Swiss to extradite Polanski?

posted at 10:07 am on September 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

More than 30 years after his arrest and trial for statutory rape and sodomy of a 13-year-old girl, director Roman Polanski may have to face the music for his crime and his flight.  Switzerland arrested Polanski on his way to receive an award from the Zurich Film Festival, surprising him and his French collaborators, who have kept Polanski from getting extradited to the US for decades.  They plan to send Polanski back to Los Angeles as soon as the US completes its extradition request (via HA commenter Mr. Joe):

Director Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss police for possible extradition to the United States for having sex in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl, authorities said Sunday.

Polanski was flying in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was apprehended Saturday at the airport, the Swiss Justice Ministry said in a statement. It said U.S. authorities have sought the arrest of the 76-year-old around the world since 2005.

“There was a valid arrest request and we knew when he was coming,” ministry spokesman Guido Balmer told The Associated Press. “That’s why he was taken into custody.” …

The Swiss statement said Polanski was officially in “provisional detention for extradition,” but added that he would not be transferred to U.S. authorities until all proceedings are completed. Polanski can contest his detention and any extradition decision in the Swiss courts, it said.

It’s not clear from the AP report whether the Swiss acted on an old outstanding arrest warrant, or whether the US had renewed efforts to arrest Polanski.  If it’s the former, then Barack Obama has a dilemma on his hands.  He gets a lot of support from the Hollywood community, who regularly lionize Polanski as a misunderstood genius.  They have long demanded that the US drop its charges against Polanski and allow him to return freely into the bosom of Hollywood.  Will he demand extradition or have to publicly admit he’s not interested in pursuing Polanski?

If the US renewed the warrant, it seems that Obama has already made the decision — and it would be the right decision, regardless of what the American film industry says.  As Bill Wyman wrote last February in Salon,  Hollywood has tried to sell the statutory rape as some sort of misunderstood love story.  They tried again last year in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. The reality is that Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year-old girl:

Bad art is supposed to be harmless, but the 2008 film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” about the notorious child-sex case against the fugitive director, has become an absolute menace. For months, lawyers for the filmmaker have been maneuvering to get the Los Angeles courts to dismiss Polanski’s 1978 conviction, based on supposed judicial misconduct uncovered in the documentary. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza ruled that if Polanski, who fled on the eve of his sentencing, in March 1978, wanted to challenge his conviction, he could — by coming back and turning himself in. …

Polanski deserves to have any potential legal folderol investigated, of course. But the fact that Espinoza had to state the obvious is testimony to the ways in which the documentary, and much of the media coverage the director has received in recent months, are bizarrely skewed. The film, which has inexplicably gotten all sorts of praise, whitewashes what Polanski did in blatant and subtle fashion — and recent coverage of the case, in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and elsewhere, has in turn accepted the film’s contentions at face value.

For now, the Los Angeles judge has injected a dose of reality into the debate. But “Wanted and Desired” seems to have inserted into the public consciousness the idea that Polanski, an irrepressible European, had been naughty during a colorful time, and that he has been toyed with by a monstrous legal system. Creepy and disturbing, the film does show us a few of the director’s moral warts. But it leaves the strong impression that Polanski was a wronged man, jerked around by a cartoony, publicity-hungry judge to the point where fleeing was his only viable option. …

Now, that’s one way to portray those two men — and one that Polanski’s current lawyers would prefer. But there’s another way, too: You could show one as a child-sex predator who drugged a 13-year-old girl with quaaludes and champagne; lured her to pose for naked photographs; ignoring her protests, had sex with her; and then anally raped her. …

It’s a drag to include a scene of anal rape of a 13-year-old in your moody documentary about such a Byronic figure, but it’s also fairly relevant.

The victim would now prefer to see the charges dropped, but that doesn’t account for 32 years of fleeing justice.  Polanski still needs to be held accountable for his crimes, at the very least by getting hauled back to an American court to face the process of justice.  He’s no hero; he’s a rapist, and it’s about time that someone make it clear that being a fabulous Hollywood director does not give one a license to commit violent crimes.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

According to Ms. Applebaum:

Here are some of the facts: Polanski’s crime — statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl — was committed in 1977.

No, the crime was rape. He PLEADED to statutory rape.

The girl, now 45, has said more than once that she forgives him, that she can live with the memory, that she does not want him to be put back in court or in jail, and that a new trial will hurt her husband and children.

Does the victim get to determine these things now? Why should there even be a new trial? He pleaded guilty.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial.

No there isn’t. It isn’t judcial misconduct for a judge to decide to not accept a plea deal. Pulanksi could have decided to take his chances with a jury, instead he fled.

There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age.

BS, this was the 2nd shoot with this girl and Polanksi had conversations with the girls mother prior specifically to complain of his attempts to have her pose nude.

Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers’ fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

He continued his career with barely a blip. Directing film after film. Spent nothing on lawyers fees as there was nothing to litigate. He could not be extradited. The guy has a house in GStaadt for pete’s sake. Are we supposed to think he suffered because he couldn’t pick up his Oscar or can’t get Krispy Kreme donuts? Can’t return to LA to direct? 80% of films aren’t made in LA anyway.
Did David Lean direct a film in LA?

You’re an enabler Ms Applebaum, go away.

Rocks on September 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM

“Canadian” Dave, attracted by the subject matter and aggrieved at the injustice to Polish-French pedophiles, pops up again to make friends and influence people

Janos Hunyadi on September 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM
———
Mr Genius missed the part where I want Polanski in jail.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 7:23 PM

Broken clocks are right twice a day

Hey why do you need big gov to wipe your arse?

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 7:27 PM

It’s about time……Another Pedophile like Michael Jackson

BigMike252 on September 27, 2009 at 7:30 PM

As usual the MSM gets a ‘news’ story. This will be a great aversion to the real issues of the day.

sonnyspats1 on September 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM

sonnyspats1 on September 27, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Only to people who cannot handle more than one thing at a time

Sheesh

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Long overdue. Thank you, Switzerland.

RightOFLeft on September 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM

They plan to send Polanski back to Los Angeles as soon as the US completes its extradition request (via HA commenter Mr. Joe):

It’s about time…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Can we bring Ted Kennedy back for trial for Mary Jo?

Punditpawn on September 27, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Nope. We don’t have an extradition arrangement with HELL.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 8:02 PM

SWEET!!

Thank you, Switzerland!!

Long, long overdue…

Khun Joe on September 27, 2009 at 8:05 PM

HMMMMMMM…..I QUESTION THE TIMING OF THIS POLANSKI THING. NOW HOLLYWOOD COMES OUT WITH THIS…http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1174732/

A 16 YEAR OLD WITH A MAN TWICE HER AGE….. FAMILY FARE, HOLLYWOOD STYLE. APPARENTLY, “EVERYONE” LOVES IT! PERVERTS, IF YOU ASK ME. I REALLY DO QUESTION THE TIMING.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Castration and a “dicktonomy” then let him go.

wepeople on September 27, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Actually, the woman in question has been making the same argument as she also seeks to have the case dismissed:

“the district attorney’s office has been accused of wrongdoing, it has recited the lurid details of the case to distract attention from the wrongful conduct of the district attorney’s office as well as the judge who was then assigned to the case.” Samantha Geimer – 1/12/2009

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-01-12-polanksi-case_N.htm

whatcat on September 27, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Well, Ms. Geimer’s understanding of the legal issues in this case are zero to none. So, her opinion or what she would like to see happen are irrelevant. It’s pretty obvious that the defense have filled her head with this nonsense.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Oh yeah…

NO BAIL and SEIZE HIS PASSPORT!!

Khun Joe on September 27, 2009 at 8:19 PM

It’s worth noting that Anne Applebaum is the wife of Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minster, who is now lobbying for Polanski’s pardon. The political and media elite all look out for each other, I guess.

year_of_the_dingo on September 27, 2009 at 8:20 PM

There’s apparently a simple way out of this.

Poland wants to intervene on behalf of Mr. Polanski.

Poland also wants to forcibly castrate pedophiles.

Anyone else see the obvious solution?

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 8:22 PM

I’m not sure why Ed thinks the President has anything to do with this or that Hollywood has any say in the matter anyway since this is a straight forward law enforcement issue rather than a political one.

I think the Vatican defends this sort of thing (child rape) more often than Hollywood ever does.

lexhamfox on September 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM

year_of_the_dingo on September 27, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Huh. I just figured she didn’t know the full story, since she didn’t reference any of the non-whitewashed version. If she keeps it up I think you have a point.

exception on September 27, 2009 at 8:33 PM

Extradite his testicles to Poland and the rest of him to the LA.

viking01 on September 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-01-12-polanksi-case_N.htm

whatcat on September 27, 2009 at 1:32 PM

The real tragedy here is the SOB should have been hunted down and made to pay for his crimes DECADES ago…DUH

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM

think the Vatican defends this sort of thing (child rape) more often than Hollywood ever does.

lexhamfox on September 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Show me where the Vatican has defended this sort of thing?

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM

And come on, what in the world does this post have to do with Obama. Does everything have to have something to do with him? This one is a stretch, the POTUS hasn’t even commented on his arrest that I’m aware of.

scalleywag on September 27, 2009 at 11:33 AM

“The Swiss Police acted stupidly.”

“Wanna beer?”

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM

think the Vatican defends this sort of thing (child rape) more often than Hollywood ever does.

lexhamfox on September 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Show me where the Vatican has defended this sort of thing?

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:34 PM
——
The Vatican just moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of turning them over to the police. It has happened many many many times. You should try reading these cool new things called newspapers.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM

The Vatican just moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of turning them over to the police. It has happened many many many times. You should try reading these cool new things called newspapers.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Again, moron, show me where the Vatican defends this sort of thing. You can not.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Dave thinks the Vatican moves American priests from parish to parish. Dave is an idiot.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM

What newspapers do you read Dave? The ones the rest of America lines their hamster cages with?

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM

The Vatican just moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of turning them over to the police. It has happened many many many times. You should try reading these cool new things called newspapers.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Again, moron, show me where the Vatican defends this sort of thing. You can not.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:39 PM\
——
Ah, so you’d be an idiot:

” BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by BBC documentary show Panorama.

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.”

etc
etc
etc

and more children are being aped by priests as we speak.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Anders on September 27, 2009 at 12:08 PM

So, we’ll put you down as a ‘yes’ on the ‘are you OK with child rape’ question.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM

I think the Vatican defends this sort of thing (child rape) more often than Hollywood ever does.

lexhamfox

WTF? Oh, I get it, the pedophile priest thing. You are an *sshole! Other Christian faiths actually have a equal or higher percentage of preying on the innocent than Catholics do. None of it is ever condoned. None of it forgiven. But let us go head long into Catholic bashing anytime there is a despicable act of child rape. And you are also to be commended for defending that values town known as Hollywood! Kudos!

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Don’t get too excited DAVE…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Dave thinks the Vatican moves American priests from parish to parish. Dave is an idiot.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM
—–
By the bullsh*t edicts as exposed by the BBC, yeah, they do.

Awww, are you Catholic? That would be annoying to know that your church enabled child rape.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM

I see, “A SECRET DOCUMENT”. It must be kept in the same vault as Barry’s birth certificate and college transcripts. You fool. Again, you have not documented anything. Just your wishful thinking.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Uh Roman….

you got some ‘splainin’ to do.

JohnGalt23 on September 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Dave Rywall

The BBC has also reported that Israelis eat Palestinian babies! What a great source for your continued display of ignorance! But do carry on, chap!

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I see, “A SECRET DOCUMENT”. It must be kept in the same vault as Barry’s birth certificate and college transcripts. You fool. Again, you have not documented anything. Just your wishful thinking.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:45 PM
—-
Keep your head in the sand I couldn’t possibly give less of a sh*t.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:46 PM

And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

If it wasn’t so sick, that quote would be funny. My apologies Dave, you are not an idiot, you are a MEGA IDIOT.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:47 PM

bloggless..watch out DAVE doesn’t care…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:48 PM

DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER SECRET DOCUMENTS DAVE? SECRET DOCUMENTS HOLD THE KEY, DAVE, THEY HOLD THE KEY.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Keep your head in the sand I couldn’t possibly give less of a sh*t.

That’s good, Dave. I don’t want your fecal matter. BUT LET’S KEEP THAT A SECRET, OK?

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:49 PM

bloggless..watch out DAVE doesn’t care…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:48 PM

SHHHH….IT’S A SECRET.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:50 PM

lol !

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:50 PM

THEY can’t handle tag-team…HAHAHA !

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:53 PM

RING…RING…RING….
VATICAN: HELLO, SECRET DOCUMENT DEPARTMENT, MAY I HELP YOU?
BBC: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A COPY OF A SECRET DOCUMENT. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT I NEED TO DO?
VATICAN: PLEASE SEND A STAMPED, SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPE TO SECRET DOCUMENT, VATICAN, ITALY. INCLUDE THE SECRET DOCUMENT YOU WANT. EXPECT YOUR DOCUMENT IN 6-8 WEEKS.
BBC: THANK YOU.
VATICAN: HAVE A NICE DAY.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:53 PM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26660340_ITM

Pedophiles are in every church, congregation and segment of the populace. No more, no less in the Catholic church. I’m sick to my soul of this nonsense. I hate the crime that any of these pigs have committed, but stop smearing the entire Catholic faith b/c a very small percentage of horrible men have committed these awful crimes. We are rooting out the bad ones. The Catholic church is the ONLY majorly centralized church in the world. It is very easy to say this is a systemic issue, when it truly isn’t. The other faiths have this problem, we just don’t know about it b/c they are not the behometh that the Catholic church is. It is disgusting no matter who commits this offense. And it must be dealt w/harshly.

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM

GOOGLE, DAVE, GOOGLE.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Dave apparently thinks that the Catholic Church somehow justifies Roman Polanski and his liberal loser protectors.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM

Agreed Jam, but DAVE thinks it’s every priest with nice eyebrows…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Polanski is no angel and “she sure looked 18″ isn’t a defense — but he made amends with the victim. When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339 on September 27, 2009 at 9:00 PM

bloggless
jerrytbg

I came in late to this and haven’t even commented on Polanski! I don’t give a sh*t how old that turd is (as if that mitigates it!), I want him to face justice! That fact that Hollywood and France want him to be pardoned says more about their backward values than it does anything else. He may be sorry for what he did, but he still hasn’t faced his accuser or the law. He needs to.

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 9:01 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on September 27, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Your post, and your position on this, won’t make you unpopular with me.
You have a unique perspective on this; it informs your position, and can’t be challenged.

But, I think the larger issue is; we need to insure that no one is above the law.

Finally, unless he appeals his sentence in the California court system, the victim won’t be involved. So, it’s up to Mr. Polanski whether she goes through it again.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Polanski is no angel and “she sure looked 18″ isn’t a defense — but he made amends with the victim. When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339

One has absolutely nothing to do w/the other.

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

and more children are being aped by priests as we speak.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Got proof, Dave?

And, since this thread is dealing with Roman Polanski, how is the Church involved?

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

The Vatican just moves pedophile priests to another parish instead of turning them over to the police. It has happened many many many times. You should try reading these cool new things called newspapers.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Your proof that the Vatican was complicit in the continual bad decisions of a group of US Bishops?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:04 PM

When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339

“California” didn’t know Manson, et al, were going to murder the people that they found at the Melcher house. They were not complicit in the crimes of the Family.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Mark30339 on September 27, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Are you really making that analogy? Or did I just misread it.

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Once a pervert, always a pervert. The man’s a monster and should be punished.
I don’t care if it was billions of years ago. We need to prosecute these child abusers and make them wish they weren’t alive! This kind of unthinkable crime has been going on too long and given too many excuses.

Hobbes on September 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Agreed !

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM

When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339 on September 27, 2009 at 9:00 PM

That wasn’t California’s fault. And, if revenge is any consolation, California refused “compassionate release” of Tate’s murderer; she died in prison.

With respect to Polanski, the fact that a 13 year old “looks 18″ is not a defense. Polanski knew the girl’s age, had managed to become a family friend, and the girl’s mother (erroneously) assumed that Polanski was trustworthy.

Polanski never did the time, and now he should be prosecuted for unlawful flight as well. The guy is going to die in prison, just as his wife’s murderer did.

It’s fitting.

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Polanski is no angel and “she sure looked 18″ isn’t a defense — but he made amends with the victim. When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339

Made amends? He paid her off. Is that how the american justice system works officially now? Enough cash and you walk from anything?

Rocks on September 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM

Your proof that the Vatican was complicit in the continual bad decisions of a group of US Bishops?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:04 PM

…many of whom relied upon members of the APA — you know, the guys for which homosexuality went from being a disease to being normal, and who thought that pedophilia was treatable?

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Hey Rywall why do you need big govt. to be your daddy? Your real one failed right?

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM

unclesmrgol on September 27, 2009 at 9:12 PM

We’re waiting for proof from Dave. Time enough to get the tires rotated, and enjoy a tasty adult beverage.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Children who were sexually abused often make excuses for their abusers even as adults. Intellectually, they know they aren’t at fault. Emotionally, many still blame themselves. It makes you want to cry.

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 9:14 PM

That’s not what I gleaned from annoyinglittetwerps’ post.
Rather, I took her meaning that she wanted to spare the victim the indignity of re-living the events.

Your point is also valid, and it is sad that that takes place.

So, (in this rare case) all of us are right, because we’re not ‘arguing a point’ as much as sharing different perspectives of the same event.

(That’s about as soft’n’squishy as I get.)

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Polanski is no angel and “she sure looked 18″ isn’t a defense — but he made amends with the victim. When California makes amends to him for letting Charles Manson and his groupies loose on his wife and nearly born child, maybe I can see making him “answer” for his flight.

Mark30339 on September 27, 2009 at 9:00 PM

The official California position was loudly announced when Susan Atkins died in prison with brain cancer…

And I most CERTAINLY AGREE with the denial of clemency… Susan (and all her ilk) deserved an expedited date with the gas chamber in 1970…

Khun Joe on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM


Made amends? He paid her off. Is that how the american justice system works officially now? Enough cash and you walk from anything?

Rocks on September 27, 2009 at 9:11 PM

I seem to remember something to that effect but couldn’t.. remember so didn’t comment…that is true isn’t it…

it would be great if you could provide a link …so as to stump out the Reciprocity Defense

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM

JAM on September 27, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Dave apparently thinks that the Catholic Church somehow justifies Roman Polanski and his liberal loser protectors.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 8:55 PM

No, genius.

Polanski should be in jail.

Someone else brought up Catholic priests. Not me.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Shame on Anne Applebaum!!!

Blake on September 27, 2009 at 9:22 PM

wow …where’d that split come from…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Ah comeon’ DAVE…you didn’t run with it????

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Ahh, by the mockery of commenters on this Catholic pedophile sidetrack, it would appear that a disturbing number of Hotair clowns believe no Catholic priests ever molested children.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Never fear. Hollywood will hold a combination Polanski/Mumia rally.

mizflame98 on September 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Hey DAVE, you know a priest wih nice eyebrows?

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:27 PM

For the record DAVE,
You would be surprized…But they’re NOT all bad…
The way you act…the good priests are in the minority…
You should be ashamed of yourself for going off on this tangent…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Someone else brought up Catholic priests. Not me.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM

This (finally) is an accurate statement. Someone else brought it up. But you jumped into the conversation with unfounded statements that you presented as if they were facts.

You ignored repeated requests for proofs.

You substituted snide comments for facts.

Tell me again why not many here respect you?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Yes there are too many scummy priests. There are too many scummy people in many occupations. Read your papers as other denominations as well as schools have plenty of such monsters.

While we know a few are bad most are in fact good. One thing for sure is Polanski is scum.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:35 PM

Tell me again why not many here respect you?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Davey is Mr. Ancedotal

Hey Davey why do you need Big Govt. to pay your bills? Are you not a man?

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Also DAVE… the joke about Priests with nice eyebrows…
It came from a Priest…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Susan (and all her ilk) deserved an expedited date with the gas chamber in 1970…

Khun Joe on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM

The Liberal Warren Supreme Court struck down the death penalty allowing the perpertrators of Polanski’s wife to avoid their rightful ending.

thomasaur on September 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM

For the record DAVE,
You would be surprized…But they’re NOT all bad…
The way you act…the good priests are in the minority…
You should be ashamed of yourself for going off on this tangent…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:31 PM
——–
I never said they were all bad, so uh, thanks for your pointless comment.

I didn’t start this tangent, so uh, thanks for blaming me.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Tell me again why not many here respect you?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM

Davey is Mr. Ancedotal

Hey Davey why do you need Big Govt. to pay your bills? Are you not a man?

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:36 PM
—–
Well you’re so keen I can’t resist: so…wtf are you talking about?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM

Davey you are an angry little manboy that is obvious. Father issues my guess.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Bring him back to USA and put him jail for six months or a year……………….. It is hard to believe that it has been forty years since his wife’s notorious murder. In 1969, I went off to college.

SC.Charlie on September 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM

…wtf are you talking about?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:40 PM

I have asked you many times. Why do you need big brother ? Cannot you be a real man and take care of yourself. So wtf….I have asked you many times.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM

n 1969, I went off to college.

SC.Charlie on September 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM

You’re old

/

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:42 PM

Someone else brought up Catholic priests. Not me.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:21 PM

This (finally) is an accurate statement. Someone else brought it up. But you jumped into the conversation with unfounded statements that you presented as if they were facts.

You ignored repeated requests for proofs.

You substituted snide comments for facts.

Tell me again why not many here respect you?

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM
——–
So.

1 Are there or are there not convictions of Roman Catholic priests for sexual assault.

2 Have there or have there not been massive settlements of lawsuits against the church filed by victims of sexual assault at the hands of priests. If these accusations are unfounded, then why pay up and financially cripple a parish.

It’s your sinking ship. I’m just kicking more holes in it. So sorry I have the truth on my side and you only have desperate IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE TRUE whining.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Love how someone states they did not start the tangent yet they love to fuel it. Child. Angry Boy to be specific.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM

…wtf are you talking about?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:40 PM

I have asked you many times. Why do you need big brother ? Cannot you be a real man and take care of yourself. So wtf….I have asked you many times.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
—–
Are you under the silly impression that your country isn’t already riddled with government programs you take advantage of every single day of your life?

Now exactly which government programs do you wish to eliminate, since there are, in your mind, too many?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM

DUH…you ran with it…don’t you dare deny it…
I went to Catholic grammar school…and in later life knew some very good men who just so happen to Priests…so when I see people paint some of my friends so broadly …it pisses me off…
I may not agree with them all the time but I will defend them…so stuff it…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM

You were asked for proof of your statement that “the Vatican” moved pedophile priests.

When the best you can do is:

It’s your sinking ship. I’m just kicking more holes in it. So sorry I have the truth on my side and you only have desperate IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE TRUE whining.

It’s clear you have no proof to back your claim; and that you lack the fortitude to admit you shouldn’t have made the claim without proof.

Now, to kick it up a notch.

Find me an example of me ‘whining’ on this blog, on any thread, at any time.

Fraud.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Love how someone states they did not start the tangent yet they love to fuel it. Child. Angry Boy to be specific.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM
—–
I made one comment.
The rest are answers to questions.
But you’re getting upset at the sidetrack, so fine, before you cry any more, I won’t make any more comments about Roman Catholic priest child rapists who avoid justice because of countless illegal cover ups around the planet.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:38 PM

DUH…you ran with it…don’t you dare deny it…
I went to Catholic grammar school…and in later life knew some very good men who just so happen to Priests…so when I see people paint some of my friends so broadly …it pisses me off…
I may not agree with them all the time but I will defend them…so stuff it…

jerrytbg on September 27, 2009 at 9:47 PM

I am not allowed to comment on this. Someone will get upset.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM

You were asked for proof of your statement that “the Vatican” moved pedophile priests.

When the best you can do is:

It’s your sinking ship. I’m just kicking more holes in it. So sorry I have the truth on my side and you only have desperate IT CAN’T POSSIBLY BE TRUE whining.

It’s clear you have no proof to back your claim; and that you lack the fortitude to admit you shouldn’t have made the claim without proof.

Now, to kick it up a notch.

Find me an example of me ‘whining’ on this blog, on any thread, at any time.

Fraud.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:48 PM
———
I am not allowed to comment on this. Someone will get upset.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Now exactly which government programs do you wish to eliminate, since there are, in your mind, too many?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Still avoiding the question eh there Davey. Grow up and do not be so angry. Don’t worry the Canadian government will make sure you one percenters are taken care of even when the money runs out.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Now exactly which government programs do you wish to eliminate, since there are, in your mind, too many?

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Still avoiding the question eh there Davey. Grow up and do not be so angry. Don’t worry the Canadian government will make sure you one percenters are taken care of even when the money runs out.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:50 PM
—-
Sorry. The answer to your question is no. Hope this helps. Thanks.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Hollywood powers that be have another movie coming out. It is about a 16 year old girl who has a “romance with a man almost twice her age”. I say it is about a pedophile. That homely Maggie Gyllanhall’s husband stars in it. It is called “An Education”. Delightful family fare.

bloggless on September 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM

Davey please share . Why so much anger so often? There is no way you are married that is for sure . I wonder if you have some mental or physical impairments. The mental impairment is quite evident. Has life been mean to you ?

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:52 PM

—-

Sorry. The answer to your question is no. Hope this helps. Thanks.

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:51 PM

Dave you love having government as your Daddy that is quite evident. Why do you not choose to be a man? Father issues? Seriously you have issues.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Dave Rywall on September 27, 2009 at 9:49 PM

Still changing the rules as you go.
When you accuse CW of ‘crying’ and me of ‘whining’ – you prove the widely held belief that trolls project their own shortcomings onto others.

Answer the questions your asked, with citations, and logic.

We will have a meal while we wait.

massrighty on September 27, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Davey why can you not make it without government?

Pssst that is not a yes no question(Fu+cking laughable you are) Must be that great Canadian education.

CWforFreedom on September 27, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6