Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Hollyweirdos rally around convicted child rapist Polanski

Not just Hollyweirdos, but their allies in the MSM.  LA Times frontpage subtitle of Roman Polanski’s arrest reads thusly: “The filmmaker, accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in 1977, could be extradited to the U.S.”  Emphasis mine.

I hate to nitpick at semantics here, but the cretin pled guilty to the crime before skipping bail.  When one pleads guilty to a crime and the judge accepts said plea, then one is no longer “accused”, but “convicted”…that’s kinda sorta in a really nuanced way what the “guilty” in “I plead guilty” means!

Also, as Patterico notes, LAT columnist Patrick Goldstein wonders if tax dollars should be wasted “prosecuting” Polanski.  Again, nitpicking on semantics, but no tax dollars will be spend prosecuting Polanski…because he’s already been prosecuted and convicted!  The only taxpayer money that will be spent will be for Polanski’s much deserved (and much delayed) sentencing.

For a really great read…nay, a must read…check out this Salon piece.  The takeaway is simply this: the dude raped a child!  You can polish the turd known as Roman Polanski all you like, but at the end of the day, the S.O.B. raped a 13-year-old child.  The left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) try mightily to ignore that point, but normal people aren’t letting them.

In closing, I need to quote Allahpundit, who as usual nails this one:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently it’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

These leftists are sick.

September 29, 2009 - Posted by crushliberalism | Hollyweirdos, shameful

7 Comments »

  1. This crap makes me sick. And to hear these idiots make excuses for this guys who has lived as a free man in Europe, dodging justice for 30+ years is appalling. At 76 years old, going to jail for the rest of his life for the RAPE of a 13 year old, is in my opinion getting off easy.

    Comment by joe | September 29, 2009

  2. We all know the left has no sense of morals and their take on this isn’t surprising.

    Comment by Jon | September 29, 2009

  3. I cannot for the life of me fathom the reason behind defending Polanski. There is a coordinated effort to do so … but why? John Edwards, Bill Clinton, etc – I get that. We all understand the motivation behind the media’s defense of liberal political figures. Why Polanski?

    Comment by TheBad | September 30, 2009

  4. Because he made Chinatown? Did you even read the article? ;-)

    Comment by Ed B. | September 30, 2009

  5. Speaking of, the bastion of intelligence, Whoopi Goldberg, chimes in with her awesome insight:

    Comment by Ed B. | September 30, 2009

  6. Geez, how Clintonesque! “It’s not ‘rape-rape’”, except in that highly nuanced “drug the kid and stick his schlong in her rear against her will” kinda way.

    Comment by crushliberalism | September 30, 2009

  7. First, a thirteen year old was given Alcohol and Quaaludes. That is a crime in its self. Secondly, the drugs and alcohol, would inhibit a woman of any ages ability to consent, and would be called rape in any other situation with any other non celebrity. Thirdly, he preformed unspeakable acts upon her that were illegal in most states of the time, even if she was of age and not impaired. Lastly and most importantly, She was thirteen years old. Polanski knew she was thirteen and knew she was under the age of consent.

    And somehow the Judge in ’77 only wanted to give him 48 days! To avoid serving 48 days in the big house, he fled the country! And Hollywood feels the system is being too hard on him because he’s an cinematic genius!

    In my honest opinion, Polanski should be thanking his gods/devils, angels/demons! If he was anyone other than Polanski back in ’77 in California or if he was in Texas or the South in ’77, he would have gotten life without parole, and he would not have been out on bail for fear of him doing this crime upon other youth. Polanski would have then met up with those in the BIG HOUSE who frown on those who do dirty deeds on little girls and perhaps had the same ending as Jeffrey Dahmer

    Comment by Steve | September 30, 2009


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »