Quentin Tarantino defends Roman Polanski in 2003 interview

More Hollyrot scum going down...

Tarantino has always been a POS. A brilliant POS but a genuine and complete bastard regardless. Hopefully this puts an end to the talk of him doing a Star Trek movie. His own films are one thing when judged on their own, but I don't need to see him bring his "eccentricities" into something like my favourite sci-fi franchise of all time.

This was from 2003 when it was still quite fashionable in Hollywood and in liberal/left circles to defend Polanski because of his 'talent'.

See, Polanski was some sort of hero for the left because it was the mean old 'law and order' types who thought that a talented director should go to prison over a triviality like raping a little girl.

Dig a little and you'll find no end of Hollywood liberals who defended Polanski.

As I recall, the leftists on this site have defended him, too.

EDIT: Yeah, I just checked and we have five past topics about Polanski and a few of them feature some of our past and present leftish folks defending Polanski.

Sorry, that accusation doesn't fly anymore. Anyone who laughed off Donald Trump's lifelong pattern of abuse of women or stuck up for the likes of Roy Moore doesn't get to play the Polanski card on anyone else.

Neither Trump nor Moore was ever charged and of aggravated sexual assault.

Big difference.

Trump's bio basically said he forced Ivana to have sex, which counts as rape. And for years she never denied it happened that way, at least not until the heat was put on her to "clarify" her statements by the Trump campaign.

And how is Tarantino's "even thirteen year olds want it" comment worse than Trump's "when you're a star you can do what you want" statement? If you took any of this as seriously as you pretend to then you'd condemn both equally without your politics obligating you to make excuses for one while damning the other. Don't ever say you believe women either, not when you're willing to let Trump or Moore off the hook even though there are multiple credible accusations against them for how they behave.

Forgive me, but is it your intent to diminish or excuse Polanski with this narrative of yours?

Because that's what it looks like.

Polanski has been convicted of his crime and he fled the US to avoid prison.

If Trump is convicted of a crime he can be impeached and then imprisoned.

Roy Moore is no one special at this point and while he cannot be prosecuted for accusations that took place over forty years ago he can be sued civilly if any of his accusers can make a case.

Polanski is a fugitive from justice and Trump and Moore are not fugitives from justice.

Do try to fathom the difference.

Technically Polanski wasn't convicted because he fled before the deal his defense made with the prosecutors was signed off on by the judge. And the plea and sentencing were destroyed by the judge anyway who, for political reasons of his own, chose to ignore the deal that was made in order to play the good ol' "tough on crime" card. Polanski deserved some sort of prison time, which the deal had guaranteed, but not the sort of sentence of fifty years that the judge was going to put on him, the type of sentencing that was harsher than that normally given to murderers.

Not that you care, but:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Pol ... al_history

The judge was later removed from the case altogether after a complaint was filed by the defense about his behaviour, a filing that was fully supported by the prosecutor's office.

So, if going after young girls in a perverted manner is worth fifty years in prison, how much time would Roy Moore have received if he'd actually been prosecuted for his own actions instead of being allowed to reign for decades in his own jurisdiction as some kind of unaccountable bible-thumping King Shit?

With the Harry Hurt III bio of Trump, Harry claimed he had a deposition from the Trump divorce case where Ivana used the word rape to describe an incident from their marriage. He also claimed he lost the deposition. On one occasion Ivana said she didn't use the word rape in any kind of literal or criminal sense. Later still she backtracked further.

Polanski was tried and convicted in absentia of butt raping a 13-year-old girl.

Now apparently people like Tarantino, Oprah Winfrey, and Thanos think those are pretty much the same thing only worse when it's Trump talk.

Others of us apply
common sense and say 'no, not so much.'

When you "conservative" bastards stuck up for Roy Moore you explicitly endorsed an environmental millieu in Alabama just as sick as the one in Hollywood where perverts attacking women and children is allowable by local "customs". In the case of Hollywood, it's the so-called creative geniuses that are granted impunity by their apologists. In places like Alabama it's conservative stalwarts who get away with it if they please the local religious retards by embracing the same abusive anti-female and anti-child Christian fundamentalism that the down-home dullards are drenched in.

Modern conservatism & Trumpism - embracing rape and sexual abuse as long as it's done by one of the Good Ol' Boys who think exactly the same as N. Fiddledog and every other reeking apologist for Our Side.

As for Roy Moore if it had gone to court the judge would most likely have let Gloria Alred present her forged document asked if there was any further actual evidence to present and when there wasn't he would have thrown the case out of court.

But it was never about getting Moore into court. It was about blackening his name before a political election.

Alred made the practice popular. Her daughter tried (unsuccessfully) to Alred Trump.

Quit apologizing for rapists. It makes you look as bad as the Hollywood types.

What rapists? The only one convicted of rape was Polanski. And the one who seems to be apologizing for him with false equivalencies is you.

The only one apologizing for anything around here is you.

Apologizing for Polanski.


A new low, even for you.