Rosie vs. Elizabeth Hasselbach
05-25-07, 10:30 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest everyone watch this commentary (from a Texan Republican no less) on patriotism before calling anyone unpatriotic or unAmerican.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html
05-25-07, 10:35 AM
#27
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The city with no sports championships...Cleveland
Posts: 2,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is that elisabeth is so stupid, such a moron and bad debater, that rosie "wins" every argument. Oh and her husband SUCKS at football
05-25-07, 10:40 AM
#28
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Being against the war doesn't make you anti-american. Considering the sentiment of an overwhelming number of citizens that we should not be there, I'd say that being anti-war is being PRO-american.
If she felt that her remarks were taken out of context or misinterpreted, then she needs to clarify that. That's what led to the shouting match with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Rosie O'Fat made it sound like it was Elizabeth's responsibility to defend her for what she said instead of Rosie defending herself.
And this is just the latest in a long line of insensitive or downright offensive remarks by the woman since she joined The View. She said the government was behind 9/11. She was hesitant to accept that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped plot 9/11 despite him confessing to it multiple times. She said Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamofascists. She insisted that we shouldn't fear terrorists as they're mothers and fathers too. And she made that stupid "ching chong" joke which offended Chinese people.
05-25-07, 10:41 AM
#29
Originally Posted by paulringodaman
the problem is that elisabeth is so stupid, such a moron and bad debater, that rosie "wins" every argument. Oh and her husband SUCKS at football
05-25-07, 10:43 AM
#30
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by matta
The issue is that Rosie is genuinely anti-American -- it goes beyond one specific topic.
05-25-07, 10:47 AM
#31
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida, one time home of the space shuttle
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really doesnt matter what she said, but that she has the right to say it. If not, that takes the "freedom" out of "freedom of speech".
05-25-07, 10:54 AM
#32
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by Doughboy
It's not her anti-war stance that's getting her all this heat. She insinuated that the troops are terrorists. She said they were responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis.
That's some fucking ridiculous shit right there Rosie. Support the war or not, but you better damn well support our troops. If it wasn't for our military and the protections they afford us, you wouldn't have the freedom to stuff your face full of Moon Pies and spew out that sort of misguided shit.
To anyone in this thread who thinks that my comment meant that I supported the full contents of Rosie's diatribe, let me make it clear that I in no way do.
05-25-07, 10:54 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main problem for me is that the View has strayed so far from what made it special. The prime was when Meredith Vieira was signed on, Star Jones and Lisa Ling. As soon as Hasselbeck joined, the show declined.
I certainly agree with a lot of O' Donnell's political comments, but she's insane. She's no one's friend and she clearly needs therapy. Really? I don't think she should be in the business anymore, her nerves are too fragile.
This used to be a fun show. And has anyone else noticed the guest list has tilted towards the B list since O' Donnell appeared...
I certainly agree with a lot of O' Donnell's political comments, but she's insane. She's no one's friend and she clearly needs therapy. Really? I don't think she should be in the business anymore, her nerves are too fragile.
This used to be a fun show. And has anyone else noticed the guest list has tilted towards the B list since O' Donnell appeared...
05-25-07, 10:54 AM
#34
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aktick
Plus Rosie's louder.
it's the same with Hannity or O'Reilly. shouting seems to win arguments.
I call for a ban on all shouting arguments as form for reasonable discussion.
05-25-07, 10:56 AM
#35
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by wmansir
I'm curious, short of "I hate america" what does someone have to do/say to be considered anti-american these days? Obviously, insinuating the US is a terrorist organization and was behind 911 isn't nearly enough. I wonder where the bar is?
05-25-07, 10:58 AM
#36
Originally Posted by dick_grayson
it's the same with Hannity or O'Reilly. shouting seems to win arguments.
I call for a ban on all shouting arguments as form for reasonable discussion.
I call for a ban on all shouting arguments as form for reasonable discussion.
I win.
05-25-07, 11:00 AM
#37
Originally Posted by wmansir
I'm curious, short of "I hate america" what does someone have to do/say to be considered anti-american these days? Obviously, insinuating the US is a terrorist organization and was behind 911 isn't nearly enough. I wonder where the bar is?
05-25-07, 11:36 AM
#42
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by atlantamoi
Rosie's comments about 9-11 make it pretty hard to take her seriously.
05-25-07, 11:36 AM
#43
DVD Talk Hero
I can't believe people still watch this show. Rosie's an idiot, a loud-mouth, and a hypocrite; and I don't think Elizabeth Hasselbeck has ever said anything -- ever -- that was worth listening to. That anyone would even bother to pick sides between them is a waste of time, but if I have to 
, the crazy bitch who's hot trumps (zing!) the crazy bitch who's disgusting.
das
, the crazy bitch who's hot trumps (zing!) the crazy bitch who's disgusting.das
05-25-07, 11:40 AM
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
being able to say publicly "I hate America" and not have other Americans label you as an enemy of the country or try to throw you in jail is the exact principle that the United States of America was founded on
it's OTHER countries where you have to be worried about what you say
here (now at least) we get to disagree with other citizens while still being recognized as such
dissent is patriotism
refusing to let someone lead you across a deep, fast moving river in which you know you will perish is intelligent self-preservation
if America stops allowing the most extreme of voices to be heard and heard loudly, especially the ones it disagrees with most and is made most uncomfortable by.. it stops being America
the Founders didn't work that hard just so the people in the early 21st Century could kick back and feel at ease with their own personal individual world views. Representative Democracy can seem complex and difficult at times, but to just throw up your hands and surrender the ideals that made this country great b/c you don't agree with another persons' view of a war we're fighting is (imo) quite insane.
the mistake a lot of people make is going around trying to figure out what the litmus test for other people being 'anti-American' is. that just tells me that person is desperate to label other people as 'anti-American' so they can claim the status of 'pro-American', somehow defining them as 'right' or 'righteous' in their point of view. it's bullshit.
and i freaking hate O'Donnell. She's an idiot. But to just call her anti-American is worse than being lazy or dishonest.. it's cultivating a type of divisiveness that's antithetical to open, free thought. If that's how it's going to be then I say 'Calling someone anti-American is anti-American' See how that logic breaks down quickly?
free speech has limits, but this is light years away from anything of that sort.
finally, paying that much attention to someone as partially-informed as a panel member of The View just reinforces their own view of themselves as some sort of authority on the subject. it's amazing that anyone gives two shits what either of these birds has to say.
I just hope Matt is working that out on regular basis. I know I would.
it's OTHER countries where you have to be worried about what you say
here (now at least) we get to disagree with other citizens while still being recognized as such
dissent is patriotism
refusing to let someone lead you across a deep, fast moving river in which you know you will perish is intelligent self-preservation
if America stops allowing the most extreme of voices to be heard and heard loudly, especially the ones it disagrees with most and is made most uncomfortable by.. it stops being America
the Founders didn't work that hard just so the people in the early 21st Century could kick back and feel at ease with their own personal individual world views. Representative Democracy can seem complex and difficult at times, but to just throw up your hands and surrender the ideals that made this country great b/c you don't agree with another persons' view of a war we're fighting is (imo) quite insane.
the mistake a lot of people make is going around trying to figure out what the litmus test for other people being 'anti-American' is. that just tells me that person is desperate to label other people as 'anti-American' so they can claim the status of 'pro-American', somehow defining them as 'right' or 'righteous' in their point of view. it's bullshit.
and i freaking hate O'Donnell. She's an idiot. But to just call her anti-American is worse than being lazy or dishonest.. it's cultivating a type of divisiveness that's antithetical to open, free thought. If that's how it's going to be then I say 'Calling someone anti-American is anti-American' See how that logic breaks down quickly?
free speech has limits, but this is light years away from anything of that sort.
finally, paying that much attention to someone as partially-informed as a panel member of The View just reinforces their own view of themselves as some sort of authority on the subject. it's amazing that anyone gives two shits what either of these birds has to say.
I just hope Matt is working that out on regular basis. I know I would.
05-25-07, 11:51 AM
#45
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's perfectly valid to criticize the government, its policies, etc. But Rosie has made statements questioning why it's not considered murder when our troops kill an insurgent, she openly believes our government was responsible for 9/11, etc.
Does looking for every reason to criticize America, regardless of evidence, classify as "anti-American"?
Does looking for every reason to criticize America, regardless of evidence, classify as "anti-American"?
05-25-07, 11:53 AM
#46
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Doughboy
It's not her anti-war stance that's getting her all this heat. She insinuated that the troops are terrorists. She said they were responsible for the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis. First of all, I don't know where the hell she got that number. Secondly, the troops aren't the ones blowing themselves up at funerals or detonating bombs in cars while children are inside.
If she felt that her remarks were taken out of context or misinterpreted, then she needs to clarify that. That's what led to the shouting match with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Rosie O'Fat made it sound like it was Elizabeth's responsibility to defend her for what she said instead of Rosie defending herself.
And this is just the latest in a long line of insensitive or downright offensive remarks by the woman since she joined The View. She said the government was behind 9/11. She was hesitant to accept that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped plot 9/11 despite him confessing to it multiple times. She said Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamofascists. She insisted that we shouldn't fear terrorists as they're mothers and fathers too. And she made that stupid "ching chong" joke which offended Chinese people.
If she felt that her remarks were taken out of context or misinterpreted, then she needs to clarify that. That's what led to the shouting match with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Rosie O'Fat made it sound like it was Elizabeth's responsibility to defend her for what she said instead of Rosie defending herself.
And this is just the latest in a long line of insensitive or downright offensive remarks by the woman since she joined The View. She said the government was behind 9/11. She was hesitant to accept that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed helped plot 9/11 despite him confessing to it multiple times. She said Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamofascists. She insisted that we shouldn't fear terrorists as they're mothers and fathers too. And she made that stupid "ching chong" joke which offended Chinese people.
As the other poster mentioned, most of what you're doing is just run of the mill, standard right wing baiting. Rush should be right about 1/2 as many times as Rosie, same with Hannity, but that's all cool...they're "political experts." Or they play them on tv and radio.
Personally, I find Rosie offensive. I mean, that is, I just don't like her or how she behaves. But she's just a target for the right now, as if you haven't messed things up enough in the world, so you look to the View to find a scapegoat. The View...seriously, who watches that? How is it relevent other than the lazy media making Rosie into a Paris Hilton type attraction? Ignore her, at least if you want to talk seriously about politics. She gives her opinion on a talk show for women that sucks.
The only thing that bugs me about this is again how the right manipulates the dialogue. Rosie, among many wrong things (wish is still better than Limbaugh when it comes to being truthful and offensive), said that isn't it possible that the Iraqi peope might see us as terrorists? Well, they have a completely different culture, even if they did want Saddam gone they expected their electricity to be back 3 years ago, the expected if the US was going to depose Saddam that we'd make sure in doing so we didn't allow terrorists from other countries to set up camp in their country, so we could have the death and carnage in their country, so as to not have it here, and, honestly, they probably expected that we'd do something, have some kind of plan before the war to prevent a civil war or that we'd get out after we'd given them freedom from Saddam and the right to have their own civil war if that's what they wanted to do after finally being given some hope. Shouldn't we at least think with that many dead Iraqi civilians, who don't see enough or know enough to possibly view us as terrorists...even though we clearly aren't terrorists...certainly not like the one's who attacked us?
It's like watching the Republican debate, you either say, "kill 'em all" or you're laughed at. Nuance is not allowed in the discussion any longer.
We should be able to look at the foreign policy that we have and try and find and understand these people, so that we can do something to address the root cause (well, it's mostly religion, but that's for another debate), because we can't win this by simply being at war all the time. That doesn't mean the US is to blame, or the Americans are bad, or that our troops are not heroes. It does possibly mean that our government has failed us and we might want to make sure better, more responsible people are there, who can still fight back against those already set on killing AND try and have a relationship with the rest of the world that isn't only about how we can show our dominance and take advantage of other, poorer countries resources. Certainly, that should be part of the discussion. But Republican want to talk about Rosie instead and the rest of the country is more interested in Britney Spears.
05-25-07, 11:55 AM
#47
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by An4h0ny
being able to say publicly "I hate America" and not have other Americans label you as an enemy of the country or try to throw you in jail is the exact principle that the United States of America was founded on
05-25-07, 11:58 AM
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Birrman54
Does looking for every reason to criticize America, regardless of evidence, classify as "anti-American"?
on second thought...
Decide for yourself. Feel good about it.
Move on with your life.
Just expect to reap what you sow as you wander along your own path.
We all do in the end.
05-25-07, 12:00 PM
#49
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida, one time home of the space shuttle
Posts: 3,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by An4h0ny
being able to say publicly "I hate America" and not have other Americans label you as an enemy of the country or try to throw you in jail is the exact principle that the United States of America was founded on
it's OTHER countries where you have to be worried about what you say
here (now at least) we get to disagree with other citizens while still being recognized as such
dissent is patriotism
refusing to let someone lead you across a deep, fast moving river in which you know you will perish is intelligent self-preservation
if America stops allowing the most extreme of voices to be heard and heard loudly, especially the ones it disagrees with most and is made most uncomfortable by.. it stops being America
the Founders didn't work that hard just so the people in the early 21st Century could kick back and feel at ease with their own personal individual world views. Representative Democracy can seem complex and difficult at times, but to just throw up your hands and surrender the ideals that made this country great b/c you don't agree with another persons' view of a war we're fighting is (imo) quite insane.
the mistake a lot of people make is going around trying to figure out what the litmus test for other people being 'anti-American' is. that just tells me that person is desperate to label other people as 'anti-American' so they can claim the status of 'pro-American', somehow defining them as 'right' or 'righteous' in their point of view. it's bullshit.
and i freaking hate O'Donnell. She's an idiot. But to just call her anti-American is worse than being lazy or dishonest.. it's cultivating a type of divisiveness that's antithetical to open, free thought. If that's how it's going to be then I say 'Calling someone anti-American is anti-American' See how that logic breaks down quickly?
free speech has limits, but this is light years away from anything of that sort.
finally, paying that much attention to someone as partially-informed as a panel member of The View just reinforces their own view of themselves as some sort of authority on the subject. it's amazing that anyone gives two shits what either of these birds has to say.
I just hope Matt is working that out on regular basis. I know I would.
it's OTHER countries where you have to be worried about what you say
here (now at least) we get to disagree with other citizens while still being recognized as such
dissent is patriotism
refusing to let someone lead you across a deep, fast moving river in which you know you will perish is intelligent self-preservation
if America stops allowing the most extreme of voices to be heard and heard loudly, especially the ones it disagrees with most and is made most uncomfortable by.. it stops being America
the Founders didn't work that hard just so the people in the early 21st Century could kick back and feel at ease with their own personal individual world views. Representative Democracy can seem complex and difficult at times, but to just throw up your hands and surrender the ideals that made this country great b/c you don't agree with another persons' view of a war we're fighting is (imo) quite insane.
the mistake a lot of people make is going around trying to figure out what the litmus test for other people being 'anti-American' is. that just tells me that person is desperate to label other people as 'anti-American' so they can claim the status of 'pro-American', somehow defining them as 'right' or 'righteous' in their point of view. it's bullshit.
and i freaking hate O'Donnell. She's an idiot. But to just call her anti-American is worse than being lazy or dishonest.. it's cultivating a type of divisiveness that's antithetical to open, free thought. If that's how it's going to be then I say 'Calling someone anti-American is anti-American' See how that logic breaks down quickly?
free speech has limits, but this is light years away from anything of that sort.
finally, paying that much attention to someone as partially-informed as a panel member of The View just reinforces their own view of themselves as some sort of authority on the subject. it's amazing that anyone gives two shits what either of these birds has to say.
I just hope Matt is working that out on regular basis. I know I would.
05-25-07, 12:10 PM
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 989
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Not true. The principle was built out of a LOVE for one's country and a desire to make it better, not hate it and trash it. Those type of people don't deserve those types of freedoms.
but if it wasn't
mmmm... no, sorry but that's just incorrect. it's all written down by the way.
Everybody deserves all freedoms, unless they are breaking the law or violating the freedoms of someone else to a degree that they are preventing others from expressing themselves freely, as guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I think people who say other people don't deserve certain parts of freedom should have all of their liberties stripped so they could regain a real connection to them and appreciate just how valuable they are. If someone thinks only THEY should have certain freedoms and other should be denied them, then they prove their own limited capacity for reasoned thought. you can live your whole life frightened of others' thoughts and opinions, but that doesn't negate what other people think or make it any less valid. it just means you don't agree.Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
doesn't say I have to love any person of political ideal placed upon me by a human being. I honor the ideals of the country instead of listening to what people tell me. you're making the mistake of trying to say YOUR IDEAL is what should be revered and 'loved'. that's not what the USA was founded on.
i also like this one
Article VI
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
*edit* haha.. sorry m.mom. just being honest!
she's hawt.