Rosie the political analyst

CCC;

I'd like to say your post was thought provoking but my mind just went numb.

I can answer your question about the movie though. 

Geena Davis, Madonna and Rosie O'Donell. Only one of which is good looking and can act. Despite that, I thought it was a great movie. 

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y154/Lordjordan69/pig.jpg

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Just out of curiosity, what were Rev. Wrights comments on the origin of aids?   I haven't spent that much time reading up on him, less on Rosie.

RichK

From what I could see it was that AIDS was started by the US government to infect the black community. In an attempt to commit genocide.

This is one link I found that tells the story.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjExNzMwYzMyMjk0MDY4YzlhOTIwM2YzYWYzNGIyNjU=

Mike Heemer http://24.23.126.8/ Petition for choice (5 or 7) in Nov.

They must not play much of the good Reverend Wright's diatribes on NPR (sorry, I just couldn't resist).  He has all kinds of theories. 

The latest on him is not a theory, evidently he confirmed that last year in April he and Obama discussed that if he (Obama) went far in the presidential candidacy, they would have to cool their relationship.  Of course, Obama was going to have him give the prayer publicly at his announcement but scrapped that when Reverend Wright's comments were aired. 

I still can't get over a preacher using the F word in the pulpit, how weird is that??

Anyway, back to Rosie - if Obama wins, I am sure there is a spot for her in the cabinet.  A very large cabinet (sorry again...)

Rambling and it is only Wednesday!!!

Mike, CCC,

Mike, thanks for the link.  I have put some of Wright's press clippings on the memory stick, but I've had a really bad day & just didn't feel like going back.  As far as the AIDS/government connection goes, that accusation has been going on for years, maybe decades, I'm not sure.  But two questions come to mind.  Are his accusations accurate & have they been proven wrong?  After all, in the link, and in many other articles I remember reading, "the government has never come clean @ this."

If memory seves, there was the case of the government failing to tell Blacks that they had syphylis or ghonorrea. I forget which.  Not defending Obama or Wright, but the government does not exactly have a stirling reputation for doing good all the time or telling the truth & I'm not talking about valid national security issues.  Another example is, "We do not torture."

As far as the comment @ rabbi's, ministers, pastor's who might be, "stark, staring, out of his tree, flown the coop nuts," goes, I would have to add to that group, Dobson, Robertson & Falwell, (and there are others, IMHO) each one having the ear & private time with the President.

CCC,

Without knowing the circumstances, what she was referring to & the comments involved, I can't make any kind of intelligent (and I emphasize intelligent) comment.  As far as Rosie, well, she's Rosie.  But you have to give her credit.  At least she is showing all of us that there is still an effective First Amendment regardless of the attempts to shrink it.

As far as the "F" word, did he really say that in the pulpit?  I guess I missed it.  As they say, there is a time & place for everything, but even an agnostic like me would tsk tsk, naughty naughty, dasn't do that one.  I wonder how the congregation reacted.

No, NPR did not have an inordinate amount of time devoted to Wright.  As I've said, they cover a wide range of topics, local, national & international news.  Wright just wasn't THAT important, I guess.  On the other hand, I can only assume Rush & the other radical right wing conservative pundits DID devote an inordinate amount of time to him.  Not surprising.

I'm going off now.  The godess just got home & I'll take the opportunity to vent on her @ my really bad day..  The two of us have refined venting bad days on each other.  It's a good thing.  You guys have a great one today & better one tomorrow.  JATFUR.

RichK
 

CCC,

The title for your blog.  Sorry I didn't get it sooner.  As I said, bad day.  I seem to remember you did that before, maybe once or twice.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the idea that you disagree with Rosie, or anyone like her, when they put forward an opinion on politics.  I have to ask.  Just who do YOU considered to be qualified as a political analyst & why should Rosie, or anyone else be denied the freedom of expression or opinion? 

She has done nothing more than what any number of us have done, including you.  She just has the advantage of a public stage.  But that is not her fault.  Other than that...no real difference.  I'd really like to know. 

RichK

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing that we all enjoy no denying.

I have heard many conspiracy theories about the government and Pres. Bush.

But when one makes such accusations should they not be accountable to provide facts that prove their case.

I think that with all the folks that seem to hate the President so much that if they had all the facts, proof, and evidence he would have been impeached long ago. You know that innocent until proven guilty thingy. 

Granted this country has made many mistakes in its history. You will not get an argument from me on that one. But on the same lines this country has also learned many hard lessons from those mistakes and wrong doings. Simply because we made mistakes in the past does not mean we are the same country as we were 30-50-100 years ago. I believe and trust we have made great progress, thats just me. 

When these folks in the public lime light use their notoriety and fame as a springboard to attack the government and President of the United States, stating outlandish theories without any proof or evidence, is in my opinion wrong. To me this is politicaly motivated hate speech, with no hard facts to back any of the claims.   

This country has enough problems to deal with and it does not need more rhetoric and confusion.

As I am sure you have all figured out already I am a registered republican, but I also would be saying the same thing if it were a democrate that these silly outlandish accusations without evidence were being tossed at.

If laws were broken prove it. The fact is they don't have any proof. But they exercise the next best thing, good old fashoned free-hate-speech. What a country!

God Bless America!

TruthHurts 

Truth.... I agree with you completely. Celebrities seem to weigh-in before every election in order to sway voters in one direction or another. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, et.al. all have made a stance for a certain candidate or program that they think will change the world. It’s hard for me to take anything seriously from someone who made their fortune from making believe they are someone else. Just because Martin Sheen portrayed a president doesn’t make him one. Marcel Marceau is the only celebrity that I can honestly say I would believe every word he said.

Solo

To answer your comments on celebrities "or anybody like her" making comments I disagree with - no kidding - I disagree with her.  That is my opinion, and my practice of free speech.  I've never said she should be denied her public opinion, but if she makes such stupid comments - people should see her as just that - stupid.  The difference is I am not sitting on a national stage.  These whackos get an audience because they make the cover of People magazine, then parlay that into presenting themselves as some kind of foreign policy expert.  I'm guessing she couldn't find Iraq (or Mississippi) on a unlabeled globe, but she sure has a right to air her opinions, and I have a right to call her an idiot. 

For a more diplomatic answer - see Truth's and Walt's comments, in particular TH's reply:

"When these folks in the public lime light use their notoriety and fame as a springboard to attack the government and President of the United States, stating outlandish theories without any proof or evidence, is in my opinion wrong. To me this is politicaly motivated hate speech, with no hard facts to back any of the claims."

Now - you made a comment in your first reply that shocked me -

"government has never come clean..."  Now, please tell me that you do not mean that every outlandish claim made by every Hollywood idiot or crazy militant pastor does not qualify a reply from the government.    Remember the whole "innocent until proven guilty..." thing from civics class?

I also have to take difference with your correlation of the Reverend Wright with Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell - - that is way off base but I am too tired to go there.

Hope today is a better day for you.

CCC,

Thanks, today IS going better.

First, I might not have said it correctly.  However, let me clarify.  1.  She has the right to her opinion, just as you do.  That, I never denied.  2.  I also said that unlike you, me or any other non celebrity type, she has the advantage of being a public figure with  a larger audience.  3.  As for your comments @ the number of people who listen to her, or any other public figure, it is not her fault.  I know that I've said it in other blogs & replies & this is a great example of, "Who's the bigger fool?  The fool, or the fool who follows the fool?"  The same can be said of any public or private person.  4.  Is she an idiot &/or has made stupid comments?  That's for each individual to decide.  Once again, the proof is in the pudding.  You or anyone else can proclaim her stupid, idiotic or anything else.  That's your right.  But leaving it at that, which all too many seem happy to do, is still nothing more than guilt by proclamation.  I take it as such.

About the "government clean" section.  If you notice, I put it in quotes & for a very good reason.  I took it from an article that I mentioned, I think it was from Finder, but I could be mistaken.  It was not MY opinion, But I tend to agree & would hope more would come to the surface.

On my comparison of Dobson, et al & Wright.  (Sorry, I forgot to put Hagee on the list)Of course you have the right to disagree.  But, I've said it before & apparently, it didn't register.  I read the quotes of these people in the general media.  I read the quotes of these people from THEIR OWN web sites.  I read the quotes of these people from THEIR OWN free news updates.  Do you?  I think not.  I base my comparison on their own words, in their own publications.  You can disagree, but I will ask, "Based on what?"

As an aside on the subject of Wright/Obama & Hagee/McClain, I came across a great article in the CHICAGO Sun Times, 05.07.08, by Andrew Greeley.  He did some great research & comes up with some interesting new perspectives.  I would suggest a little finger excersise for some new information.  It's not very long, but worth it.  Up to you.

As far as the replies by Truth Hurts, Walt & the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," I was starting to do a bit research but decided to answer your reply instead.  Priorities, after all.

So, I hope I cleared that up.  Have a great one & stay tuned.  I'll be back in a while to answer TH & Walt.  May the force be with you.  JATFUR.

RichK

Truth Hurts,

Sorry to have taken so long to reply but your comments goaded me into doing a bit of research.  By the way, you seem to have an admirer in CCC. 
That's a good thing.  Some of his comments force me to get on the memory stick on the computer to back my claims with the facts.  I'll endevor to show you the same respect.

On the surface, I would, in general, agree with your comments.  But only on the surface.  If anything has a surface, logically, there must be something below the surface & that's where I intend to.  Whether or not you realise it, you touched upon many subjects but I'm going to narrow it down to just a few for the sake of brevity.  In that regard, I've  piced a few of your statement that follow.

1.  I think that with all the folks that seem to hate the President so much that if they had all the facts, proof, and evidence he would have been impeached long ago. You know that innocent until proven guilty thingy.

2.  If laws were broken prove it. The fact is they don't have any proof. But they exercise the next best thing, good old fashoned free-hate-speech. What a country!

I think that in these two statements, at least in my mind, you are covering what is commonly called "bashing" & the fact that bush is innocent until proven guilty.

Let me start with the bashing.  I, at least once, asked our fellow bloggers the definition & had no reply, so I'll give you mine.  I think it is the unfounded, unsubstantiated critisicm of a person or thing.  That may be a bit simplistic but I think it serves the puprose.  Many people, including me, have been accused of Bush bashing.  But is it really?  From a huge variety of situations, I'll offer these. 

Illegal wire taps & by passing FISA.  It is a matter of public record that a federal judge ruled against bush & claimed his actions unconstitutional.  Don't take my word for it, google it,  pick any publication you wish, liberal or conservative.  The spin will change, but not the facts.  That's not bashing. That's speaking facts.

Bush attempts to supress free speech by packing his events with advocates & keeps out dissenters.  They do, or rather did but they got caught, & had to pay a settlement to the tune of $80,000+ when they got slapped with a law suit.  Once again, don't believe me, google it.  It is a matter of public record.  That's not bashing or "hate speech," as you call it.   That's speaking facts.

Bush lies to the American people.  This is a big one.  The far right never fails to get hugely vocal, at least they used to, when any one dared to say that the President of the United States is a liar.  In spite of numerous instances of publically telling the American public one thing, he lied.  Case in point, "We don't torture."  He lied, got caught & finally had to admit it.  Those who charged him with telling a lie were not engaged in bashing, they were speaking the facts.

You want more proof?  No worries.  On the web site Artvoice, (among others), 02.09.08, they reported, "the non profit, non partisan Center for Public Integrity, (publicintegrity.org) recently compiled a SEARCHABLE database of lies George bush & his underlings told regarding Iraq over a 2 year period starting on 09.11.01.  there were 935 false statements.  This includes 232 statements by Bush himself made during that period falsely claiming that Iraq definitely had WMD's.  He made 28 allegations falsely asserting an alliance between Iraq's government & its al Qaeda foe.  All of these transgressions from the truth came AFTER US intelligence agencies provided the administration with classified information to the contrary."  This is not bashing or hate speech.  These are documented facts, on the public record for all to see.

This brings me to your other point, lack of impeachment, if the facts are out there.  There have been many reasons why impeachment proceedings have not started.  There are also, by my personal count of back files, at least ten charges, by state & federal legislators, journalists & individuals, that would be in articles of impeachment.  They include specifics & are backed up by documentation in the public record.  So why no impeachment?  This is my opinionwhich is based on reasons given, on public record.  Once again, no need to believe me, google the subject & pick your favorite publication, conservative or liberal.

1.  Public apathy.  That is no secret.

2.  Executive obstruction.  The battle still goes on & is still in the news.

3.  Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi & an inept, Democratic majority Congress.  Once again, don't believe me.

I hope that you can see that if you scratch just beneath the surface, not everything is as simple as you say or is as it appears to be.  JATFUR.

RichK

Solo

Sorry - I had my reply but have to add another.

Somehow you always turn these blogs to torture, wiretapping, "look it up" etc.... but in this blog there has been no mention nor denial of any of these. 

Now to refocus.

Please do some of your famous research and find the facts on the claims that:

1.  The government created AIDs to suppress the black population

2.  Bush administration is behind the 9/11 attacks

Stick to those, you have worn out the wiretapping/torture argument and I think your apathy comment applies - nobody seems to care anyway.

What about the evidence behind the two classic Hollywood/Reverend Wright statements above? 

When you are asked about the facts behind those, are you going to turn to the free speech argument? 

Seems like a circle doesn't it.

CCC,

I didn't turn the blogs to torure.  But in answering the comments of TH, I took the most recent, most notorious events, very documented, very germane to the subject, as examples.  If the facts, the documentation on public record causes you such distress, I can only suggest that you try any number of other choices.  You have that right. You are one of the people on these blogs who defended, praised & supported Bush.  Don't blame me for your right of choice on such a wrong person who has been shown to be so wrong that even some his own followers in his own party have seen his faults and sought to distance themselves from him & his actions.

I use "look it up," for very good reasons.  #1.  I do my own research, I'm not going to the research of others.  They couldn't afford me.  #2 Doing your own research not only enlightens you on the subject at hand, but leads you to others.  #3.  If I had said that my source was the New York Times, because that's the first I get every morning, I would be met with the same comments of FAB, liberal that I have in the past.  I don't own a pair of hip waders & I don't want to get my sneakers dirty.  Being FAB, I give a person a choice.  The subjects I mentioned were carried by many pubs, local, national & international.  As I said, the facts will  be the same, only the spin will be different.  I only offer.  You decide.  Sound familiar?

I see no reason to do any reasearch either of the subjects you mention.  To what end?  On the first, I only mentioned that it has been around for years & that I remembered reading @ it.  Government cover up?  Sure.  Why not?  After all, they do have that reputation.

Bush behind the 9-11 attacks?  Who said that?  If you are implying that I did, do your research & prove it.  But once again, when challenged on something like this, putting words in my mouth, I doubt if you'll reply.  That seems to be a habit with you.  If you want to know more about these, I would respectfully suggest that you do your own research or at least tell me how I am connected to them.

I will agree one one thing you said.  "Nobody seems to care anyway."  It seems particularly applicable when something is said against a person or concept that goes against those who would support, praise or defend it.  Thanks for the idea.

I've already made my comments on the Hollywood/Rev Wright statements based on what little I know.  Since no person as yet asked anything more of me on the subject, I really don't know what the heck you are referring to, especially free speech, or is this yet another attempt to put words in my mouth?

Yes there does seem to be a circle.  I really wish you would stop drawing them.  I mean, if it makes you happy, draw on.  But don't make a veiled implication of anything else without some kind, any kind of explanation.  If you have something to say, say it.  But don't say, or imply that I said it.  It's a hard habit to break, but it can be done.

RK

It is one thing to cite facts and prove a case, it’s another to make outlandish remarks that are not provable. I prefer to stay on topic with the Rosie, Wright types, that are making outlandish unproven statements.

As I have pointed out in the past, most of the print media are far left leaning, this is no secret. They all have a far left agenda and therefore I give them no credence. Unfortunately this same far left tilt is painfully apparent in the entertainment industry as well. All one would have to do is google it and see which way they lean.

The government is not infecting the black community with aids to commit genocide. The government did not blow up the Worlds Trade Center just to start a war. 600k people have not been killed in Iraq by Americans. These are but a few outlandish statements made by the far left. I say it’s wrong, freedom of speech or not. Yes you have the right to say what you want, but you also have the moral obligation to tell the truth.

In addressing some of your points concerning Pres. Bush I would just echo that if congress (dem. majority) , far left news organizations, and entertainment folks had hard proof that Bush broke the law he would be gone and we would all know about it. When I see it I’ll believe it. But what I won’t do, is take the word of the far lefts spin.

Just by stating that the court ruled the wire taps unconstitutional does not mean that the President broke the law. He was advised on the legality that it was fine to do it, as himself and his administration viewed the law at the time. The court revisited it and made a ruling the other way. The court also ruled that at the time the Presidents administration was acting out of good faith for the good of the country and the bottom line is he has not been prosecuted. The courts change and amend laws all the time when situations arise that may need clarification. Now if his administration went against the courts ruling and continued, the far left may have a case. But they don’t. As much as the far left would love to charge the President and his administration retroactively based on the courts ruling would be absurd.

I still stand by my position in this matter, and must respectfully disagree with your theory and sources.

Below is a list of some known far left media sources, All one needs to do is google them.

The St. Petersburg Times,MSNBC, The New Yorker Magazine, Newsday, US News & World Report, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Syracuse Post-Standard, Kansas City Star, Roanoke Times, Barre-Montpelier, Times-Argus, Chicago Sun-Times

Source = http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/mediadef.jsp

TRUTHHURTS

TH,

Thanks for the response.  In no way am I surprised by your comments.

RK

Solo

Wow, you have a way with words.

I never implied, insinuated, stated, or otherwise typed that you thought Bush was behind 9/11 so I don't have to go back to prove it.

My feeling, opinions, sentiments (notice no facts inserted) is that you tend to give something a free ride (i.e. Rosie and the Reverend Wright), using as your basis your comments about free speech and your "the government has never come clean" thinking. 

It's call logical reasoning and synthesis, try it some time.

I just can't wrap my conservative brain around how you can give them a free ride under this umbrella, but must spend countless hours detailing on your memory stick every single reference to wiretapping.  Kind of comical to visualize.  I can only picture your toolbox completely organized, but you just can't find it when needed.

We have fun with this - thanks for continuing to present so we can decide.

CCC,

If you meant no implication, then what was your purpose in bringing up the idea of Bush being behind 9-11 & asking me to research it?  Where's the logic?

You keep mentioning that I'm giving the Rosie/Hollywood/Wright subject a "free ride," yet you still have not specified or explained.

I find it utterly regretable that you & others would belittle research yet not show the slightest hesitation in asking for sources.  Yet when sources are given, regardless of the accuracy, facts & documentation presented, the usual reply is a denouncing the source as liberal, left wing.  Is this the normal process of right wing thinking, such as it is? Don't bother answering the challenges.  I'm used to it.  I see where the level of thinking, or lack of it, is going on this.  so if you'll excuse me, I need a shower & maybe a stiff drink & get back to catching up on some reading.

RK

Rick

I think the 9/11 reference was directed at Rosie not you. That statement was one of Rosie's rants. There are many on the far left that feel the government and the Bush Admin. blew up the trade center just so we could go to war. Of course no proof, facts, evidence just accusations.

TRUTHHURTS

Time to change directions but one more question/comment.

I really didn't ask for sources, I just couldn't figure out how some people get so wrapped up in the minutia of numbers, yet don't call for Hollywood idiots/militant pastors to back up their outlandish claims with real facts.

Changing directions -

Wanted to be sure nobody missed this and was not sure if you or Sunflower received your invitations, they may have been lost in the mail.  Jena Bush is getting married to a former WH aide.  I wonder if Chelsea will marry a former WH intern?  I wonder if Rosie will be the best man?