Rick Sanchez Calls Out Whoopi Goldberg For Defending Roman Polanski

[MrObama]

Run time: 03:37 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3etNiWhcEXw   Posted on YouTube: September 30, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 30, 2009 By DU Member: MrObama Views on DU: 1523

 

[Grassy Knoll]

1. Sometimes she's full of hot air....

[suzanner]

2. So, this is anybody's business because...?

If Martha Stewart went to jail for supposedly lying (like no other CEO has done this daily/hourly), then I guess everyone who is actually caught should do the appropriate penalty. It's the big picture that's missed looking at these sparklers.

[DWilliamsamh]

5. You equate securities fraud, with rape of a 13 year old? Really?

How do you sleep at night?

[pedo]

3. you mean the same way millions of people defended michael jackson?

[DWilliamsamh]

4. Here's teh difference. Jackson wasn't convicted of ANYTHING. Polanski plead guilty to rape.

There is a slight difference.

[Grassy Knoll]

6. Polanski pled guilty to a lesser charge...

Of unlawful sex with a minor, wiki it.

[DWilliamsamh]

7. Ok...so the difference is

Jackson wasn't convicted if ANYTHING, and Polanski ran as he was waiting to be sentenced for unlawful sex with a minor...
AGAIN.....there is just a slight difference :sarcasm:

The fact of the matter is Polanski stuck his dick in every orifice of a 13 year old girl. It is matter of court record. He plead GUILTY, and then ran when it looked like his sweet-heart deal of 41 days of evaluation was going to fall through.

There is a BIG difference. One can be defended on teh basis of teh court record....one can not.

[democracy1st]

13. + 1

[robo50]

8. Depends upon which end of the penis you are on. I wonder where you get

your chutzpah, to insinuate that a 14 year old MALE rape victim NOT given the justice of our system, somehow is LESS deserving than
a 13 year old FEMALE rape victim who later forgave her attacker.

Somehow you hold one accountable and dismiss the other, because???? he's now dead? he wasn't convicted? he raped a male? which excuse for absolutely cowardly, brain dead, vapid rationalizations does your vacuum-filled brain entertain and allow you to sleep tonight?

Sometimes I wonder if all you ever learned in schools in America was how to split hairs. You seem to be a perfect example of frivolity in posting on a message board, obviously you have never ever been raped as a child... try to rationalize how ANY rape of a child is "footnoted as dismissed" because of the faults of the legal system you hug so dearly.

I have never EVER seen a less logical less compassionate post as yours on the DU... please explain your utter disregard of human pain.

Thanks in advance.... and don't report ME for your arrogance, I have already reported YOU for your lack of human compassion for a teen aged child victim of rape.

[DWilliamsamh]

9. I said NO SUCH thing.

I addressed the court record specifically. Fuck you and the straw-man horse you rode in on.

[DWilliamsamh]

11. And another thing -

You do NOT know anything more than the courts in the case of Michael Jackson, any more than I know anything more than the courts regarding Polanski. That is WHY we have trials with JURIES in this country - not vigilante justice.

So what? In order to understand the pain of child rape I have to have been raped? Gee I guess I can't advocate the locking up of fugitive rapists of women either? Or murderers since I was never killed? How "liberal" of you.....that is the LEAST liberal thing I have ever heard. I hope you NEVER serve on a jury, you ovviously don't have the capability to look at the known facts as opposed to sensationalism and speculative innuendo.

Polanski? Plead guilty, let me say it again, to sticking his dick into every orifice of a 13 year old, and spent thirty years on the lamb living the good life, and making movies. Anyone who defends him is defending an admitted child molester/rapist.

Jackson? Convicted of bupkis. That is called objective reality. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept. Those who 'defend him" need do nothing more than state the fact of his criminal record - or rather lack of one.

[closeupready]

10. Wow, I hadn't seen the Whoopi footage before, but she is so full of shit.

Shame on her. :mad:

[DWilliamsamh]

12. Agreed....and I usually agree w/ her point of view...but not this time.

[closeupready]

14. Me too. I can't think of any other time disagreeing with her. I'll probably give her a pass, but

sheez, Whoopi! Your excuse had better be good. :mad:

[closeupready]

15. Apparently, she cleared up the confusion over her comment this morning.

That when she said she didn't think it was rape-rape, she meant the legal charges Polanski was facing.

>>This morning, Whoopi Goldberg called during the show to clarify a statement she made about the recent controversy surrounding Roman Polanski.

Goldberg had said, "It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape."

Whoopi wanted to clarify the comment and make it clear that she was talking about the legal charge against Polanski at the time.<<

http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/01/2084644.aspx

Still don't quite get it, but I guess that's better than what she said on Monday.