U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2010, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,232 posts, read 16,250,787 times
Reputation: 4584

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
The View would lose ratings if Elizabeth was not on the show. She is eye candy. And it's even better when eye-candy has an attitude. I don't think she is very knowledgeable but I certainly don't think she is any less knowledgeable than Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Behar. Barbara Walters is the only one on that show that seems to have any clue what is going on.

She is often ganged up upon because she is the only conservative. And I think most of the time she makes valid points but her tone and approach is so offensive that you end up wanting to disagree with her. When she gets ganged up upon, she gets defensive and can be very aggressive in attacking. Sure, you could argue, she has a right to do that if she is being picked on. And I agree that she does have that right. At the same time, it doesn't serve her well because in her angry retorts, she just comes accross as being vindictive and mean. She doesn't know how to be graceful in these situations.
I have watched the program on occasion. One part I do enjoy, when they get into politics, it is amusing to listen to Elizabeth and blind irrationality. Similar to several of the posters here.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2010, 09:10 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,528 posts, read 2,211,222 times
Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
Does anyone cringe when Elizabeth Hasslebeck talks politics? Yap, yap, yap - dumb. I'm watching her on the corner of my workstation & she's going ballistic right now! Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury. I posted about this in vivid detail before from the folks on the ground at Get-Mo!

See:
//www.city-data.com/forum/4146286-post37.html


Why do these ignorant pundits feed the stupidity so much? Why would they talk about something they know nothing about and just feed off blind emotions?
I cringe when most entertainers talk politics (not all but, most). Their talent as an entertainer is what made them famous, not their knowledge of current events and/or politics so, when they drift outside of their area of expertise and use their star power to publicly endorse something or someone, they are in a way taking advantage of their notoriety. We all know they often become spokesmen/women for various companies and/or products but, everyone understands that they're getting paid to do that. I'm talking about when they use their popularity to support a cause.....helping charities or doing volunteer work is one thing but, endorsing a candidate or political party is different.

Some are very well informed (regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their views) but, others simply are not and it's almost as though, talking politics has just become "the thing to do" when you're part of Hollywood. I think for some, it's just to add to the image their fans have of them....they can only benefit by supporting the left publicly when their fans for the most part are from the younger crowd. Most of us just expect entertainers to be democrats....when they're not and the voice it publicly, it seems to create more controversy (a lot of criticism...I think mostly because of the dislike many have/had for Bush).

Hasslebeck is in the situation of being pretty much the token conservative on The View....especially when you compare her to her co-hosts. Which makes me think, with the show leaning so much to the left, making it four against one, she's not there to give the right voice and make the show fair.......she's there to get beat up on.

I really have no thoughts on Gitmo either way....there's just simply too much information I'm not privy to as a citizen, to be able to have one. As an observer though, reading what you say she's saying about Gitmo and then reading your views on it......you're obviously in complete disagreement with her but, that doesn't make her view dumb. She's just taking what our government has said about Gitmo to be true...that the detainees there are enemy combatants. You have reasons and sources that you believe to be true which makes you have a extremely different view. Some might say if anything if anyone is dumb, it would be you....I'm not though, I just think you disagree with her and neither one of you is dumb for the view you each have. She may be right or you may be...most likely the truth lies some where in the middle. I've heard what the government claims and I've heard others claim things like what you believe, I can't say with any certainty that is completely true, that's why at this point, I have no thoughts on Gitmo.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 09:21 PM
 
769 posts, read 824,877 times
Reputation: 608
Yeah, she makes GED recipients sound like Hitchens, but considered philosophy isn't really her purpose.

[ mod cut ]

Last edited by Mike from back east; 02-15-2010 at 05:18 PM.. Reason: Inappropriate language
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Sandpoint, Idaho
2,993 posts, read 5,637,210 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
Does anyone cringe when Elizabeth Hasslebeck talks politics? Yap, yap, yap - dumb. I'm watching her on the corner of my workstation & she's going ballistic right now! Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury. I posted about this in vivid detail before from the folks on the ground at Get-Mo!

See:
//www.city-data.com/forum/4146286-post37.html


Why do these ignorant pundits feed the stupidity so much? Why would they talk about something they know nothing about and just feed off blind emotions?
Why?It is obvious. Which is a better way to discredit opposing views? To host a debate with razor sharp minds who see throw the hypocrisy of Democrats policies and their socialist fantasies or to hire a "Republican" dingbat whose claim to fame is being one of TV America's little sisters and for marrying a QB? American TV, left-controlled has done this forever with the Black community, interviewing extreme nuts and uneducated bufoons to represent the Afro-American community.

S.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 10:49 PM
 
1,517 posts, read 2,570,592 times
Reputation: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno3314 View Post
I cringe when most entertainers talk politics (not all but, most). Their talent as an entertainer is what made them famous, not their knowledge of current events and/or politics so, when they drift outside of their area of expertise and use their star power to publicly endorse something or someone, they are in a way taking advantage of their notoriety. We all know they often become spokesmen/women for various companies and/or products but, everyone understands that they're getting paid to do that. I'm talking about when they use their popularity to support a cause.....helping charities or doing volunteer work is one thing but, endorsing a candidate or political party is different.

Some are very well informed (regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their views) but, others simply are not and it's almost as though, talking politics has just become "the thing to do" when you're part of Hollywood. I think for some, it's just to add to the image their fans have of them....they can only benefit by supporting the left publicly when their fans for the most part are from the younger crowd. Most of us just expect entertainers to be democrats....when they're not and the voice it publicly, it seems to create more controversy (a lot of criticism...I think mostly because of the dislike many have/had for Bush).

Hasslebeck is in the situation of being pretty much the token conservative on The View....especially when you compare her to her co-hosts. Which makes me think, with the show leaning so much to the left, making it four against one, she's not there to give the right voice and make the show fair.......she's there to get beat up on.

I really have no thoughts on Gitmo either way....there's just simply too much information I'm not privy to as a citizen, to be able to have one. As an observer though, reading what you say she's saying about Gitmo and then reading your views on it......you're obviously in complete disagreement with her but, that doesn't make her view dumb. She's just taking what our government has said about Gitmo to be true...that the detainees there are enemy combatants. You have reasons and sources that you believe to be true which makes you have a extremely different view. Some might say if anything if anyone is dumb, it would be you....I'm not though, I just think you disagree with her and neither one of you is dumb for the view you each have. She may be right or you may be...most likely the truth lies some where in the middle. I've heard what the government claims and I've heard others claim things like what you believe, I can't say with any certainty that is completely true, that's why at this point, I have no thoughts on Gitmo.
I agree with you on most points, but you lost me in the last paragraph. We not talking about 'opposing opinions' here. We're are talkinga bout facts and reality versus illusion and hyperbole.

When did the Gov't rls. a statement that all all Gitmo detainees are terrorists? I'd like to see that press release. I think you're confusing the Gov't with mainstream media and talking pundits. The 'sources' I have are from the military itself as relayed from Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney for the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights. These statistics cover the gamut; how many have been incarcerated down there; where most, if not all of the detainees have been picked up; how many have been let go; and how many have been charged isn't classified information, among other things. And before you jump on the bandwagon, he's talked avidly with along with various senior officials on news radio, maybe even broadcast tele, and there is nobody disputing these facts. There are just those who ignore them and those who do not.

She is either ignorant to these facts or she perpetuating the stupidity. My source is our own Gov't for i.e. the ones doing the incarcerating so how exactly does one who argues FOR our Government's role in Gitmo dispute that exactly? There really isn't much room for interpretation quite frankly. There are those who ignore the facts and those that do not. It's really not half clandestine as you make it out to be. Simple. The fact that you choose to ignore the facts of the matter doesn't make you 'neutral' or 'objective'; it just means you don't know what's going on and don't care to know.

Last edited by tekka-maki; 02-05-2010 at 10:58 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 11:06 PM
 
Location: SE Florida
9,366 posts, read 23,557,903 times
Reputation: 9401
When not discussing politics, Elizabeth is good on the show. But it would be good to have someone with an opposing view that has more political knowledge and intelligence. Elizabeth is uninformed and a lightweight, but is too young to know to chill when she gets in over her head. She just loses it and gets all selfrighteous. Her back ground is Survivor and shoe designing. I just think that is the wrong gig for her. IMO, Meghan McCain would be better in that slot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
Does anyone cringe when Elizabeth Hasslebeck talks politics? Yap, yap, yap - dumb. I'm watching her on the corner of my workstation & she's going ballistic right now! Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury. I posted about this in vivid detail before from the folks on the ground at Get-Mo!

See:
//www.city-data.com/forum/4146286-post37.html


Why do these ignorant pundits feed the stupidity so much? Why would they talk about something they know nothing about and just feed off blind emotions?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2010, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
2,528 posts, read 2,211,222 times
Reputation: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
I agree with you on most points, but you lost me in the last paragraph. We not talking about 'opposing opinions' here. We're are talkinga bout facts and reality versus illusion and hyperbole.

When did the Gov't rls. a statement that all all Gitmo detainees are terrorists? I'd like to see that press release. I think you're confusing the Gov't with mainstream media and talking pundits. The 'sources' I have are from the military itself as relayed from Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney for the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights. These statistics cover the gamut; how many have been incarcerated down there; where most, if not all of the detainees have been picked up; how many have been let go; and how many have been charged isn't classified information, among other things. And before you jump on the bandwagon, he's talked avidly with along with various senior officials on news radio, maybe even broadcast tele, and there is nobody disputing these facts. There are just those who ignore them and those who do not.
I'm talking about what the government has been explaining to the country about GITMO and the need for it (which has been mostly from the previous administration) since they started using it for holding the detainees there.....I'm not talking about anything specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
She is either ignorant to these facts or she perpetuating the stupidity. My source is our own Gov't for i.e. the ones doing the incarcerating so how exactly does one who argues FOR our Government's role in Gitmo dispute that exactly? There really isn't much room for interpretation quite frankly. There are those who ignore the facts and those that do not. It's really not half clandestine as you make it out to be. Simple. The fact that you choose to ignore the facts of the matter doesn't make you 'neutral' or 'objective'; it just means you don't know what's going on and don't care to know.
Your facts are being relayed by a defense attorney to the public....he's hardly the military....he has an agenda, which includes building public support for the release of whom ever he'll be defending....that's part of his job (especially in this situation with the whole world watching), if he didn't he wouldn't be much of a defense attorney.

I'm not ignoring any facts to be neutral or objective....I'm neutral because I'm not jumping to any conclusions based on what either side claims at this point because, I don't know how true they are how they're being used to make either sides point. Generally, you don't need to lie to mislead people (you'll look like an idiot when eventually caught), you use facts to do it so, you can say they're 100% accurate and can't be disputed. It's the facts that don't you mention (the full story....the other half) that cause people to make assumptions on their own part (because since they don't know otherwise, they don't realize that they may not be hearing the whole story yet).

For example, you're using the facts relayed by Shayana Kadidal:

Quote:
These statistics cover the gamut; how many have been incarcerated down there; where most, if not all of the detainees have been picked up; how many have been let go; and how many have been charged isn't classified information, among other things.
To arrive at this conclusion:

Quote:
Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury.
I'm not disputing the facts Shayana Kadidal has relayed to the public, I'm saying I'm not going to jump to any conclusions over them and say things like, "the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people......" the way you have. Is what you're saying about the MAJORITY of those people, also a fact that has been supplied by the military......that's what you're claiming, isn't it....that it's a fact concerning the MAJORITY.

The purpose of a tribunal (or a trial for that matter) is to determine is they're guilty of any charges and/or what they did to be found guilty (if that's what determined). Among other things it will determine just how frivolous what they're being accused of actually is (if at all) but, you've already determined that some of them are so frivolous that a tribunal would be an insult. That may end up being the case with some of them but, I can't assume that now....not with any certainty.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2010, 05:35 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
64,649 posts, read 45,917,421 times
Reputation: 34938
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleanhouse View Post
This is why I think anyone who votes needs to pass a basic civics exam.

Beginning with those who vote in Congress........................................
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2010, 05:44 AM
Status: "No longer very optimistic." (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Coastal Georgia
41,199 posts, read 51,004,455 times
Reputation: 71247
Do you really think the Gitmo residents were just picked up for the heck of it, because we're so mean and want to hassle innocent people? As for EH, she is not exactly up to the task of presenting the right side of an argument, but somebody needs to at least TRY to reign in the harpies on that show.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2010, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
13,806 posts, read 27,237,315 times
Reputation: 4004
Quote:
Originally Posted by tekka-maki View Post
Does anyone cringe when Elizabeth Hasslebeck talks politics? Yap, yap, yap - dumb. I'm watching her on the corner of my workstation & she's going ballistic right now! Apparently, she (& many others) are under the impression that ALL Get-Mo detainees are 'terrorists', but the fact of the matter is that the majority of these people (700+ not even charged or released under Bush) were innocent & if anything we've grown terrorists by unlawful incarceration for YEARS. Those that are being charged have some of the most frivolous charges after years of unlawful incarceration that trying them in a Military Tribunal would be insult to injury. I posted about this in vivid detail before from the folks on the ground at Get-Mo!

See:
//www.city-data.com/forum/4146286-post37.html


Why do these ignorant pundits feed the stupidity so much? Why would they talk about something they know nothing about and just feed off blind emotions?
That is your opinion and in no way is it a fact. How many people being held at GTMO (the proper abbreviation for Naval Base Guantanamo Bay) can you name without looking it up? I'm guessing two at the most.
Feel free to clarify that your post is your opinion and never claim facts without offering something besides a CD post to back it up. It looks extremely ignorant.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top