AOL Poll Results Thus Far: Can Rosie
It's not looking good for a certain 9/11 Truther.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM
Comments
1
"No, controversial is different than racist"
Yes, but she makes and has made racially insensitive comments as well. Does "ching chang chung" ring a bell?
Yes, but she makes and has made racially insensitive comments as well. Does "ching chang chung" ring a bell?
Posted by: Hogarth at April 13, 2007 12:30 PM (F1thZ)
2
Sure, "controversial" is different than "racist", but it is also different from "lying" and "supporting the enemy". When Rosie lies about the perpetrators of 9/11 and says on her show that the government of Iran is telling the truth and the British government is lying, that is not controversial. That is lying, and deliberately spreading the propaganda of a nation that is in a proxy war against us. When the real truth comes out, Rosie is proved to be a liar and and a modern Tokyo Rose. Not controversial.
Posted by: David in New York at April 13, 2007 12:48 PM (457me)
3
What happened to Tokyo Rose after WWII?
Posted by: Rich at April 13, 2007 12:49 PM (9XOaQ)
4
Looking at those pictures, I think Rosie should donate some subcutanious fat to Imus! A direct lipo pipeline from one fathead to a cadaverous shrunken head.
Does anyone have that "If They Mated" morphing software? What would the spawn of Rosie and Imus look like? Strangley, I think they would balance-out!
Does anyone have that "If They Mated" morphing software? What would the spawn of Rosie and Imus look like? Strangley, I think they would balance-out!
Posted by: edhesq at April 13, 2007 12:51 PM (BKX7n)
Posted by: anil petra at April 13, 2007 12:52 PM (dLZyb)
6
The second question is more worriesome; the idea that the witchunt will continue is winning by a similar margin.
Posted by: TC@LeatherPenguin at April 13, 2007 01:15 PM (roWez)
7
Polls never ever ask questions the way I think they should. I couldn't answer that one. It's sort of like answering "have you stopped beating your wife."
Should Rosie be fired? Heck yeah.
Does it have anything to do with Imus? Heck no.
Yet answering that Rosie should be fired is more or less agreeing that Imus should have been fired *now* for *this*.
If he should have been fired *now* for *this* then probably he should have been fired a very very long time ago.
Rosie isn't being rude and obnoxious, or racist, or anything else. From the sounds of it she's spewing the Truther lies that are not *opinion* but concern matters of fact. She's not getting into insult at this point but slander.
Should Rosie be fired? Heck yeah.
Does it have anything to do with Imus? Heck no.
Yet answering that Rosie should be fired is more or less agreeing that Imus should have been fired *now* for *this*.
If he should have been fired *now* for *this* then probably he should have been fired a very very long time ago.
Rosie isn't being rude and obnoxious, or racist, or anything else. From the sounds of it she's spewing the Truther lies that are not *opinion* but concern matters of fact. She's not getting into insult at this point but slander.
Posted by: Synova at April 13, 2007 01:17 PM (8HO37)
8
Tokyo Rose? Interesting story there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose
"the influential gossip columnist and radio host Walter Winchell lobbied against her. She was brought to the U.S., where she was charged and subsequently convicted of treason."
Mind you, this is after:
"After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her."
So basically you can blame the press for her conviction for treason (witnesses lied as well). She was pardoned by President Ford in 1977.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Rose
"the influential gossip columnist and radio host Walter Winchell lobbied against her. She was brought to the U.S., where she was charged and subsequently convicted of treason."
Mind you, this is after:
"After the war, she was investigated and released when the FBI and the U.S. Army's Counter Intelligence Corps found no evidence against her."
So basically you can blame the press for her conviction for treason (witnesses lied as well). She was pardoned by President Ford in 1977.
Posted by: Jeff at April 13, 2007 01:30 PM (yiMNP)
9
As of 1:30 PM CDT, there are now 13,756 votes with 81% siding with firing her.
I think she should be fired for saying stupid stuff like fire doesn't melt steel. Hasn't she, or anyone in her audience that cheered her on the view, ever heard of a steel mill, know anyone from Pittsburg, or even seen Terminator 2.
I think she should be fired for saying stupid stuff like fire doesn't melt steel. Hasn't she, or anyone in her audience that cheered her on the view, ever heard of a steel mill, know anyone from Pittsburg, or even seen Terminator 2.
Posted by: Leland at April 13, 2007 01:33 PM (yDsrH)
10
Turn the lights on! It's time to let everyone know what everyone says. I suggest Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton be first in the tumbril.
Posted by: cris at April 13, 2007 02:17 PM (GE7hs)
Posted by: mike d at April 13, 2007 02:24 PM (uXlmD)
12
Polls never give me the options I want. 
While what Rosie has said is appallingly stupid, I still don't think she should be fired. But not because "controversial is different than racist". I think she should be retained because she draws such attention to her stupid blabber. By arguing against Rosie's very public idiocy, hopefully the debunking of at least some of the pervasive conspiracy theories will become more well-known.
I say let the fool have her podium to spew from - so everyone can see and hear just how foolish her ideas are.
While what Rosie has said is appallingly stupid, I still don't think she should be fired. But not because "controversial is different than racist". I think she should be retained because she draws such attention to her stupid blabber. By arguing against Rosie's very public idiocy, hopefully the debunking of at least some of the pervasive conspiracy theories will become more well-known.
I say let the fool have her podium to spew from - so everyone can see and hear just how foolish her ideas are.
Posted by: Amelia at April 13, 2007 02:32 PM (s4lME)
13
Rosie is the fat version of Al Sharpton.
Posted by: Marie V at April 13, 2007 02:42 PM (po1ua)
14
the dundewrdhead ab oive me in the comments is venomous...Al used to be heavy. Is fat the next F word? Rosie may be consipracy nut then so too are a lot of Americans. I don't see sponsors willing to withdraw their money. Heyt. You don't likeher, don't
watch. Imus insulted gays, blacks, disabled, Am indians, and Jews....all on record. And Rosie?
watch. Imus insulted gays, blacks, disabled, Am indians, and Jews....all on record. And Rosie?
Posted by: joseph hill at April 13, 2007 02:48 PM (8ETZO)
15
What the hell does Tom Delay have to do with how I see things. I think the question on the poll stinks. I don't want to be in the same boat with *Tom or Rosie* either of them. I'll fish with Don Imus any day! I think he has a good heart!
Posted by: Randy at April 13, 2007 02:50 PM (7ppVp)
16
Rosie should be fired out of a cannon, into the sun.
Posted by: damaged justice at April 13, 2007 03:21 PM (7JQXZ)
17
Too much prejudice here--Rosie is just a cruel, vile, dishonest person; is that any reason to dislike her?
Posted by: buddly larsen at April 13, 2007 03:34 PM (lCS93)
18
Rosie did make racist comments but against asians a politically weak group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0HtTReGt08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0HtTReGt08
Posted by: McAristotle at April 14, 2007 08:47 AM (V4Baq)
19
She's definitely a Truther based on recent remarks. She should be in a cage being poked with sharp sticks by rabid baboons.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 14, 2007 09:59 AM (UWdQL)
20
Fire Rosie? Maybe we should wait until next week...when she starts saying that eeevil neo-cons make their matzoh with the blood of liberal children. /sarcasm
Posted by: pst314 at April 14, 2007 11:16 AM (lCxSZ)
21
Ithink probably the best thing for supporteres of Imus is to try and make the story about others. Rap singers are also bad and Rosie too.
I used to try that defense with my mom, everybody else does it, but it never worked.
I used to try that defense with my mom, everybody else does it, but it never worked.
Posted by: John Ryan at April 14, 2007 04:12 PM (TcoRJ)
22
John,
It is not defending Imus. He said something stupid and apologized for it. Quite honestly the Rutgers players should have gotten on camera and given him the finger. That would have made things even.
The question here is what you do with others who say things like Imus did. Rosie, Jesse, Al, heck I even heard racist jokes on Jay Leno last night. Shouldn't the thought police be after all these people too?
It is not defending Imus. He said something stupid and apologized for it. Quite honestly the Rutgers players should have gotten on camera and given him the finger. That would have made things even.
The question here is what you do with others who say things like Imus did. Rosie, Jesse, Al, heck I even heard racist jokes on Jay Leno last night. Shouldn't the thought police be after all these people too?
Posted by: Specter at April 14, 2007 08:22 PM (ybfXM)
23
"Tokyo Rosie"?
Posted by: MyFriendOtis at April 14, 2007 08:53 PM (bq6Sz)
24
There are many MSM faux journalists/circus clowns that are more offensive and dishonest and should be fired before a second rate politically incorrect comedian like Rosie. A short list would include Hannity, O'Rielly, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Cheney, and the entire Bush administration. People who live in glass houses shouldn't start rock throwing contests.
Posted by: ec1009 at April 15, 2007 09:51 AM (xcGis)
25
Rosie should be fired out of a cannon, into the sun.
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 02:16 PM (sps4Z)
26
The left are the ones who follow through Doc.
Hey, did you hear that Afghanistan just joined the club of countries to sport commie era mass graves?
I figure that finally puts'em on the map. You ain't nobody until you got your own leftist generated mass grave(s) to brag about.
Hey, did you hear that Afghanistan just joined the club of countries to sport commie era mass graves?
I figure that finally puts'em on the map. You ain't nobody until you got your own leftist generated mass grave(s) to brag about.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 15, 2007 05:47 PM (UWdQL)
27
Doc,
Well - maybe CY used a little more of a metaphor than you like for "firing". But seriously, do you support the racist and "off-color" remarks that come out of the mouths of Rosie, Jesse, Al, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, etc. Or is it OK if they say stuff like that? I mean I really need to understand the frame of thought here - and since you seem to rationally discuss most things (as opposed to say Lex Steele), maybe you can give me an answer.
And if they are saying things that are "wrong", do we all get together to censor them? Or do you really thin free speech is something we should all have.
Looking forward to your answer.
Well - maybe CY used a little more of a metaphor than you like for "firing". But seriously, do you support the racist and "off-color" remarks that come out of the mouths of Rosie, Jesse, Al, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, etc. Or is it OK if they say stuff like that? I mean I really need to understand the frame of thought here - and since you seem to rationally discuss most things (as opposed to say Lex Steele), maybe you can give me an answer.
And if they are saying things that are "wrong", do we all get together to censor them? Or do you really thin free speech is something we should all have.
Looking forward to your answer.
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 07:16 PM (ybfXM)
28
The left are the ones who follow through Doc.
The only conceivable interpretation of this comment is that you're saying Malkin, Coulter and Rove et al have, in fact, all been killed by angry Lefties.
Have you ever noticed that you never, ever make a scrap of sense, Avenger? Rational discussion is impossible after you've followed your scorched-earth policy against sanity.
The only conceivable interpretation of this comment is that you're saying Malkin, Coulter and Rove et al have, in fact, all been killed by angry Lefties.
Have you ever noticed that you never, ever make a scrap of sense, Avenger? Rational discussion is impossible after you've followed your scorched-earth policy against sanity.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 07:33 PM (sps4Z)
29
Specter:
Free speech is free speech. Imus seems like a dumbass, but I've never heard his show, so I'm not qualified to make a judgment. I think that what he said was reprehensible, but one of the cool things about living in America is that we get to say reprehensible things if we want to. Nobody has to listen.
The firing is tricky. On the one hand, the organization we work for gets to set a standard for dress, speech and so on. If we don't like it, we can work somewhere else. On the other hand, controlling speech through hiring and firing seems to go against the whole "free speech" thing. Both sides have a point, as is so often the case.
The rock-bottom test would be whether Imus gets to stand on the street corner and spout his stuff to anyone who'll listen. If he does, then we're in business. If he were to be officially stopped from doing this, we'd have a problem.
Both Rosie and Imus can bite me, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want.
Free speech is free speech. Imus seems like a dumbass, but I've never heard his show, so I'm not qualified to make a judgment. I think that what he said was reprehensible, but one of the cool things about living in America is that we get to say reprehensible things if we want to. Nobody has to listen.
The firing is tricky. On the one hand, the organization we work for gets to set a standard for dress, speech and so on. If we don't like it, we can work somewhere else. On the other hand, controlling speech through hiring and firing seems to go against the whole "free speech" thing. Both sides have a point, as is so often the case.
The rock-bottom test would be whether Imus gets to stand on the street corner and spout his stuff to anyone who'll listen. If he does, then we're in business. If he were to be officially stopped from doing this, we'd have a problem.
Both Rosie and Imus can bite me, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 07:45 PM (sps4Z)
30
Doc,
But see - you support the firing of Imus. But for some reason you can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred. Why is that? I don't understand why you support such a double standard. Can you explain that to me?
But see - you support the firing of Imus. But for some reason you can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred. Why is that? I don't understand why you support such a double standard. Can you explain that to me?
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 08:48 PM (ybfXM)
31
Well, Specter, what I actually said was, "On the other hand, controlling speech through hiring and firing seems to go against the whole "free speech" thing. Both sides have a point, as is so often the case." What I meant by that was, essentially, that both sides have a point. It's difficult to construe that as "support[ing] the firing of Imus."
I also wrote that "I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want" and "Nobody has to listen."
Further, you write that I "can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred." I don't know what others you're talking about. I haven't come down on one side or the other with respect to the issue of bloviating celebrities here or in any other blog, as far as I can remember.
You have a pre-fab narrative that you want to impose on what I said, and it won't work. You and I are, I think, in agreement on this issue. You'll need to fight with someone else.
I also wrote that "I don't have to agree with them to know that they have a right to say whatever the hell they want" and "Nobody has to listen."
Further, you write that I "can't seem to pass judgment on others who spout the same kind of hatred." I don't know what others you're talking about. I haven't come down on one side or the other with respect to the issue of bloviating celebrities here or in any other blog, as far as I can remember.
You have a pre-fab narrative that you want to impose on what I said, and it won't work. You and I are, I think, in agreement on this issue. You'll need to fight with someone else.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 09:08 PM (sps4Z)
32
Doc,
Not pre-fab. I specifically asked you about your opinions of Rosie, Jesse, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and others. Why are you not passing judgment on them?
Not pre-fab. I specifically asked you about your opinions of Rosie, Jesse, Al Sharpton, Al Franken, Bill Maher, David Letterman, and others. Why are you not passing judgment on them?
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 09:41 PM (ybfXM)
33
And yes...overall Doc I do think we are in agreement...just so you know.
Posted by: Specter at April 15, 2007 09:42 PM (ybfXM)
34
To be honest, I don't know what some of the people you mention have done.
My situation is this: I don't get any TV channels where I live, and I only get the local public radio station, which mainly plays Celtic music and other cacaraca. I'm the wrong guy to ask about all this stuff. I know who the people are, but, for example, I've never seen Bill Maher on TV.
I know Al Franken only from his SNL work; I've never read one of his books or heard his radio show.
I was totally unaware that Letterman had done anything untoward, but, again, I'm out of the loop.
Rosie O'Donnell wore out her welcome pretty fast with her talk show, and I've never seen her on whatever show she's on now.
Sharpton seems like kind of a bozo, and Jackson appears to have outlived his political usefulness to the Left.
The fact of the matter, though, is that they all get to spout whatever they want to spout, and I don't have to listen to it. Same thing with Imus. I don't think he should have been fired for what he did. Certainly I would have, but my case is different.
Free speech is the order of the day, as far as I'm concerned. For example, anti-abortion protesters can say what they want, but as soon as they block the path of women going into the clinic, all bets are off. Anti-war protesters can make their point all they want, but as soon as they deface public or private property, all bets are off. Remember: I believe in free speech, not free whatever-the-hell-anyone-wants-to-do.
My situation is this: I don't get any TV channels where I live, and I only get the local public radio station, which mainly plays Celtic music and other cacaraca. I'm the wrong guy to ask about all this stuff. I know who the people are, but, for example, I've never seen Bill Maher on TV.
I know Al Franken only from his SNL work; I've never read one of his books or heard his radio show.
I was totally unaware that Letterman had done anything untoward, but, again, I'm out of the loop.
Rosie O'Donnell wore out her welcome pretty fast with her talk show, and I've never seen her on whatever show she's on now.
Sharpton seems like kind of a bozo, and Jackson appears to have outlived his political usefulness to the Left.
The fact of the matter, though, is that they all get to spout whatever they want to spout, and I don't have to listen to it. Same thing with Imus. I don't think he should have been fired for what he did. Certainly I would have, but my case is different.
Free speech is the order of the day, as far as I'm concerned. For example, anti-abortion protesters can say what they want, but as soon as they block the path of women going into the clinic, all bets are off. Anti-war protesters can make their point all they want, but as soon as they deface public or private property, all bets are off. Remember: I believe in free speech, not free whatever-the-hell-anyone-wants-to-do.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 15, 2007 10:04 PM (sps4Z)
35
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
Nonserious threats--those so comical that no one can take them seriously as a threat--aren't really threats, are they?
Obviously I don't agree with such commentary, and nor do most folks, but I don't think firing Rosie into the sun out of a cannon is anything other than someone venting.
And if they ever do load that cannon, I have no problem with Coulter also being a passenger.
Just so you know. ;-)
CY, whenever a Lefty says something like that about Coulter or Malkin or someone of that ilk, you and your Righty posters are quick to say something on the order of, "A-ha! 'Progressives' show their true colors! Notice how they advocate violence against those they disagree with. The Right never stoops to that level."
I know it's your blog and all, but wrong in one direction is wrong in the other as well, and you've always struck me as one of the most evenhanded of the Righty bloggers. Do you condone this? Also: how about the sharp sticks and the rabid baboons? That shite could hurt!
Nonserious threats--those so comical that no one can take them seriously as a threat--aren't really threats, are they?
Obviously I don't agree with such commentary, and nor do most folks, but I don't think firing Rosie into the sun out of a cannon is anything other than someone venting.
And if they ever do load that cannon, I have no problem with Coulter also being a passenger.
Just so you know. ;-)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 16, 2007 07:08 AM (9y6qg)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0121 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0064 seconds, 43 records returned.
Page size 23 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.