Wed Sep 30 2009 15:48:12 By: Apostate ( 5135)
A dish of crow isn't too pleasant,huh Whoopi?

Wed Sep 30 2009 16:47:42 By: shirljan ( 370)
Whew, Whoopi ! You done put your foot in it this time.I think I know what you mean by clarifying the charge BUT I don't think there is a way to "make this sound better." No matter which way you swing this......he was an adult who definetely knew better and a child who could not defend herself. There is NO good way to look at this !

Wed Sep 30 2009 16:56:49 By: Felix Lassiter ( 3313)
Ha Ha 44 year old man 13 year old girl=rape, no clarification needed Whoop's.

Wed Sep 30 2009 20:30:27 By: hatsoff2us ( 1997)
I truly love you, Whoopie, but let's get real here, statutory rape is rape - he was 44 and she was 13. Even though the victim has requested that he not be prosecuted, he should because it just shows how messed up she is. Rape is not and should not be acceptable.

Wed Sep 30 2009 22:40:16 By: Anonymous User
Whoopi get your facts straight. She was raped and sodomized and drugged by Polanski and he needs to spend the rest of his life in jail.

Thu Oct 1 2009 00:30:27 By: nicerack ( 9066)
Oh ok, I see what you mean, Whoopi.....Not! Just shut up, please.

Thu Oct 1 2009 00:40:36 By: Speedy 81 ( 288)
Maybe Whoopi was trying to differentiate a rape from an sexual assault on a minor. Guess what Whoopi it's called Statatory Rape anywhere in the USA. Whoopi I love you , but stick to COMEDY !

Thu Oct 1 2009 04:52:07 By: Anonymous User
"unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor"? I hope Whoopi does not mean that this was consensual. Whoopi, whatever made you say this, I think it's time that you retire so you can contemplate your moral boundaries.

Thu Oct 1 2009 05:26:15 By: Anonymous User
A 13 year old child telling a 44 year old man repeatedly "no" IS rape Whoopi.

Thu Oct 1 2009 12:20:47 By: takethat ( 214)
She would be beaten herself up with her locks if that was her thirteen yr. old baby crying.Then would it be rape or rape rape.

Sat Oct 3 2009 10:28:48 By: Anonymous User
She's worried about what he did is called? That's not a fact, that's the charge. The facts are each of his specific acts, what he was thinking, what the child was thinking; those are facts. Whoopi still doesn't have it straight - which is telling...

Sat Oct 3 2009 17:00:41 By: lmcorky ( 7)
I think Whoopi is right because the law was different back then. Women necessarily were not protected like today, and men were not prosecuted like they are today. If he is willing to pay and has paid, leave him alone. Sharron Tate's murder and the murder of his child, isn't that enough of punishment he would have to live with? If the woman who said she has forgiven him, isn't that enough! The more you dwell with these issues, the more it becomes a circus of vengence, anger and stirring away money to fight crime today for something that was taken care of long ago is appalling and shows socieity that todays crimes are not that important and we have money to spend. Get it together people. Lets move on. There are more important crimes against children and women going on right this minute. Polanski's sins of the past, will bare witness to the present and its a matter of time.

Sun Oct 4 2009 07:39:07 By: Anonymous User
That Goldberg would even imply that Polanski was not charged with rape is ludicrous. Now trying to justify her "not rape-rape" remarks, she claims that Polanski was ONLY charged with "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor." Perhaps if Goldberg was anywhere near as intelligent as she thinks she is, she'd be aware of the fact that California's statutory rape law is titled "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse" (Section 261.5 California Penal code.) Just what part of the word "RAPE" does this painfully ignorant woman not understand?

Mon Oct 5 2009 20:01:24 By: Anonymous User
I would like to

Mon Oct 5 2009 21:09:31 By: imperatrix ( 2)
Imcorky - I'd like to reply to you and all that think like you. First - our society has never been able to protect our childern (which a 13 yr old is one) from abuse of the worse kind -which men are mostly guilty of. What he did to this child was beyond the pale and there is no money that can repair the damage he has caused her for the rest of her life. I do not know the money deal made but I wonder if it was not her family that made the settlement in her name for whose benefit we do not know. But at 13 she was not making legal deals herself I am sure because as you assume she was out for the money and vengence and I am here to tell you she was to damaged to even think straight after a brutal rape.
Also you must understand that it does matter what the laws were then or now it is the Moral Laws of men that govern the action everyone and one does not rape a 13 yr old child that has been druged and even in that state is saying NO! The man had no moral compas then and so would not have one now. He left without being punished for his crim against the child and society, that is why he needs to be brought back here to face both our moral and legal laws. Also, all those that support him or applaud him we should look at them with a questioning eye as to their character. This country is not just Hollywood or New York. It is mostly all that that is inbetween and we do not think like Whoopi or those of her ilk.