Trump called Roseanne Barr to congratulate her on huge ratings success

And I've stated I have no problem with her being fired. Personally, I find there to be a difference in making racist comments and name calling. I know OC does not and I disagree with him on that issue because to maintain that position he is saying that calling someone a jerk is no different than calling them a ni**er. I see a distinction... he does not. No biggie. Difference of opinion.

And for the record, I'm saying that to use words for the intent of hard is always equally wrong. So, to call a close friend a N-word as an inside joke, knowing it will not hurt anyone involved or overhears is a much different case than calling someone a turtle, knowing that it would crush the person.

Again... If you want to discuss, I'll further defend my point. I'll start by asking you. "What, precisely, makes racist insults wrong?"

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
He distinctly said "she was hired to destroy the president."

His words. I called him on it as she was hired in 2015 (first show was in Feb 2016, so he was correct on that). He backtracked with a "well, what I really meant was" post on the matter.

I'm off my game?

Get real. And furthermore, get back on track of the fact the left is trying to rationalize the comments made by Bee. You know it's hypocritical, TBS issuing an apology of "sorry, kinda" is utter BS and silence from pro-women's rights liberal groups is BS. Just because Ivanka is related to Trump, it's perfectly acceptable to make her a target.

Yes, he said she was hired to skewer President Trump. Yes, she was hired prior to the election, so she was really hired to skewer conservatives. How does that change anything? You guys are arguing over a point that has no bearing on the fact that her job is to flame the conservatives.

And conservatives defending RB while screeching about Bee is hypocritical, as well.
 
Yes, he said she was hired to skewer President Trump. Yes, she was hired prior to the election, so she was really hired to skewer conservatives. How does that change anything? You guys are arguing over a point that has no bearing on the fact that her job is to flame the conservatives.

And conservatives defending RB while screeching about Bee is hypocritical, as well.

Who is defending her? Maybe I’ve missed it, but I have yet to see a post on here saying they thought she had a good point. What people want is an explanation of “the rules”. Why it’s ok for some people to say ****ty things but not others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
He distinctly said "she was hired to destroy the president."

His words. I called him on it as she was hired in 2015 (first show was in Feb 2016, so he was correct on that). He backtracked with a "well, what I really meant was" post on the matter.

I'm off my game?

Get real. And furthermore, get back on track of the fact the left is trying to rationalize the comments made by Bee. You know it's hypocritical, TBS issuing an apology of "sorry, kinda" is utter BS and silence from pro-women's rights liberal groups is BS. Just because Ivanka is related to Trump, it's perfectly acceptable to make her a target.

I said that "she destroys the president every night." She was clearly hired as a liberal attack dog - I really don't know what you're arguing against. That I was too specific on who she was hired to attack or when?

I could have been clearer, but like CWV said, it's clearly a distinction without a difference.

This is beneath you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Yes, he said she was hired to skewer President Trump. Yes, she was hired prior to the election, so she was really hired to skewer conservatives. How does that change anything? You guys are arguing over a point that has no bearing on the fact that her job is to flame the conservatives.

Moving the goal posts isn't quite on someone's game.

And conservatives defending RB while screeching about Bee is hypocritical, as well.

Please point to any mainstream conservative defending Barr's Tweet. Or are they pointing out the double standard that exists?

Bonus points if you find the proof on Fox.
 
A harsh new spotlight is falling on the vulgar social media history of ESPN star Keith Olbermann after the network’s parent, Disney, fired Roseanne Barr for a racist tweet.

On Tuesday, ABC pulled the plug on the wildly popular reboot of "Roseanne" after its namesake posted a racist and offensive tweet about former President Obama’s aide and close friend Valerie Jarrett. Last week, ABC’s cable sister, ESPN, announced that anti-Trump pundit Olbermann would return to the network despite a foul-mouthed Twitter account that includes countless offensive remarks directed at the president and his surrogates.

ESPN personality-turned-political commentator Britt McHenry told Fox News that “Olbermann has proven time and time again how irrationally angry, prejudiced, and outright bigoted he truly is,” but none of that apparently matters to Disney executives.

“The message is clear: If you’re a liberal, any free speech is allowed. Same rules don’t apply,” McHenry said.

This is Olbermann’s sixth stint at ESPN and the time in between has been largely spent as a far-left political pundit on MSNBC and an assortment of other networks. Most recently, he anchored an anti-Trump online program for GQ, “The Resistance,” and authored a book titled, “Trump is *****ing Crazy: (This is Not a Joke).”



In addition to repeated, over-the-top profanity directed at Trump, Olbermann also once claimed that Trump and his family have done more damage to the U.S. than Usama bin Laden. He was also widely criticized when his anti-Trump book featured a cover image of himself draped in the American flag, which is visibly touching the ground – a violation of U.S. flag code.

ESPN was criticized for bringing the polarizing Olbermann back and that was before Barr’s firing resulted in talk of a double standard within Disney regarding who can get away with offensive rhetoric. ESPN has been under fire recently for what many media watchdogs consider a liberal bias and even stood by Jemele Hill last year when she called Trump a “white supremacist.”



The Wall Street Journal’s Shalini Ramachandran published a piece last week about how a “weakened ESPN became consumed by politics,” which details several polarizing decisions the network has made in recent memory. The report notes that conservative ESPN staffers have been “frustrated” by the network’s politics, which include everything from standing by Hill and selecting Caitlyn Jenner for its prestigious “ESPY” award for courage to constant on-air debates over the NFL’s national anthem controversy.


“ESPN just continues to pile problems on itself by continuing its tired trope of liberal programming and moralizing. And when it comes to liberal moralizing, who better than the seemingly-forgotten Keith Olbermann? ESPN’s decision to hire the conservative-bashing blowhard only reinforces what it’s ever-fleeting viewers already know – the network cares more about advancing leftists causes than it does about sports, or, frankly, its own ratings,” National Center for Public Policy Research general counsel Justin Danhof told Fox News.

Olbermann and Dan Patrick were easily the best Sports Center anchors ever. I am betting Olbermann won't be making politically charged tweets once officially employed by ESPN
 
I said that "she destroys the president every night." She was clearly hired as a liberal attack dog - I really don't know what you're arguing against. That I was too specific on who she was hired to attack or when?

I could have been clearer, but like CWV said, it's clearly a distinction without a difference.

This is beneath you.

Oh?

she was hired solely for and has made her living by destroying the president every night.

Kinda specific if you ask me. So, you should be able to point where she went all attack dog on Obama.
 
Wow, GV. Didn't peg you for the "her skin ain't dark 'nuff!" camp.

Either Barr knew what she was saying and, therefore, owned it and apologized or maybe she didn't but felt that the defense of "I didn't know she was black; ape was coinicidental" was such a sorry, pathetic defense that even she didn't see it fit for mentioning.

Kind of surprised with the last two pages. Well, maybe not. VN gonna VN. Some of y'all will stop the world and melt for Trump and his folks. You can claim pragmatism and objectivity but you just look so ******ned dumb when you defend what is so blatantly indefensible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Wow, GV. Didn't peg you for the "her skin ain't dark 'nuff!" camp.

Never made that comment.

I always took her as what it was reported she was, as being born in Iran. I legitimately thought she had a Persian/Middle Eastern background. Never cared enough to go forth and discover her true heritage as her politics concerned me more.

But you just go on putting words up that I didn't say.
 
I'm perfectly willing to defend my position. And I reiterate that to try to make the N word more "wrong" (note I didn't say more "offensive") is to simultaneously actually make it less wrong.

But you lose ground even on that from the perspective of defending from hypocrisy. The left is all about identity politics and has been accusing the right of a war on women for years now. They've claimed to be the defender of women's rights. No?

Now, are you saying that they classify women below people of color? That to call a woman the worst name possible to call a woman is OK, yet to compare a person of color to an ape isn't?

I still can't help but see the hypocrisy in there. You're not actually saying that there are levels of insult that are less wrong than others. You are saying that there are levels of people that are less wrong to insult.

It's a bad look for any and all of you guys that try to wiggle around in the confined space of that distinction.

Calling someone a ****** based on skin color is worse than calling them a fool based on how they act.

Actions are choices. Geneology is inherent. To attack someone's apriori qualities is dehumanizing. Attacking their voluntary choices is fine. Hell, that can be constructive.

There's my position. Go find something worth defending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
Never made that comment.

I always took her as what it was reported she was, as being born in Iran. I legitimately thought she had a Persian/Middle Eastern background. Never cared enough to go forth and discover her true heritage as her politics concerned me more.

But you just go on putting words up that I didn't say.


Where did you read those reports? Just curious because I'm pretty sure you and just about everyone else didn't google her family history until this week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Do we really need to break down the tweet in detail for you guys to be convinced of how ****ing obvious this is?

Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Where did you read those reports? Just curious because I'm pretty sure you and just about everyone else didn't google her family history until this week.

Back during Obama's Presidency sometime? Well before the 2012 election year. If you want an exact date and time, I'm sorry if I can't help you.

Yes, I knew when he was President she was the shadowy figure behind the throne so to speak. And it was heavily reported (though completely crazy) she was the power behind the Manchurian Candidate for lack of a better term. All sorts of kooks and crazies that thought she was an embedded Muslim sent to lead the faithful Christians astray!

But naturally assumed with being born in Iran she was of Persian or Middle Eastern decent. Didn't care enough to find out otherwise.
 
Where did you read those reports? Just curious because I'm pretty sure you and just about everyone else didn't google her family history until this week.

If you read an article related to her and foreign policy (especially during the Iran deal) there was a pretty good chance they would identify her simply as Iranian born. I didn’t know what race she was, didn’t really care.
 
I get not knowing her race. I really do.

But to go as far as giving Barr any semblance of a pass because you're just willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when her intent was so painfully clear is just mindblowing.

"Oh well maybe she was as uninformed as I was and her using one of the most common racially-charged comparisons for AA'S is just by chance."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Calling someone a ****** based on skin color is worse than calling them a fool based on how they act.

Actions are choices. Geneology is inherent. To attack someone's apriori qualities is dehumanizing. Attacking their voluntary choices is fine. Hell, that can be constructive.

There's my position. Go find something worth defending.

You haven't gone deep enough. Why is attacking someone's features "wrong"?
 
I get not knowing her race. I really do.

But to go as far as giving Barr any semblance of a pass because you're just willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when her intent was so painfully clear is just mindblowing.

"Oh well maybe she was as uninformed as I was and her using one of the most common racially-charged comparisons for AA'S is just by chance."

I still do not see anyone excusing her comments. I’m starting to feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I get not knowing her race. I really do.

But to go as far as giving Barr any semblance of a pass because you're just willing to give her the benefit of the doubt when her intent was so painfully clear is just mindblowing.

"Oh well maybe she was as uninformed as I was and her using one of the most common racially-charged comparisons for AA'S is just by chance."

Now intent makes a difference for you?
 
I still do not see anyone excusing her comments. I’m starting to feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Exactly. Dink tells me to go find something worthy of defending when I'm not defending Rosanne. As a matter of fact, I'm actually calling a lot more than racism wrong.


Wait... Now that I think of it... Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we want to (correctly) vilify the hurtful racists out there while giving passes to ourselves and our own groups. 'Cause. You know. We're not *that* bad after all. I can hurt who I want because I can always paint someone over *there* as worse than I am.
 

VN Store



Back
Top