I can’t condemn Roman Polanski until we determine what kind of rape it was.
According to Starving Artist, if Trump had committed it, it would probably be consensual. Because Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt, you see, because he’s such a great guy. :rolleyes:
Man, SA cannot catch a break when talking about sexual assault, can he? Maybe if he stopped playing apologist for rapists, then condemning people for playing apologist for rapists.
…Hang on, isn’t hypocrisy supposed to be a huge Trump Card of his?
He’s such a diehard partisan that he simply can’t bring himself to denounce somebody who’s conservative or conservative-friendly, even in the case of really despicable behavior. He’s always got to be trying to handwave it away or minimize its implications.
Me, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I have no problem unambiguously denouncing the alleged (not legally proven as of this writing, but highly credibly alleged) sexual assault activities of liberals such as Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton, or Roman Polanski, as thoroughly despicable. Of course there’s always the legal caveat of innocent-until-proven-guilty, but you don’t need a legal conviction to form the personal opinion that “it sounds like this person probably did what they’re accused of and that was really scummy of them”.
But when it comes to accusations of such behavior against conservatives, even thoroughly credible accusations, Starving Artist just has to try to put the best face on it that he possibly can.
And it’s not just behavior but stated attitudes that he’ll attempt to explain away. Here he is trying to justify Rush Limbaugh’s disdain for affirmative-consent policies and his claim that “‘no’ means ‘yes’ if you know how to spot it”:
Since Meryl Streep is the subject of the thread, could you link to where she unambiguously condemned Roman Polanski (who, by the way, was convicted) or Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner? Or is she such a diehard partisan that she simply can’t bring herself to denounce somebody who’s liberal or liberal-friendly, even in the case of really despicable behavior? And thus worthy of condemnation.
Regards,
Shodan
You guys really aren’t dealing well with criticism of your new Fuhrer at all.
Just getting in our last digs before the servers are wiped.
And the camps open.
Has anyone asked her to?
The strongest defense of Donald Trump by his supporters is: Hey, look over there!
Why on earth would she be *required *to?
Do you denounce Trump’s despicable behavior?
As for Streep, I have no problem with the concept that she might be wrong on Polanski and right on Trump. (Conservatives in particular had better hope that it’s possible that wrongness in one opinion doesn’t automatically cause wrongness in all opinions)
She said bad things about Trump. This elicits attack from Trump property. Same thing happened when Bush owned the property.
Are you o.k. with how he treated that handicapped reporter(your opinion about Roman Polanski not really needed to answer this, btw)?
Is Roman Polanski the President Elect of the United States?
Again, I’d be willing to bet that most of the tighy-righties bringing get up Roman Polanski in this issue probably never even heard of him before the talking points were distributed.
Roman Polanski? That was the Polish Pope, right?
How the FUCK did we get on to Roman Polanski???
I don’t know. Who asked her to condemn Trump?
Regards,
Shodan
WTF does that mean?
It took you a long time to come up with this rejoinder. Sad!
sums it up - I looked at the OP and didn’t bother with the rest of the thread.
the OP wouldn’t know a grownup if he’d been raised by one