter was there by her own choice.

Go down to a bar and announce that you intend to lure a 13 year old girl to a party under the pretense of a photo shoot, that you will give her a Quaalude, then close the doors, get in the hot tub naked with her and sodomize her. I would say I'll visit you in the hospital, but I won't.

But here was the thing. Mama Grifter took her daughter to that party, knowing all those things were true.

In short, you hold the minority opinion on this one.

Good thing we don't decide morality by poll, then.