Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

posted at 9:30 am on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How low will Hollywood go in defending Roman Polanski? Former Oscar hostess Whoopi Goldberg tries to parse the meaning of rape between rape and something called “rape-rape” — which, if you read the testimony of Polanski’s victim, Polanski literally did by raping her and then sodomizing her. Goldberg tries to argue that Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape, not actual rape, which is true, and that he served a sentence — which is absolutely false:

Tommy Christopher can hardly believe this argument:

What I find much more disturbing is that, in that clip and another one that’s posted at Jezebel, the ladies of The View engage in some terrifying “debate” about what happened to then-13-year-old Samantha Geimer. Whoopi floats the notion that rape “wasn’t the allegation,” and that the victim “was aware,” and Melissa Gilbert thinks it makes a difference that “Mom was in the building.”

What the EFF? I hate to even point out the sickeningly obvious here. First of all, “rape-rape” was the allegation. Samantha Geimer testified that she told Polanski “No!” While Polanski denies this, he loses a couple of credibility points by drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. I’d say she gets the benefit of the doubt here.

Notwithstanding that, though, is that the standard of consent now, “She was aware?” Keep an eye on your drinks, ladies, because in Whoopi’s world, the right dose of rohypnol will leave you just conscious enough to have deserved it.

Although Polanski got a deal in which the counts of actual rape and sodomy got dropped, the victim’s testimony makes clear that Polanski did both, and it wasn’t consensual at all. He drugged his victim to make her more compliant, and then forced himself on her twice despite her protestations. Whoopi wants to focus on the age of the victim and the reduced charge for the plea agreement to make it into a Lolita situation, perhaps where the girl and her mother stalked Polanski, rather than a violent rape and sodomy.

I’m curious how other Hollywood feminists see this. Debra Winger defended Polanski yesterday and demanded that the US drop the charges, after many years of feminist complaints from Winger about the Hollywood system. She doesn’t appear to apply her standards and values to a male director who victimized a child trying to break into the business, but Winger will gas on for hours about how older women get mistreated by Hollywood. This seems to be a big credibility test for Hollywood, one which they are flunking — badly.

Not everyone has flunked it, however. Washington Post’s reliable liberal voice Eugene Robinson contradicts Anne Applebaum (who absurdly claimed not to know that her husband was pushing for Polanski’s release and the withdrawal of the arrest warrant) and wonders what the hell is wrong with Polanski’s defenders:

Polanski has dual French-Polish citizenship, and officials in Paris and Warsaw are outraged. Which makes me outraged. What’s their beef? That Polanski is 76? That he makes great movies? That he only fled to escape what might well have been an unjust sentence? Sorry, mes amis, but none of this matters. If you decide to become a fugitive, you accept the risk that someday you might get caught.

Much has been made of the fact that Polanski’s victim, now 45, has said she no longer feels any anger toward him and does not want to see him jailed. But it’s irrelevant what the victim thinks and feels as a grown woman. What’s important is what she thought and felt at age 13, when the crime was committed. Those who argue that there’s something unjust about Polanski’s arrest are essentially accepting his argument that it’s possible for a 13-year-old girl, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, to “consent” to sex with a man in his 40s. Or maybe his defenders are saying that drugging and raping a child is simply not such a big deal.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a huge deal. Even in France, it should be a big deal. This isn’t about a genius who is being hounded for flouting society’s hidebound conventions. It’s about a rich and powerful man who used his fame and position to assault — in every sense, to violate — an innocent child.

And it’s about a man who ran away rather than face the consequences of his actions. Before any sentence could be imposed, he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

Update: Jazz Shaw notes that both Goldberg and Winger are active in a certain kind of charity work:

I did some quick checking at “Look to the Stars” which promotes charitable work by celebrities, and Debra Winger is listed as one of their most prominent advocates for women’s issues charities. And what is the fourth most prominently championed organization there? The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And who else is listed as a key supporter on the same page? Why, it’s none other than Whoopi Goldberg, whose profile includes the following:

The comedienne has channeled her celebrity into bringing attention to countless causes including AIDS, children’s issues, healthcare and substance abuse.

So, Ms. Winger and Ms. Goldberg are both prominent activists in the protection of females and children. Unless, of course, the female child in question crosses paths with the great Roman Polanski, in which case, well… you know… we understand they’re all kind of whores at that age, right?

Apparently that’s the message coming from Hollywood feminists and defenders of children like Goldberg and Winger.

Update: As for the argument that the judge was going to unfairly renege on Polanski’s plea bargain, Michael Stickings has the most sensible answer for that:

If the case was politically motivated or mishandled … let the evidence be presented in a court of law, not in the faux court of the pro-celebrity press.

Exactly.

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

How difficult is this to understand? This dirtball committed a particularly heinous crime, plead to it, and then, like the coward he is, fled the country.

Under our system, he is no different than you, or me, or any other person. He needs to be extradited and then do his time. If he would have done that in the first place, we would not be talking about the idiots on “The View”.

kam582 on September 29, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Ed, watching The View was too much for AP, wasn’t it? So, now the two of you take turns.

Now, that’s how you earn your pay…

CliffHanger on September 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM

If a 19 year old and his 16 year old girlfriend busted on lover’s lane…yeah we can debate rape – rape.

A grown man drugs a 13 year old and rapes her every which way, we should be debating life in prison – prison.

Laura in Maryland on September 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

So what? We have laws to help us suppress our natural urges to do evil. I have a natural urge to own nice things, but the law helps me suppress the urge to steal. I have a natural urge to key that guy’s car with the Obama bumper stricker, but the law helps me suppress that natural urge. I have a natural urge to punch people who annoy me in the face.

Natural urges are not sacrosanct. Far from it in many cases.

PackerBronco on September 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Inmate: Roman Pedolanski

Inmate #: 983870

Complaint: Soreness due to repeated forcible anal sodomy.

Recommended treatment: Champaigne and Qualudes Two Tylenol.

Akzed on September 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Does the N.O.W. gang exist any more? The seem VERY quiet when they should be out front defending a 13 year old FUTURE woman.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 9:46 AM

They’re saving their ammo for November.

When ‘Cuda’s book comes out.

1921 C DRUM on September 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Blacksmith8:

Then one sunny day his assistant and travel agent forget about “outstanding warrants” and he flies to Switzerland. He steps off the plane and two polite uniforms arrest, cuff, take him away.

This is not the first time Polanski went to Switzerland. He owns a damn house there:

“Polanski has a house in Switzerland and spent much of the summer there”

guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody

The question is: why arrest him now?

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM

All part of the Hollywood/celebrity mindset of “we are privileged, we do not have to follow the same rules or laws, we are better therefore we must be treated differently”.

Any one think it is curious that he was finally detained on liberal Obama`s watch? So many years, so many Presidents and they nab him now?

albill on September 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:49 AM

well they certainly get more technical, don’t they….

Polanski is apparently guilty on every angle of the legal definition.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Think about it people, we just had a media circus for several days straight when a pedophile died. Our congress had a moment of silence and our president made a comment. Liberals are disgusting people with no morals and no common decency. There is no crime disgusting enough to get ostracized in Hollywood. I don’t care how old he is, he raped a child. There is no way to minimize or spin the fact. He deserves to serve out the rest of his life in prison.

TXMomof3 on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Let’s not forget the swooning, royal funeral for a Senator who left a young woman in his car to drown and did everything humanly possible to legalize the killing of babies. And our president’s adoring words at the service.

As to Polanski, he deserves the death penalty as far as I’m concerned. But, first, I’d want him to enjoy a little prison “love” from his new husband, Big Leroy.

TXUS on September 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM

This actually helps me a bit… you see, I’m all set to get a new phone. My 2yr old Samsung is a bit long in the tooth, and I was considering a “My Touch” by T-Mobile. It’s being advertised on this site by three actors – including Whoopie. After this abominable attempt to smooth over a violent rape I’ll be scratching T-Mobile off the list. It’s kind of a shame… I really liked the customizable shells. But there is no way I could support Ms. Goldberg now… in anything she does.

Mr Michael on September 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM

The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Vengeance is necessary in egalitarian society. Otherwise we’d allow perps to “prove” they were more “useful” than the victim.

And I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere–the next time the Los Angeles DA goes to Mexico City to demand a killer or rapist be handed over, they’ll know he’s not kidding. He went after Roman Polanski.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM

albill on September 29, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Rham must want something from SAG.

Akzed on September 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM

This is why we have age of consent laws. Or hold minors to different standards in criminal matters than adults. Or don’t allow 12 year old to vote.

The standard for being competent to run your own life should be quite a bit lower than for running everyone else’s (by voting directly for laws in referenda, and indirectly by choosing legislators to make those laws).

The Monster on September 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Actually the fact that he got the charges reduced to statutory rape was a big gimme to an “artist” What this man did was rape rape. It included sodomy. He should be flogged within an inch of his life, allowed to recover and then flogged again. Whoopi Goldberg is a sick pervert.

aloysiusmiller on September 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Isn’t Goldberg the same loser that defended Michael Vick’s dogfighting and gambling by saying:

“He’s from the South, from the Deep South … This is part of his cultural upbringing. For a lot of people, dogs are sport. Instead of just saying Vick is a beast and he’s a monster, this is a kid who comes from a culture where this is not questioned.”

Maybe that’s her defense of Polanski, too. “Poles come from a society of child rapers, so we should just excuse it.”

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I am just as disturbed about what Thacker wrote above as I am about what Polanski did to that girl.

Thacker thinks it is OK to have sex with a 13 year old tart? Really?

Does Thacker vacation over in the asian countries that allow pedophiles to have sex with children?

karenhasfreedom on September 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Whoopie’s moral compass is totally off. When asked if she wanted her 14 year old daughter to have sex with an older man she answered, “not necessarily.” Meaning she might consider it in some cases?

Wow, liberalism at it’s most ignorant, on full display.

FireBlogger on September 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM

And our president’s adoring words at the service. TXUS on September 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Which was deliciously ironic since Obooba’s buddy Bill Ayres dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan.

Akzed on September 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Didn’t a lot of (non-molesting) Catholic Bishops get in lots of trouble for displaying just this kind of indifference to the molestation of minors? They didn’t molest themselves, but they minimized the importance of evil acts done by others, for public relations purposes, and their personal convenience.

RBMN on September 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I believe this is due to the difference between how the public perceives sexual attacks on girls v. boys by older men. It goes something like this: Girls like sex with men so it’s at least possible that there was “consent” to the sexual predation, and the prettier the girl and more famous the man, the more likely she consented. Boys don’t like sex with men, so it had to be rape (and it might turn the boys GAY, the horror!!).

So, so many problems with this perception…

alwaysfiredup on September 29, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Did Pedolanski play the village rapist in Borat? Kasakstan is not that far from Polanskiville.

Akzed on September 29, 2009 at 10:59 AM

It’s our fault! We’re a different kind of society. We don’t see 13 year old children like the world and the Europeans do…

Well, in this instance, how ’bout a big FTW?

Loopy Whoopi is a POS.

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

Gang-of-One on September 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law. – Thack

And Just as you’re walking through the door, Chris Hanson comes out and says “Whattaya doin’ here? Have a seat right there …” Hahaha love that guy!

Tony737 on September 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM

This is not the first time Polanski went to Switzerland. He owns a damn house there:

“Polanski has a house in Switzerland and spent much of the summer there”

guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/27/roman-polanski-arrest-switzerland-custody

The question is: why arrest him now?

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Internet advertising of his personal acceptance of an award at a festival reached the Los Angeles DA in time to go through the State Dept with a formal extradition request that specified the date and time and place within Switzerland that a Swiss cop could nab Polanski. Apparently the Swiss won’t stake out a house for months but they will raid a movie festival if the papers are in order.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 11:01 AM

This has probably already been suggested:

Substitute Roman Polanski with Newt Gingrich, then resume the debate. Ladies?

perroviejo on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

FireBlogger on September 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Whoopi’s daughter was pregnant at 14, and kept the baby.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Uh, yeah. That’s why we have laws. If you’re too much of a reprobate to understand why it’s wrong to drug and have sex with a child, then the law will do it for you.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

And I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere–the next time the Los Angeles DA goes to Mexico City to demand a killer or rapist be handed over, they’ll know he’s not kidding. He went after Roman Polanski.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Now, you’re just showing off your ignorance. The DA did not go to europe and demand Polanski be returned because it would have been futile and a waste of money. Same with Mexico. However, the DA has fought tooth and nail to get criminals back from Mexico. It’s only a problem when the death penalty is on the table. So, please, stfu.

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

While what he did was awful (I can’t imagine wanting to sodomize a 13 year old girl), the victim has dropped the charges.

The victim doesn’t want to have to go through this AGAIN. She accepted a settlement (possibly the sentence or ‘punishment’ that he got). The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.

There are enough crimes going on today and enough violent criminals in AMERICA that are let out of jail early because of a lack of funds. Let’s let this guy remain in exile, banned from the US, and move on with our lives.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

35 days in jail is not a deterrent to pedophiles who have urges to drug and sodomize children.

Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Who are you saying has urges to have sex with 13 year old girls? Polanski, other pedophiles, and who else? And why do you claim the urges of pedophiles are “natural?”

Loxodonta on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Whoopi should try to think-think.

ej_pez on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

alwaysfiredup on September 29, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Sorry, that was in response to the idea that the nation had a far more unified response to the church sex scandals than to Mr. Polanski. I see that is not exactly RBMN’s argument.

alwaysfiredup on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

The most telling statement by Whoopi: “Would I want someone having sex with my 14 year old, probably no.”
 
First, the victim was 13, not 14. Second, the victim was drugged by the perp. Given that they are discussing the drugged rape of a 13 year old girl, how can Whoopi say a thing like this? She is defending a monster and this, in my book, makes her a monster as well! Monster Goldberg “probably” would object to this with her own daughter. She is very scary.
 
Kudos to the others for defending the victim and standing up to the monster.

ClanDerson on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Feminists use sexism (see:Palin)and rape as a weapon with which to acquire power. They no more care about it than race-hustlers care about racism.

29Victor on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

sarainitaly:

Polanski is apparently guilty on every angle of the legal definition.

Except the homosexual part.
______________________________________________

Here’s the conspiracy theory about the “why now” question. Sorry if this has already been brought up, but an internal AP memo accidentally got published online that suggests a link with the UBS tension between the Swiss and the US:

“Sheila theorizes that’s because they’re under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the US a bone”:

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/09/28/ap-polanski-memo-published-as-news-story-still-live/

Here’s more on the story:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54085,news,roman-polanski-and-the-ubs-link

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Whoopi, never forget, is one of those millions of brainiacs who voted for Barry and his merry band of men, then got all pee’d off when the inevitable talk of tax rises surfaced.

Not that her decidedly uninformed analysis has ever stopped her from (very loudly) voicing every other opinion that she’s ever stumbled upon, either.

Track-A-'Crat on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Liberal thinking on Polanski summarized:

“It’s rape, until someone we admire/have lunch with/gave an Academy Award to commits it.”

No wonder I’m not a Liberal anymore!

newton on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

he absconded like a weasel to live a princely life in France.

Couldn’t have said it better. And Ed is right — Hollywood is filled with either morons or moral midgets.

Richard Romano on September 29, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Disclaimer, I was not referring to Polanski’s victim as a tart, but the generic description Thacker was giving in his hypothetical post about why it is OK for an adult male to allow himself to be “seduced” by a “mature” “fully developed” 13 year old child who shops. Geesh.

karenhasfreedom on September 29, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Don’t forget..

Whoopi also defended Micheal Vick right out of the gate..

The Whoopi defense. Defending the undefendable.

DaveC on September 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

ah, yes, correct.

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

This is really pissing me off! Why the f*** is Hollywood and A-Holes in Europe defending this Child Rapist who drugged, sodomized and took pictures of a nude 13 year old girl (CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!!!)? This is the many reasons why I don’t go and see their damn movies in the Theater…

ZoneDaiatlas on September 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Hypotheticals about age of consent can be discussed endlessly. The bottom line here is Polanski committed a crime, plead guilty, and jumped bail. Whether he gets a slap on the wrist or jail time is for courts to decide. I watched the video and understand Whoopie’s concern about getting the facts straight. On that point I can agree. I am upset by people who when the facts are straight, attempt to use celebrity or good deeds to circumvent the law. The Mumia case in Philadelphia comes to mind.

BFBurke on September 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

But it’s not really her duty. This is a talk show. People talk without knowing the facts all the time in much worse venues than a talk show. It’s called the news.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Yes, it is her duty. Stop making excuses for bad behavior. It’s ridiculous. And at the same time you are wagging you finger at Ed. Enough!

Blake on September 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Track-A-’Crat on September 29, 2009 at 11:03 AM

The thing that pisses me off about her lately is she acts like the authority. It is one thing to discuss, and discover, and opine – but you CAN’T act like the authority, and that you know the facts – when you clearly don’t! Instead of her shutting UP and listening to the facts, she kept trying to convince people it was ok, and wasn’t rape.

She does that a LOT lately and it is making me mad. So does Joy. I think the discussion idea of the show is great, but this whole *I am the authority* crap is BS.

I wish Ann C, and Dee Dee Myers, some of the FOX gals, and like Ann Currey or something would do a show like Hot Topics. Some smart women…

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

This is the problem we have today. Yes, a thirteen year old can make a decision. But that is completely different than having the maturity to make the correct desicion. Trust me, I was once a thirteen year old GIRL, and I for sure did not always make the right choices.

thevastlane on September 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I thought it was mentioned that he’s MARRIED. Some woman married a guy that raped a 13 year old??

Women, your gender is SICK!

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Yeah, cuz after all the man in this story was just a victim of his own manhood, right? Not SICK at all…

thevastlane on September 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Please have the defenders of this guy say out loud:

Polanski drugged and anally raped an 8th grader OR

The girl was only 2 years old than Malia Obama

Still want to defend Polanski? How about: They should let OJ out because he won the Heisman Trophy and once gained 2,000 yards in a season. Leave OJ alone

originalpechanga on September 29, 2009 at 11:17 AM

The left forfeited its credibility on rape or anything else concerning consensual/nonconsensual sex years age. Their take is always controlled by the political leanings of the victim or the perp. When Clarence Thomas was accused of telling a dirty joke, he was painted as the worst sex fiend since the Green River killer. When Bill Clinton was credibly accused of everything up to and including rape, he was given a free pass and re-election. The Duke University lacrosse players were falsely accused of gang rape and, being the wrong color, were pilloried by the media and leftist academics, but Roman Polanski is painted as a victim. The American left is a joke, and a horribly off-color one at that.

wright on September 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Actually, thirteen year old children can’t make a binding decision to buy things. They have the right to “disaffirm” any contract except for “necessities”.

Beagle on September 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Jail bait.

Obama’s mentor/father, Frank Marshall davis also wrote about his deeds with a 13 year old. Must be a liberal view point

seven on September 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Well put, that’s exactly the problem. And it’s not just Whoopi that’s been afflicted by this disease…

Track-A-'Crat on September 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Blake, what’s with the anger? Are you aware until a Mexican Supreme Court case last year, they refused to extradite Mexican nationals facing death OR life w/o parole? Cooley’s on the ball action against a popular perp in Europe only strengthens his play in his continual shove to get guys out of Mexico.

Chris_Balsz on September 29, 2009 at 11:21 AM

but to suggest that a sexy 13 year old (there are some WELL developed 13 year olds) asking for sex would be the worst crime possible completely misunderstands human nature.

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

lolz… good piece of logic, there.

Kind of like me. When someone does something that really makes me angry, I like to kick the sh*t out of them. Maybe even kill them if they make me angry enough. It’s just in men’s nature to want to do that. Thanks for excusing people for that. And the people that make me angry, they are responsible for my actions, and just get what’s coming to them.

Great tape of that Chicago street fight yesterday, eh? Someone was angry and they just did the natural thing.

jaime on September 29, 2009 at 11:25 AM

The list of actors whose movies I refuse to see if getting ever longer…

redfoxbluestate on September 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

CapedConservative on September 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM

What you said!

Gang-of-One on September 29, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Yet in a later segment in which they discussed the McKenzie Phillips story, she reminded everyone that McKenzie was victimized by her father and we should all show some sensitivity for what she’s been through. I like Whoopi, but she was being hugely intellectually dishonest by attempting to rationalize Polanski’s crime with lame assertions like, “Well, the girl’s mother was there.” WTF?

This whole thing is a case of Hollywood circling the wagons around one of their own, nothing more. What’s good about it is that it exposes their bald-faced hypocrisy for all the world to see.

NoLeftTurn on September 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

So Whoopie… If I walked up to you and punched you in the face, would that be assault or assault-assault?

bitsy on September 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Whoopi is guilty of talking without knowing all the facts, but not really, because she admitted that she didn’t know the facts. This is blown way the hell out of proportion. I guess it’s just a good opportunity for conservatives to whine at Hollywood.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Much like a POTUS who admitted he didn’t know all the facts, yet proceeded to label the police as stupid.

Making decisions while admitting to not having all the facts definitely appears to be an accepted liberal trait.

Yoop on September 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

And is that your excuse when they are walking down the street in short skirts.

you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.

First, “break the law” is a mild way to put it…but we are human and we can “deny your natural urges” at least most mature men can…you apparently have a difficult time understanding that.
Now I am going to ask you something very serious, and I meant it.
Have you thought of going to a counselor and talking about how difficult it is to manage and control your “urges”. I think it would help you sort out some of those confusing thoughts you have regarding having sex with children, and when it is and not appropriate. You can mention that they seem to be in full control, and you are at their mercy at times. Please, I think it would be beneficial to you, just one session would reveal some interesting information…I really think you need some help.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Thirteen year old girls in this day and age are perfectly capable of making decisions about what they want and don’t want. . . look at their shopping habits.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Please stop. Thirteen year old people can make a lot of decisions and a good deal of them will be bad including those done at malls. There is a reason for childhood, I resent your suggestion that it doesn’t matter. Having more opportunities dangled in front of child’s face doesn’t make their decisions wiser.

Cindy Munford on September 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

I’ll remind you of that when some 40 year old has anal sex with your 13 year old daughter.

peski on September 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Yes this is the Hollywood meme. They can say he only “had sex with a minor” because that is what he plea bargained down to, and THAT only happened because the victims mother allowed the plea because she didnt want the media circus on her daughter:

http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

The movie director was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at the request of the girl’s mother, who wanted to protect her daughter from the publicity expected to accompany such a trial.

So they get to avoid the word rape all together and try to pass it off as she wanted it but happened to be 13.

Dash on September 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

You are all missing Whoopie’s nuance. She means that kinder, gentler type of forced rape. //sarc

Mrs. Mori on September 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Yoop:
I am not a fan of Whoopi or Obama. It would be preferable for people to gather more facts before making an opinion, but all people do this to some degree. It is probably not correct to label all liberals as doing this, but conservatives don’t. But have fun with your rants.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Guys like sex. The whole ‘to catch a predator’ thing is based on this premise. Even if an underaged girl begs you to come over and have sex with her, you are required to deny your natural urges and say no – or you break the law.
ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

The law will be the only thing that might be able to protect you, if some old pervert with “natural urges” come round my 13 year old daughter.

Or at least they’ll send someone by to mop up what remains of the great horny toad.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM

I guess when illegally importing child sex slaves doesn’t offend the left, then neither would raping one 13 year old girl, twice.

The words “morally bankrupt” seem to be a gross understatement. Depraved may be more suitable.

drocity on September 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime.

Morons and moral midgets- that just about covers everyone in Hollywood.

LASue on September 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Rape is rape and Polansky did it.

Stupid is stupid and Whoopie is it.

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Speaking of films, did Polanski ever see Pulp Fiction?

The rapist got his just desserts in that film.

Maybe he should dwell on that for a spell.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM

I am not a fan of Whoopi or Obama. It would be preferable for people to gather more facts before making an opinion, but all people do this to some degree. It is probably not correct to label all liberals as doing this, but conservatives don’t. But have fun with your rants.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Well let’s see if substance is greater then your words, nothing like a little proof.
Kennedy, womanizer, abuser, and let a woman die
Clinton, womanizer, abuser,
Polanski, rapist
Jackson, womanizer, abuser, father a child with another woman while being married
Frank, ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house
Byrd, leader of the KKK
All of these are promoted and honored…now show me the equivalent Republican leaders that have done the same and still have their “authority”.
In other words….Conservatives purge…liberals promote.
Please, I will await your facts, names of conservatives…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Whoopi’s argument is an excellent example of how the liberal mind works. They simply are not capable of accepting responsibility, or requiring that any other liberal accept responsibility, for anything. Conservatives, however, are responsible for anything and everything wrong in this world.

I’m wondering if she would call it rape, or rape-rape had it happened to her, or maybe her 13 year-old daughter.

orlandocajun on September 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

right2bright:
I dont feel like playing your game. You can speak for me if you like.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I’d entertain the idea that there may be degrees of rape much as there are degrees of murder. But based on what the girl said at the time, what Polansky did was just about as rapey is it comes (he could’ve brandished a weapon, I suppose, but the age of the victim and the addition of drugs pretty much makes up for that ommission.)

Blacklake on September 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Who was the adult in that room? Polanski knew exactly what he was doing by giving her drugs to have sex with her.

yoda on September 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM

When Polanski goes to jail he will be subject to “special” treatment by the other fine inhabitants of that institution because he abused a child.

Is it surprising that convicted felons have a greater sense of honor and justice than Hollywood does?

commenter on September 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Whoopi’s daughter was pregnant at 14, and kept the baby.
sarainitaly on September 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

That explains her strange reasoning. There had to deeper excuse for her ridiculous statement that she would not necessarily tell her daughter not to have sex with an older man. Condemning another 13 year old for having “consensual” sex meant she would have to condemn her own daughter’s actions.
Whoopi has very weak moral compass. She is certainly no role model for young people today.

FireBlogger on September 29, 2009 at 11:54 AM

The victim doesn’t want to have to go through this AGAIN. She accepted a settlement (possibly the sentence or ‘punishment’ that he got). The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Polanski split before his sentence was even handed down. But there are a number of interests involved in the process: rehabilitation, restitution, retribution and deterrence among others.

I do not believe I would be out of the mainstream to say punishing sexual predators, even in a retributive fashion, is an acceptable use of taxpayer money.

Greek Fire on September 29, 2009 at 11:55 AM

It would be preferable for people to gather more facts before making an opinion, but all people do this to some degree. It is probably not correct to label all liberals as doing this, but conservatives don’t. But have fun with your rants.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Of course people make decisions, and express opinions, all the time without having all the facts. Most of them do not preface their comments with “I don’t have all the facts, but…”

I did not say Conservative didn’t do the same thing, now did I. But, it does appear that it is a trait that liberals embrace, and seem to be confortable with, as recently well evidenced.

On another note, obviously you have never seen a real rant.

Yoop on September 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Rape is rape and Polansky did it.

Stupid is stupid and Whoopie is it.

Dave Rywall on September 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Mr Rywall

I usally disagree with just about every post you make, but I’m actually glad to hear you make such a strong statement here.

regardless of one’s belief, This is something we should all agree on, even Hollywood “idiots”

Son of Sam Kinison on September 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

right2bright:
I dont feel like playing your game. You can speak for me if you like.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM

In other words, you don’t have any names…wouldn’t it just be easier to say…”You are right, liberals do have a propensity to promote, while conservatives purge”
But you won’t, you just dodge the challenge, because the answer doesn’t fit what you want to hear.
Just give me one name of the equivalent of Barney Frank, or Clinton, or Kennedy…one conservative that has lasted for many years as a leader, after having committed these crimes…just one. That should be simple, just one.

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Video: Whoopi says Polanski didn’t commit “rape-rape”

Pretty disgusting Whoopi. Rape is “rape”.

I do agree with most of the comments here, but it is amusing how suddenly all of the Hot-Airheads have become feminists on the issue. If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

The REAL shocker here is that anybody ever had sex with Whoopie Goldberg!

Star20 on September 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Completely wrong.

We discard people like this, not defend them for decades, like “progressives” do.

Unless you can provide an example to back up what you’re saying.

I can’t think of a single sexual predator defended by conservatives.

Democrats have several of them who have served for decades in Congress, including the vile corrupt incompetent pervert Barney Frank.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Just the fact that he would have the desire for a 13 yr. old girl and then followed thru with those desires all the while by drugging her to have his way with her is enough of a reason to send him to prison for the rest of his life! PERIOD!!!

Whoopi…you are an imbicile!!!!

Winebabe on September 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Let’s not lose sight of the issue here, which is that Whoopee Goldberg is a cheap, lowbrow skank who probably grew up sniffing old men’s bicycle seats for chewing tobacco. Under no circumstances should we ever, ever expect someone like her to demonstrate anything approaching a sense of common decency. Hollywood is a sewer and turds like Goldberg are its rats.

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Fled from the prospect of another 48 days in county, mind you. Not even in a real joint. A freakin’ county lockup.

I expect he’ll skate, though. They usually do, if they’re rich enough.

mojo on September 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

The victim doesn’t want to have to go through this AGAIN. She accepted a settlement (possibly the sentence or ‘punishment’ that he got). The only thing that could possibly come from this is vengeance. That and it wastes time and money – TAXPAYER money.

ThackerAgency on September 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM

The minute Polanski fled the country, this was no longer just about the victim. It became an issue of the rule of law and the credibility of the criminal justice system.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

If a con had done it instead of Polanski I have a feeling we’d have a lot of “but rape is a crime of violence” and “she didn’t resist” comments here. Here’s to hoping you guys remain liberal on the issue.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

The trouble with liberals is that they go about the place presuming that everyone is as sick and immoral as them. Of course we wouldn’t be saying that you jerk. If I found out that Ronnie Reagan had raped a 13 year old girl I’d want his remains dug up and urinated on and I’m sure most here would feel the same way.

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Completely wrong.

We discard people like this, not defend them for decades, like “progressives” do.
NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Heh, good one. Remember Mark Foley? At least a dozen Republican congressman knew about the perv’s emails and they still kept their mouths shut, including the Speaker of the House Hastert. You only denounced him after the news broke and it was a political necessity.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Only a moron or a moral midget would read the transcripts and the actual facts of the case and conclude that Polanski deserves to avoid accountability for this crime. Unfortunately, Hollywood is filled with both.

That is a big leap of faith, assuming any of Polanski’s defenders want to even know the facts.

Gwillie on September 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

This is a woman who considers herself our moral superior. Disgusting.
.
This would be a good time to make sure your T.V is good and dead.

ronsfi on September 29, 2009 at 12:17 PM

The minute Polanski fled the country, this was no longer just about the victim. It became an issue of the rule of law and the credibility of the criminal justice system.

RadClown on September 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

That’s a very important point and it alone would fully justify the extradition and jailong of Polanski. The rule of law is a cornerstone of civilization and civilization cannot possibly hope to survive without it. You have all of these liberal assholes thinking we can just chisel away a little more of these cornerstones, then a little more, then a little more. Pretty soon civilization is covered with cracks and cannot support the weight of humanity any longer. A dark age of barbarism will ensue. It is of the utmost importance that this foundation is maintained and preserved, strengthened if necessary.

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:17 PM

The trouble with liberals is that they go about the place presuming that everyone is as sick and immoral as them

Huh? I said I agree with most of the comments here. What Polanski did is inexcusable. Try and keep up.

If I found out that Ronnie Reagan had raped a 13 year old girl I’d want his remains dug up and urinated on and I’m sure most here would feel the same way.

Sharke on September 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

If he had done it when he was a film star, and he didn’t know she was 13? You guy’s would be making excuses left and right.

crr6 on September 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

For all those who can’t wrap their heads around the fact perv Polanski plead guilty to “lesser charges” through a plea bargain:

Roman Polanski Media Archives http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html

He wasn’t sentenced to 45 days in prison as his punishment, he was sent to prison for a 90 day psychiatric observation. When the state shrinks finish with such cases they make recommendations to the court. The perv didn’t want to stick around to find out what the shrinks had recommended–a prison sentence, probation, or some other scheme–. Fearing the judge would give him the max he went on the lamb. The state has unfinished business with the degenerate.

Unfortunately, as is all too common with the rich and famous, this rapist will probably skate.

Gang-of-One on September 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM

right2bright:

Just give me one name of the equivalent of Barney Frank, or Clinton, or Kennedy

What has Barney Frank done??

By Clinton, his crime is an affair? Rudy Giuliani had an affair with Judith Nathan. As far as I kow, Rudy has not been purged. I don’t know if Rudy used a cigar with Judith, so maybe it’s different.

dave742 on September 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6