Rosie, Left Wing Partisan, Loses Bully Pulpit!

BPSCG said:
First de-humanize your enemies...
Click to expand...


You have misconstrued my statement. I was not casting aspersions on the humanity or character of the people in question, but rather their role and purpose within the federal government -- to bring Christian rule to our land.
 
HAHAHAHA. Moved again. You can't even have a political discussion in a "Rosie" thread. Do the mods even read these?
 
Rosie represents the left like Rush represents the right or like my cookies represent the Horsehead Nebula.

Or in shorter terms, "extreme ____-wing"
 
Is there any evidence she's being outed because of her left-wing views and not just her outrageous views?
 
strathmeyer said:
Is there any evidence she's being outed because of her left-wing views and not just her outrageous views?
Click to expand...

As far as I know, she's not being outed for her politics, but because ABC wanted her to sign a three year contract and she only wanted to sign for one year.

I think ABC liked her extreme left wing politics and her clash with her right-winger co-host. There is no bad publicity.

Gee Randfan, damned if I do, damned if I don't...
 
Lisa Simpson said:
As far as I know, she's not being outed for her politics, but because ABC wanted her to sign a three year contract and she only wanted to sign for one year.

I think ABC liked her extreme left wing politics and her clash with her right-winger co-host. There is no bad publicity.

Gee Randfan, damned if I do, damned if I don't...
Click to expand...
I know but it is a legitimate question. Yeah, I agree. It looks like a simple salary dispute. But Trump did predict over and over that she would be gone shortly. If I were Rosie I would have taken ABC's deal just to shut up Trump.

I blame Kmart (not Lisa).
 
RandFan said:
...If her actions had prompted a boycott of the View I would have been against that...
Click to expand...

RandFan, I don't understand your objection to boycotts. If I am upset by a TV show and call for a boycott of the sponsors' products and services and can get enough people to go along with me that the sponsors feel the pinch, isn't that a legitimate exercise of our free speech rights? Isn't that the market working?

I'm not talking about any specific program or personality, just the principle of the boycott.
 
Rosie getting booted has nothing to do with free speech. She's still free to say whatever she wants. The public has the collective right not to listen to her and the sponsors have the right not to pay for what she says.

If "free speech" means "getting paid to talk on T.V.", I want my airtime and check. If you want me to defend a person for exposing the public to controversial ideas, I'm afraid you'll have to choose someone who isn't hiding from legitimate criticism by billing their rants as entertainment.
 
Elizabeth I said:
RandFan, I don't understand your objection to boycotts. If I am upset by a TV show and call for a boycott of the sponsors' products and services and can get enough people to go along with me that the sponsors feel the pinch, isn't that a legitimate exercise of our free speech rights?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. But it is my free speech right to discourage boycotts. I think the call for boycotts is bad speech. Let me hasten to add that the boycott that troubles me most is the one that directly targets advertisers. So, I should have said I'm against boycotts of advertisers though I'm also wary of boycotts in general.

Isn't that the market working?
Click to expand...
In a way, yes. How accurately does it reflect the market? If a vocal minority could influence what you could see and hear would you be happy with that? I'm not sure that visceral responses brought on by reactionaries is in our best interest. If people talk to each other and encourage a boycott then I'm can live with that. It's the organized boycotts that often use propaganda and play to fear and race bait that bother me.

I'm not talking about any specific program or personality, just the principle of the boycott.
Click to expand...
I understand. Given that Americans have a long and storied history of civil disobedience and social action I wouldn't get rid of boycotts if I could.

If a group of right wing reactionaries threatened advertisers of the view with a boycott and and the View elected to not renew Rosie's contract then I would have been very disappointed with that and would have spoken out against it.
 
delphi_ote said:
Rosie getting booted has nothing to do with free speech. She's still free to say whatever she wants. The public has the collective right not to listen to her and the sponsors have the right not to pay for what she says.

If "free speech" means "getting paid to talk on T.V.", I want my airtime and check. If you want me to defend a person for exposing the public to controversial ideas, I'm afraid you'll have to choose someone who isn't hiding from legitimate criticism by billing their rants as entertainment.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. However, if a popular voice could be silenced through threat and intimidation would you be fine with that?
 
RandFan said:
It's a fair point. However, if a popular voice could be silenced through threat and intimidation would you be fine with that?
Click to expand...

I think that we've been over and over this; Imus said something stupid and insensitive and paid the price. What seems to be the main premise of Imus' supporters is that if Sharpton hadn't whipped up animosity, Imus wouldn't have been fired. That is at best a shaky assumption.

The point I was trying to make is that the site from which you cited Rosie's various "extreme left-wing views and antics" advocated doing exactly the same thing to their various liberal targets that Sharpton advocated and succeeded in doing to Imus. It seems that, in your opinion, that former is acceptable whereas the latter is unacceptable. I realize that you didn't explicitly endorse the objective of Boycott Liberalism, but your use of it as a reliable source seems to represent some sort of implicit support for their goals. I'm sure that, since Rosie has offended so many people during her tenure on "The View" (and most likely before that), you could have found a source to corroborate your arguments that didn't so stridently advocate something the you claim to oppose so vehemently.
 
mijopaalmc said:
I think that we've been over and over this; Imus said something stupid and insensitive and paid the price. What seems to be the main premise of Imus' supporters is that if Sharpton hadn't whipped up animosity, Imus wouldn't have been fired. That is at best a shaky assumption.
Click to expand...
? I don't think anyone was talking about Imus in this thread.

FTR, I've been defending this position for my entire adult life. This didn't start with Imus.

I have said that Imus might very well have have been fired. I have said that on many occasions. Now, that is just my opinion so you and I happen to agree but I have to say that simply declaring something as a shaky assumption is poor form. You need to justify the proposition.

The point I was trying to make is that the site from which you cited Rosie's various "extreme left-wing views and antics"...
Click to expand...
Moi? Shirley you jest.

It seems that, in your opinion, that former is acceptable whereas the latter is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
1.) I never linked any such site. You are confusing me with some other body.

2.) As I've stated time and again, I'm mostly concerned about boycotts that use threats and intimidation to get sponsors to pull support.

I realize that you didn't explicitly endorse the objective of Boycott Liberalism, but your use of it as a reliable source seems to represent some sort of implicit support for their goals. I'm sure that, since Rosie has offended so many people during her tenure on "The View" (and most likely before that), you could have found a source to corroborate your arguments that didn't so stridently advocate something the you claim to oppose so vehemently.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could get your posters straight. Go to this link. Is that what you are talking about?
 
Rosie is definitely a left-wing icon. College students from all around the country purposely skip their morning classes just in order to tune into "The View" and deconstruct her playful Marxist message. Granted, sometimes she can be a bit obvious, such as her attack on capitalist pig Donald Trump, but the brilliance of her wordplay rivals Derrida. Today the left temporarily lost its most articulate critic and brightest philosopher. Now we'll have to leave the "Workers of the World Unite!" speeches to Wolf Blitzer and Keith Olbermann.

Don't these right-wing tard monkeys remind you of old ladies who get happy when they find out a famous movie star shares their ethnic background. "Did you know he's half Greek? :)" "She's actually Jewish! :)" Suddenly a person becomes defined not by something meaningful but by what a fanatically single-minded person thinks is meaningful. It's even worse in politics: "Did you X movie star is actually pretty conservative?" It's pride-from-the-homeland identity B.S.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I highly doubt many serious students of politics, let alone "extreme left-wingers," are anything but indifferent to this crap. Regular viewers of "The View," probably a middle-aged, stay at home with kids, female demographic, is another matter. But of course that demographic most likely isn't well-represented on this board. I'd also bet O'Donnell's role as the resident provocateur was meant to bring her as much publicity as the show, and not get her closely argued "left-wing" views out into the ether.
 
RandFan said:
In a way, yes. How accurately does it reflect the market? If a vocal minority could influence what you could see and hear would you be happy with that? I'm not sure that visceral responses brought on by reactionaries is in our best interest. If people talk to each other and encourage a boycott then I'm can live with that. It's the organized boycotts that often use propaganda and play to fear and race bait that bother me.
Click to expand...
And the vocal minority that does that the most does it with letters to the FCC and trying to get the FCC into non broadcast media, not so much with boycotts.

I just don't know how else a consumer is supposted to express their displeasure dirrectly to a company.
 
RandFan said:
It's a fair point. However, if a popular voice could be silenced through threat and intimidation would you be fine with that?
Click to expand...

Wait, so telling people that they should not buy from you is now a threat and intimidation? What is the capitalistic way of expressing displeasure in the marketplace then?

So are you talking about Imus or Stern? The FCC seemed to be much more effective at threats and intimidation than a few people calling for boycotts.
 
I think boycotts are the perfect way to influence ridiculous decisions, whether it be from racism in the south to putting up with loud-mouth idiots like Rosie O'Donnell. They're non-violent, require no physical confrontation and provide no visible target for those opposed to the boycott.

If it weren't for boycotts, and people like Rosa Parks, African-Americans would still be riding in the back of the bus.
 
Cain said:
Suddenly a person becomes defined not by something meaningful but by what a fanatically single-minded person thinks is meaningful
Click to expand...
So, the "something meaningful" that really defines Rosie O'Donnell is...
 
I know next to nothing about the whole situation and I care about it even less than that. What I was reacting to was this line from the OP:

RandFan said:
So I guess in a small victory for Donald Trump Rosie will not be returning to the Veiw. Donald had said that he was promised by Walters that Rosie would not last long due to her bigoted remarks and outrageous behavior. I guess even the View as a limit on extreme left wing views and antics.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that Trump pressuring Walters to remove O'Donnel for the view is at least analogous, if not worse from a circumventing market forces perspective, to Sharpton boycotting advertisers to drop Imus.

I don't know if Trump did pressure Walters or how he would have done so, but that is what I took away from the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom