Polanski Arrested

TikiNYC

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
147
Reaction score
0
Polanski has been arrested on a 30 year warrant.

I guess he gets what he deserves.

Not sure about the technicalities of it all but take a look at this

:eek:
 
Yep, abuse of a position of authority, child rape, and evasion of justice is perfectly fine if you are a position in power as an 'artist' in Hollywood with connections to leftist causes. Somehow I doubt someone with leanings like Clint Eastwood would be getting all the fawning coverage and excuse making from the lapdog media.
 
is Clint Eastwood considered especially right-wing these days?
 
Perhaps Lurker was thinking of Chuck Norris?
 
With Norris, perception is a round-house kick to the face.
 
Yep, abuse of a position of authority, child rape, and evasion of justice is perfectly fine if you are a position in power as an 'artist' in Hollywood with connections to leftist causes.

So do the inverted commas imply that Roman Polanski is not a real artist?

And dude, you have some paranoia issues. Zomg, the leftist causes!!!
 
So do the inverted commas imply that Roman Polanski is not a real artist?

And dude, you have some paranoia issues. Zomg, the leftist causes!!!


No I was implying as a member of a special class otherwise unacceptable behavior gets a pass that the general public has a serious problem with. Sympathy for child rapists seems isolated to the entertainment elite and the media sycophants who love them.

Additionally, compare treatment of some idiot like Mark Foley to Polanski. I guess the bar for outrage is much higher when the person isn't a Republican. Polanksi directed Pianist and is just so anti-global warming so I guess he should get a pass on being a child predator. I mean look at Hollywood's attitude of, "Let's give him a bunch of awards!".

Polanski deliberately brought a 13 year old girl into a situation to take advantage of her. He had all the documentation in triplicate to indicate she was well under age, beyond obvious appearances. He staged sleazy photos during the shoot. Made moves on the girl, when she resisted, he drugged, raped, and sodomized her. Whoever people think he is as a director doesn't change those facts and he deserves real punishment in the worst correctional institution this country can offer.
 
^Is he not deserving of the awards? Perhaps he's deserving of an Oscar and a prison sentence. I have a hard time understanding why they would be mutually exclusive of one another.
 
Yay - Polanski debate! Let's spice things up even more:

I'm glad he's in jail. I hate when rich old white guys get away with treating women like shit.

I think that it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is a wealthy/powerful man, or a regular average Joe on the street - justice should attempt to be served equitably.

An average Joe on the street would not be able to get away with what Polanski has done. At best, he would have to flee the US as an international pariah, having to change his name, and live in scorn in whatever country he ended up in.

Now let's get controversial...

This is very similar to the case of Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. If some average guy had done what Bill Clinton is alleged to have done, that person probably would have spent time in jail.

That's why I was thrilled to see him impeached for obstruction of justice, and permanently disbarred. (The best, and most forgotten about, part of that whole episode is when the entire Supreme Court boycotted his State of the Union address, including the justice that he had nominated. It was an unprecedented show of disdain from the High Court to a sitting US President. Has not happened in history since or before)

Still, today's spin-meisters have tried to reframe the debate and say that Clinton was impeached by bible/moral Republicans for getting a BJ from Monica Lewinsky - obviously not at all the fact of the case. It was his obstruction of justice into the very serious charges pressed against him by Paula Jones - that he had attempted to sexually assault her.

Whether Paula Jones was assaulted or whether Paula Jones was a complete and total whackjob is irrelevent. Unfortunately, that's the debate people steer you to - but again, it's irrelevent. She could be barking at the moon for all I care, she still deserves access to a fair justice system.

The woman made an allegation and justice was subverted - all because the perp was a powerful and wealthy man. In this case, he got busted red-handed, and that's why I love it. I like that for all the powerful and rich old men who treat women like shit, Clinton got caught obstructing justice so blatantly. To me, he's the symbol of people like Polanski.

I am glad Clinton got busted and can never practice law again, and I'm glad Polanski is going to spend the last years of his life either in jail or in legal battles.

Let's say you had a sister or a daughter and some wealthy powerful man attempted to harm her - whether he was a fancy Hollywood director, the sitting Governor of a US state, or just some random co-worker. You would hope that your daughter or sister was entitled to the same EXACT justice system regardless of whom the allegations were against.

So in this sense, aren't the Polanski and Clinton cases similar?

(just stirring the pot - bored to hell today, anyone care to indulge me?)
 
Ha, we have some talented guys on the forum as you know.

Check out the latest works from the hollywood chef.

That site I posted was a SATIRE!

Correct link here
 
Last edited:
This is very similar to the case of Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. If some average guy had done what Bill Clinton is alleged to have done, that person probably would have spent time in jail.
My first thought at the time was that Bill should have spent time at the eye doctor.
 
Why does Polanski have anything to do with politics?

Nothing of course, but it has become unfashionable to say Hollywood is run by evil Jeeews, so they switched it up to 'elite libruls'. Mostly they are just pining for the good 'ol days of McCarthyism.

Truth is, the whole Polanski thing and really any kind of political and/or celebrity scandal is subject to a kind of ratio. People tend to look at person's 'body of work' vs their 'evil doings' and try to balance out how much they have contributed to society vs how much they have harmed society.

So if you think Person x has spent a great deal of their life working to feeding the poor and you are a big advocate for feeding the hungry you are more likely to forgive them if they arrested for abusing their wife.
The gold standard is, of course, Ted Kennedy. If you think he spent his political career running the country off the road you are a lot less likely look past Chappaquiddick, however if you think he worked tirelessly on behalf of the poor and marginalized, you are more likely to give him a pass.
You can see how this doesn't, and never will, work in Joe Average's favor.

This is politically neutral. Plenty of people came to the defense of Mark Foley, et al. As far as I know Mel Gibson hasn't exactly been locked out of Hollywood and he doesn't exactly have the best track record, especially amongst the liberal elite. And he is absolutely untouchable by many since he released his gore-porn magnum opus Saw III: Escape from Mount Calvary.
 
I've enjoyed many of Roman Polanski's films. I think he's a douche-nozzle.

I have a similarly conflicted relationship with Richard Wagner.
 
I have a similarly conflicted relationship with Richard Wagner.

My thoughts exactly. How can you not be overwhelmed by the overture in Tannhauser, and the the reprise in the Pilgrims' Chorus? But I wouldn't invite Dickie over for bagels and cream cheese!

As for artists getting a "free pass", perhaps there is a tendency among critics and their acolytes not just to de-moralize an artist's personal shortcomings, but to celebrate them as a window into the artist's creative process.

My artistic and personal philosophy is that if you are going around banging 13 year old chicks, you are gotta expect to enjoy the hospitality of the state.
 

Back
Top