Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The main thing I don't like about Rosie is that she's a phony. She attempted to carve out an image for herself as the nice talk show host when, in fact, she was a raving shrike behind the scenes.
Elizabeth Hasselback is an airhead.
But what really gets me is anybody paying attention to The View. That show has always been a joke. Just ignore it and hopefully it will go away.
I too still love Rosie...I thought Elizabeth crossed the line when she brought up Trump...
I still say that everyone would think her demeanor would be fine if she were a man...the patricarchal society we live wants women to be the docile ones...Rosie doesn't clearly fit that mold.
That crosses the line yet calling Elizabeth a coward doesn't?!! "Coward" is a direct insult, Trump, some folks love or at least admire that guy.
The main thing I don't like about Rosie is that she's a phony. She attempted to carve out an image for herself as the nice talk show host when, in fact, she was a raving shrike behind the scenes.
Elizabeth Hasselback is an airhead.
But what really gets me is anybody paying attention to The View. That show has always been a joke. Just ignore it and hopefully it will go away.
Not behind the scenes. Just ask Selleck, Ripa, and Asian-Americans. She's a ****** in front of the cameras as well, and expects better treatment than she dishes out (compare Ripa saga to Asian saga). Textbook hypocrite.
I too still love Rosie...I thought Elizabeth crossed the line when she brought up Trump...
I still say that everyone would think her demeanor would be fine if she were a man...the patricarchal society we live wants women to be the docile ones...Rosie doesn't clearly fit that mold.
Are you saying she's not a man? actually just acting like a lady would be a start!
Rosie and other strong women like her are taken out of context all the time by a media that is driven by men looking for a way to undermine the message women have to offer...
That is an odd conclusion to derive based on the comments you offered. It seems much more likely to me that Rosie and other strong women are taken out of context for the same reasons the media takes everyone else out of context, ratings and controversy.
I have been abused at the hands of the media and my statements have been publish out of context and rearranged to promote ideas I did not state, did not agree with, and would not have considered. It made a great story and generated ratings, but it had nothing to do with reality. The worst was it was considered news, not simply entertainment as in Rosie's case.
I don't know how it could have happened, as I am not a woman and based on your conclusion the media has no reason to castigate me.
That is an odd conclusion to derive based on the comments you offered. It seems much more likely to me that Rosie and other strong women are taken out of context for the same reasons the media takes everyone else out of context, ratings and controversy.
I have been abused at the hands of the media and my statements have been publish out of context and rearranged to promote ideas I did not state, did not agree with, and would not have considered. It made a great story and generated ratings, but it had nothing to do with reality. The worst was it was considered news, not simply entertainment as in Rosie's case.
I don't know how it could have happened, as I am not a woman and based on your conclusion the media has no reason to castigate me.
Good point. The reason Rosie is considered a nut is because she is. And stating that the reason she is given a hard time is because she is a strong woman is actually an insult to all the truly strong woman in the world today. . .
There are so many strong women role models today. . In politics, in sports,in the media, in business. Rosie is in fact not a strong woman. She is an angry woman. She is a frustrated, vindictive, and ego-centric person.
Her argument was that if the tables were turned...
If another country had invaded our country and killed 655,000 people, we would view them as terrorists. Isn't that obvious? That's what the rest of the world feels. However, she is wrong in implying that our troops were solely responsible for the murder of that many people. Many were killed by other Iraqis. Again, one could argue that we are responsible for these deaths because they would not have happened if we never invaded.
Her opinion has merit when viewed in these terms. The rest of the world doesn't think of us as heroes, so the view she's forcing us to confront is what the rest of the world thinks about us. If you don't like it, tell it to the rest of the world, don't attack the messenger. Many of her views are an attempt to humanize the Iraqi people. That's laudable even if her method is off-putting.
Frankly, if I were an Iraqi, I'd feel the same way. That's not too unrealistic, is it?
It is not unrealistic to expect different views of the same incident. History is always written by the victors, so there will always be at least two sides of the story until one side is gone.
Frankly, if our country declared war on China and sent commando squads over there to begin destroying their infrastructure just because we disagree on ideology and they were not willing to accept that Tawain is a soviegn country, I would not be surprised when their troops showed up at our bases and opened fire. I would not consider them terrorists, but rather war combatants.
I would not be happy with my country for starting an unjustified war, but I would also not consider providing assistance to the chinese soldiers attacking our soldiers. I am not saying that anyone is doing that in Rosie's scenario, only talking about my chinese scenario.
I can understand Iraqi resentment due to our actions. I can understand Al-Quida sentiment against American Troops. I cannot condone them in light of the attack on our citizenry, however.
If a country had approached the US diplomatically and after exhausting those channels had declared war on us an attacked military targets this would be a very different disscussion. As it is, the attacks were against civillians and without cover of diplomacy.
Also in this case, we have criminals (I use this word because they have committed crimes under US law when they Hijacked planes, assaulted crews, destroyed private property, and at the very least committed manslaughter if not actual murder under our statutes) that have hidden from the law enforcement agencies. If this were criminals in one of our cities and being hidden from police, the police would make forceable entry to premises to search if voluntary entry were denied. This approach is considered reasonable by almost everyone except the criminals.
In the 9-11 scenario we have the criminal hiding in a geographic region that is difficult to approach and when it is peril of breach, information about the criminals running to another safehouse is delivered. The second safehouse has a guard at the door telling the police they cannot come in. Do the police, having international support to search at this point, go home? No, they make forceable entry and when the guard resists they use equal force to subdue. The Police, of course, will have superior resources, so it is not an equal fight. Would we want it any other way? Do we really want the criminals to have an equal chance of defeating our police?
Now change the names from police to army, criminal to terrorists, safehouse to country. Aside from the symantics what has changed?
Good and evil are simply perspectives and my perspective is as valid as the Iraqi perspective. I do not have to accept that I am bad just because someone else thinks I am. They do not have to accept that they are bad just because I think they are. What we do have to accept is that we are responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof. We also have to accept that we are only permitted to make approriate reactions under societal obligation.
Rosie's argument related to the Iraqi perspective is based on the idea that the 9-11 attack was justified as a result of America's ideology, attititude, past actions, etc. I would think our past politics are the closest thing to a justification possible and that would only justify diplomatic reaction and only by a nation affected by those politics.
9-11 was, in the most favorable light, an act of vigilantism. That is not condoned in international circles either.
Imagine the world reaction if the US unilaterally decided, and had the resources, to act against all the wrong in the world from our perspective without regard for the beliefs of those involved. If the US were capable of eliminating any government, group or individual that difffered from our "official" ideology, theology or economic foundation in order to promote our beliefs throughout the world. What if were able to "usher in a new accord" of similar thinking all over the world and eliminate discord from antagonistic thought through force. Wouldn't the world rejoice?
No, I dont think so. I don't think we would even rejoice over that, so why should any other ideology be given a pass when they act agressively in that manner. Bombing civillian buildings, stealing private property and destroying it in order to extort a response is criminal at any level and should not be tolerated. The response should be on par with what we would expect to occur on a local level to criminals.
Before you scream we dont invade cities and kill everyone, let me point out that we do. Neighborhood shootouts are not uncommon and while non-combatants are evacuated whenever possible, there is always the danger of innocent victims and we accept that in our enforcement of law everyday. We dont like it, but we live with it.
That is an odd conclusion to derive based on the comments you offered. It seems much more likely to me that Rosie and other strong women are taken out of context for the same reasons the media takes everyone else out of context, ratings and controversy.
I have been abused at the hands of the media and my statements have been publish out of context and rearranged to promote ideas I did not state, did not agree with, and would not have considered. It made a great story and generated ratings, but it had nothing to do with reality. The worst was it was considered news, not simply entertainment as in Rosie's case.
I don't know how it could have happened, as I am not a woman and based on your conclusion the media has no reason to castigate me.
What you are talking about definetly happens with people, the media (scourge of humanity) LOVE to take things out of context to undermine...absolutely. However the people who resent how outspoken she is, typically men who can't handle a women who knows her mind...She gets hit with both...
I too still love Rosie...I thought Elizabeth crossed the line when she brought up Trump.......
There is a line when dealing with Rosie . Rosie called Elizabeth a coward, accused her of double speak and ripped her for not answering a question that Rosie was too busy cutting Eliz off to let her answer. And for Rosie to play the victim? That was when I realized Rosie knew she was stinking it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa_from_Debary
I still say that everyone would think her demeanor would be fine if she were a man....
Yes, because we all love Bill O'Reilly, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
