Rosie O’Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg seem to forget that the freedom of speech is a two way street. On Friday’s The View, guest co-host Whoopi Goldberg discussed her crude remarks at a 2004 Democratic National Committee fund raiser, which prompted a discussion on the fallout from the Dixie Chicks’ repeated criticisms of President Bush and his handling of the War on Terror. Rosie O’Donnell asserted that there is "sort of a McCarthy era-esque feeling about entertainers speaking out against the government in any capacity."
Token non-liberal Elisabeth Hasselbeck reminded Rosie that freedom of speech includes not only the Dixie Chicks but, those who speak out against them. Hasselbeck posed the question "why don’t I have the right not to buy their records and say you shouldn’t either?"
Whoopi Goldberg made a rather inflammatory comparison and Rosie O’Donnell agreed.
Goldberg: "You have a right not to buy their records, but burning them in public brings on 1933."
O’Donnell: "Correct."
Whoopi continued on her anti-burning tangent while Hasselbeck was trying to inject some common sense.
Goldberg: "Nobody has a right to burn it. They can say I don’t like it, I don’t want to hear it."
Hasselbeck: "But it’s theirs. They bought it. They bought the CD. It’s theirs
Goldberg: "Then don’t listen to it."
The transcript is below.
Rosie O’Donnell: "This is way before anything happened to the Dixie Chicks."
Whoopi Goldberg: "Oh way before."
O’Donnell: "Because, honestly, there was and there still is in some capacity sort of a McCarthy era-esque feeling about entertainers speaking out against the government in any capacity."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "Why then if you– for instance, I was a huge Dixie Chicks fan. Ok, I love the ‘Cowboy, Take me Away,.’ whatever that song was I used to listen to. I love it, even now I still, I still like it, but I'm not a fan anymore. So why if they, if they have a right to, to speak their mind and say what they want at their concerts that people pay for and don't intend to like go to a political statement or, you know, concert. Alright, ok, so why don't I have a right to not buy their records to say you shouldn’t buy their record either?"
Goldberg: "You have a right not to buy their records, but burning them in public brings on 1933."
O’Donnell: "Correct."
Hasselbeck: "But why is it, why is that not an ok-"
Goldberg: "Let me tell you, let me tell you why. Because in Germany, when they started burning art and they started burning books and they started burning things, when you start burning stuff in public, that is a whole other statement. You can say, you know what? I don't- But they were burning their records. And that’s why- You can say I don't like what they stand for. I don’t like what they did."
Hasselbeck: "What about when women burned their bras? That was a political statement. That was ok."
Joy Behar: "They're burning their own bras. They're not burning your bra."
[Applause]
Hasselbeck: "I’m just saying if you want to say burning, burning. I'm an artist, too. If I say something that's emotionally charged or politically charged and someone burned it-"
Goldberg: "Nobody has the right to burn it. They can say I don't like it, I don't want to hear it."
Hasselbeck: "But it’s theirs they bought it. They bought the CD. It's theirs."
Goldberg: "Then don’t listen to it."
Behar: "There's something symbolic about burning it."
Goldberg: "When you burn it, you take it to another level."
Hasselbeck: "But isn't this just protest in some way?"
Behar: "Think Ku Klux Klan, when they burn the cross."
Hasselbeck: "I'm not ok with that."
Behar: "Well, but I mean it’s the same thing. It’s the burning."
Goldberg: "It’s the burning of the thing. You really want to stay away from it."
[laughter]
Goldberg: "You know, the sheet thing. It’s not good."
Hasselbeck: "I got you there."
Behar: "It’s a complicated thing because we also, a lot of First Amendment people believe you should be able to burn the flag or step on the flag. It's a complicated conversation."
Goldberg: "I don't think burning anything because of the connotation that it has had, everything it has meant through the history of the world."
Hasselbeck: "Well, I mean bottom line is, it's just a fire hazard, so you shouldn’t do it. It’s not ok."
[laughter]
Goldberg: "Now that is a bright way to look at it."
—Justin McCarthy is a news analyst at Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
And now let's switch subjects
February 2, 2007 - 16:19 ET by Mica the MagnificentAnd now let's switch subjects and talk about the obesity epidemic. Rosie?
I thought it would be funny to make fun of Bush in a high voice. So I inhaled some helium. The next thing I knew, I was floating above the audience. Oh, the humanity! - A scene Rosie had cut from "The View.'
You're right Whoopi, and thos
February 2, 2007 - 16:21 ET by SYou're right Whoopi, and those protesters shouldn't be burning the American flag either because of all the connotations that burning carries with it. Oh, wait...
Good point, S! It would ha
February 3, 2007 - 06:19 ET by motherbeltGood point, S! It would have been great to cut right there, to video of protestors burning American flags, and Bush in effigy, and ask Whoopi what she thought about that.
Burning draft cards= protest (free speech)
Burning bras= protest (free speech)
Burning American flags=protest (free speech)
Burning Dixie Chicks CD's=Fascism of the highest order
Adding to motherbelt's list
February 3, 2007 - 09:30 ET by JerryAdding to motherbelt's list....
Burning Bush in effigy = protest (free speech)
Burning down LA in riots = protest ("we understand their rage")
And on a different note...
Burning women and children = acceptable government gun control (Waco)
Burning cigarettes = assault with a deadly weapon
Burning fossil fuels = assault with a deadly weapon
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Ooooh good ones. Whoopi Goldb
February 3, 2007 - 16:50 ET by HumanEventsOoooh good ones. Whoopi Goldberg is upset about burning CD's but didn't lose one ounce of support for Sick Willie when his attorney general Gas'em and Burn'em Janet Reno burned the Waco complex and killed over 70 people, including over 20 children.
Just about all the other libs had no problem with it either. But, to ask that common "Could you imagine if a Republican" question yet again, could you imagine if this Waco siege had taken place and been conducted under the Bush administration? NO QUESTION Dems and libs (including Whoopi and Rosie) would have demanded he be impeached and, I'm sure, also do prison time.
screwed up american sluts
February 2, 2007 - 16:23 ET by tumbler_2007Except for hasselbuns.
These knuckleheads see nothing reprehensible in burning our flag in the public squares. But burning a CD of no worth whatsoever, OH, Get atta HERE!
Those idiots dont have a clue
February 3, 2007 - 02:02 ET by Dan The Man 2Those idiots dont have a clue about first ammendment rights. However, as demostrative reprehensable burning the American flag is they do have the right to burn it. There are few times where destroying ones personal property is illegal.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
Somebody needs to tell Whoopi
February 2, 2007 - 16:29 ET by bigtimerSomebody needs to tell Whoopi she needs to burn that hair-style...
YUK!
Behar...Oh..it's just so complicated...
Liberals for ya...dumb ones at that...that try to convince each other they are smart...along with the dumb audience that watches them.
Laughable anymore...I look at these so-called serious shows anymore as one long serial comedy.
Woopie endures a lot of pain
February 2, 2007 - 16:31 ET by bassndudeWoopie endures a lot of pain for hair like that. After all, how long do you think she has to keep her finger in the light socket for that look.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Great, thanks for the r
February 3, 2007 - 17:27 ET by toolzGreat, thanks for the replies. I like newsbusters, and will take it for what it is. Take care!
Hello all. I have been trol
February 2, 2007 - 16:29 ET by toolzHello all. I have been trolling about this site for a week or so, and I just had a few questions about the goals of this site- not condescending, by the way. It seems like most of the people who comment on the postings are staunch conservatives, and pretty set in their ways. I see a lot of one liners and jabs at the libs. Just wondering if any real discourse goes on here- do liberals pop in and debate? I know on a lot of these types of website- from both sides- there is relatively little 'discussion,' mostly talking points from either side and a lot of 'post and run.' Just curious if this is that kind of site. I like having good, honest debate, but not if it includes things like Clinton sex jokes, W intelligence jokes or the words 'libtard' or 'repug.'
Nope, you pretty much have us
February 2, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Ruths husband BenNope, you pretty much have us pegged. Mostly just shallow wise-cracks. A few trolls come by every once and a while and feed us, other than that, what you see is what you get.
We staunch conservatives are
February 2, 2007 - 16:44 ET by HumanEventsWe staunch conservatives are not "set in our ways". We call it as we see it. We lay all the cards out on the table. We find the double standards of Dems and the MSM disgusting. As well as all the fraud and deceit they engage in. Conservatives were outraged at what Republican Mark Foley did last year. But Dems only railed at Foley while Democrats like Gerry Studds, who had an actual affair with a 17 year old page, they had no problem letting continue in the Congress.
We embrace the truth. There can be disagreements on a lot of things but there are also absolute truths, both factually and morally. We hold these dear and defend these principles without hypocricy, whereas liberals constantly deceive, distort, and even try to hide the fact that they are liberals!
Well toolz, It's complicat
February 2, 2007 - 16:39 ET by Interested and concerned CDNWell toolz,
It's complicated at times. Your first post is in a thread regarding "The View" which for the most part is a slam dunk with regards to bias, especially so since Rosie's arrival, so the discourse can be "monotone" with some distasteful jabs at Rosie's physique. Probably not the best place to start a debate.
If you feel that Rosie and Joy need to be defended for thier generally myopic comments says alot about what you are bringing to the discourse.
toolz...If you have been read
February 2, 2007 - 16:40 ET by bigtimertoolz...
If you have been reading this site for a week or more...what you see is what you get...and from what you are already seemingly whining about would tell anyone with a brain that works you may be in the wrong place...including yourself...eh?
You may want to moveon.
It was simply a question, tri
February 2, 2007 - 16:54 ET by toolzIt was simply a question, tried my best not to come across crass or, as I said, condescending; and I was not whining about the nature of the site, just asking if my perceptions after a week (one week did not seem long enough to reach a valid conclusion) were correct- hence the question.
It was simply a question, tri
February 2, 2007 - 16:55 ET by toolzIt was simply a question, tried my best not to come across crass or, as I said, condescending; and I was not whining about the nature of the site, just asking if my perceptions after a week (one week did not seem long enough to reach a valid conclusion) were correct- hence the question.
When I think something came o
February 2, 2007 - 17:10 ET by AtheistRepublicanWhen I think something came out wrong I say something like
"I don't mean that in an insulting or derogatory way, sometimes the things I say sound different then my intent, its an honest question"
afterwards
Also your user name isn't helping much, some might think you are calling us tools.
toolz...welcome to NBs...You
February 2, 2007 - 17:54 ET by ww thumpertoolz...welcome to NBs...You said you have only been here a week, so give it a few weeks and I think if your a "reasonable" person you will get along with us "regulars" just fine. We" good guys" don't bite much; we do "growl" at some folks here, just because their "idiots" So blend in , get along, be "nice" and you will enjoy NBs most of the time. have fun :-) ww v Being "Politcaly Correct" with ISLAM will distroy America......V
Toolz, I've been reading this
February 2, 2007 - 16:44 ET by AtheistRepublicanToolz, I've been reading this site for a long time though I only recently started commenting, from my experience the debate is civilized, with the occasional joke. It's not just conservatives here, I'm a libertarian (though some liberals may call me a conservative), there are some liberals, some of which are shameless trolls others who seem ok.
AtheistRepublican. I meant
February 2, 2007 - 16:53 ET by ucAtheistRepublican. I meant to ask you: How can you not believe in "God", just for the act of Al Gore loosing race for Presidency (his own state of volunteers decidedly). This is almost the "First Most Just Miracle of the World" in my sometime Ayn Randian and sometimes Atheistic thinking, and sometime as raised christian and catholic though studied more as a Catholic Siddhartha?
What a wonderful world it is. May the most god-full God humans ever meet, or sense, still be the God we live under in trust of in our balanced and checked system in America!
I credit the people who voted
February 2, 2007 - 17:06 ET by AtheistRepublicanI credit the people who voted for people other then Gore for that miracle. That or god popped into existence for that instance to perform that grand act. Really I don't have an answer, somethings I can't understand and just settle for being happy for them.
you should have been here pre
February 2, 2007 - 16:44 ET by ucyou should have been here pre-election day and months prior. You can even by not even reading the comments - just reading the blog entries - end up with a much clearer and near immediate and accurate take on news of the day. To follow one liners well you will have to get to know some of their regular patterns. You will often find full paragraph entries that get down to near impossible to refute interpretations of the day. This site's mission is to right the biased regular spin of more often than not liberal media and such biased news in mainstream news. Stick around awhile longer and let us know, as another commenter, your own judgement.
We are looking for a few good libs...
February 2, 2007 - 16:47 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasWell, I will pressume to speak for some but not all, my arrogance has to stay somewhat tempered. Most of the libs and super-libs that show up here, even if they intend on dialogue, debate and discovery in their minds generally quickly go to the gutter with silliness.
I gladly will tell you that I have more than once stated I am a moderate. I am pro-choice (a term I don't like but use for the sake of expediency), I am not a big fan of Bush and believe he is mediocre at best, did not agree with the decision when we did to go to invade Iraq and topple Saddam (but completely support the war effort to protect the Iraqis and insure that however long it takes Iraq is stablized and grown strong enough to maintain its security internally and externally), I think not think pot should be criminalized (I do not use it though), I don't care for Sean Hannity and believe he is at best a moralizing parrot...and I get along quite dandy.
Why? Because you have to give credit where credit is DUE. And this is what most, if not all, the libs and super-libs refuse to do when they come here. Just because a person is a lib or super-lib doesn't make them wrong by default and valid ideas can be found even with the most extreme personalities (but not too often). The libs and super-libs that come here simply refuse to acknowledge what is obvious and valid because it is from the right in some form or fashion.
If you can overlook the hyper-reactionaries here that are not good representatives of the conservatives here and ignore that part, you will find some excellent participants for debate and dialogue. But you must be willing to concede valid points yourself, even when they come from your most detested personalities because in the end, it is right thinking, not favored persons, that provide us the ability to further discover what is true to the benefit of us all.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
One of the good things about
February 2, 2007 - 23:05 ET by USA4freedomOne of the good things about NB is as my wife tells me, it keeps me from yelling at the TV. It’s a good place to blow off steam after watching the nightly MSM.
America is best described by one word, freedom... Dwight D. Eisenhower
Of course there are libs who
February 2, 2007 - 16:48 ET by dscottOf course there are libs who post here, Throatworbler being one of them. Obviously you haven't been observing all the threads otherwise you would have seen him and others posting contrary thoughts here. If you want debate, then you're going to have to do more than click your mouse, get involved and use your keyboard. Be warned, any assertion you make will be challenged requiring you to provide a link to support that assertion. I suppose this is why few libs post here, because they are afraid to back up their assertions, and just engage in meaningless arguments as though facts don't matter.
The purpose of this site is to expose liberal bias in the MSM. If you really want a liberal view then go over to Media Matters website, it's still a free medium for now. Free speech also means we have the right to poke jabs at libs, MSM and Dems, afterall it's our site. BTW- Try saying something contrary at a lib site like the DU or Daily Kos, see how long you last before being banned. Few people are banned here, that's because we believe in free speech, unless you make it personal to the point of using curse words, then you have forfeited your priviledge to post.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
From one of the lone Democr
February 2, 2007 - 18:00 ET by balboaFrom one of the lone Democrats: There is good debate on this site. Sure, the left is generally ragged on, but it's not like myself and others don't take shots at the right.
There is good debate. Find the threads that have it, the people worth responding to, and jump in. There are also good questions that can spur you to learn more about issues.
You libotard.*cue Beavis laug
February 2, 2007 - 22:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou libotard.
*cue Beavis laugh*
Bal, that's pretty generous o
February 3, 2007 - 01:20 ET by Scout FinchBal, that's pretty generous of you. I like that you like the debate that goes on here. I appreciate your posts, too. What I can't understand is, why don't liberal sites like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Democratic Underground not celebrate the same kind of open debate and thinking process that goes on here at NewsBusters? I used to have an account at most of those sites, and due to some sort of mildly 'unfavorable' posting, I've been relinquished of my posting privledges. I've never posted flaming replies, nor have I ridiculed anyone else posting on those sites. I've displayed nothing but the most respectful postings on those sites. For that, my posting privledges have been discontinued.
Again, I hope you enjoy the free intercourse of thought here on NewsBusters.
No problem with debate. More
February 2, 2007 - 18:49 ET by tracheostomyNo problem with debate. More than happy to go a few rounds w/you and I promise to leave the ad hominem and motive questioning out, okay? I'll push for nothing but objective logic here.
Bring it.
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
are you serious? what liber
February 3, 2007 - 00:43 ET by kathleenirishare you serious? what liberal isn't a fanatic zealot? " I like having a good, honest debate". Well, you'd be the first, dude. I have yet to see any liberal come within miles of 'honest'.
P.S. I used to be a 'liberal'.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Heck, I'm on this site becaus
February 3, 2007 - 09:10 ET by Mica the MagnificentHeck, I'm on this site because of the Clinton sex jokes, libtard, etc. Lighten up, if you take yourself too seriously, then I'll take you as too boring.
You can discuss the issues and have fun at the same time. Right?
Hillary is cool. - a libtard, deep in thought
I'd believe you, but your name is "toolz"
February 3, 2007 - 09:40 ET by SportPoliticsI'd believe you, but your name is "toolz". So, I think you're a wisecracker who intends to do nothing but complain the discussion isn't up to the level of your name "toolz".
That pretty much says to me exactly why you're here.
You had a great chance to make some intellectual point, and evaluate any responses for quality,but you didn't even hit the topic of the thread.
So far, you can't even hang with the subject at hand, partisan remark or otherwise.
My guess is you are a "tool", but I'd sure love to see you prove me wrong. ( That should let you know that others here appreciate discussion of fine points and a good debate,but it will probably be lost on you.)
So make your mark. Maybe you're here whining because you want someone to teach you with a good debate, but you can't participate yourself ?
I'm waiting and watching.
BTW- Since you've been watching for a week here, as you said, why did you ASK if this site is just a partisan bickering fest ?
I don't see how you expect me to not already conclude you have formed your opinion of this site, and take your entire "no offense intended" posting as your opinion of this place already, which obviously isn't good, since you're a lefty.
I HAVE to finish up here with, since you've been around a week already, how dumb am I supposed to believe you are ? Furthermore, it is clear to me you come from the left, and have made a half beg to "be gone easy on" once you say some talking point we've already all heard from some other lefty thousand times. Yeah, that's what your post meant to me.
Those are called DEDUCTIONS from your post. Now, if you were just a bit off in the asking being new, prove me wrong. I give it a one in a thousand chance, frankly.
I just threw some peanuts fro
February 2, 2007 - 16:37 ET by ucI just threw some peanuts from the peanut gallery. Was out of tomatoes. They only hit my computer screen with their imagined route. Glad I didn't buy a ticket and now want to ask for a refund.
I just threw some peanuts fro
February 2, 2007 - 16:38 ET by ucI just threw some peanuts from the peanut gallery. Was out of tomatoes. They only hit my computer screen with their imagined route. Glad I didn't buy a ticket and now want to ask for a refund.
Free speech is Free Speech, y
February 2, 2007 - 16:40 ET by AtheistRepublicanFree speech is Free Speech, you can't pick and choose what speech is free or its not free at all.
I've seen people burning CDs merely because they don't like the music (don't ask me how they got the CD in the first place, beyond me), so this is far from an extreme form of expression. If you own something its yours to burn, throw, or crush.
I agree. I remember when pe
February 2, 2007 - 16:47 ET by Ruths husband BenI agree. I remember when people were so upset about what the Dixie Chicks said and did. It was just stupid and pointless, both what they did and the folks burning thier CDs. If you really wanted to get thier goat, you should use thier CDs for beer coasters, at least put them to use. I don't listen to them because they don't respect me and my point of view and I don't want to support them and I don't like their music, but on the other hand, I really like Bruce Springsteen and we don't share a lot of political views. But I would never burn one of his CDs and I think I got them all.
Why does Hasselbeck even both
February 2, 2007 - 16:45 ET by Prester JohnWhy does Hasselbeck even bother?
Oh, and if burning a CD is wrong, what do they think about burning the American flag? Surely they are not saying that a CD is more valuable than the flag, are they? Or are they? (I know, stupid question).
Why can't the Left distinguis
February 2, 2007 - 16:47 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhy can't the Left distinguish between an indivdual exercising their rights and the government overstepping its bounds? The Nazi book burnings were sponsored by the Third Reich. Burning Dixie Chix CDs (was there really mass burnings of the CDs?--because that sounds like a Left-Wing thing to do) was a bunch of individuals demonstrating their disapproval of the band.
Does the Left really not see any distinction between individuals and government?
Either way this certainly does illustrate their contempt for anyone that uses the 1st Amendment without their approval. The 1st Amendment was written to protect individuals/groups/the press from government oppression of free expression--not to protect individuals/groups/the press from other individuals/groups/press opposing viewpoints.
I understood this in gradeschool, why then, do people generally on the Left (and some on the Right) have such a hard time digesting this concept?
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Exactly. The burnings in Ge
February 2, 2007 - 17:35 ET by balboaExactly. The burnings in Germany were government sponsored, government endorsed. The burning of Dixie Chick stuff is a statement. Behar said something like "But it was their bras." Well, as far as I know, it was their CDs that were burned. No one was breaking into Musicland or Tower Records and forcibly removing the CDs.
What I find most hilarious ab
February 2, 2007 - 21:03 ET by Del DolemonteWhat I find most hilarious about the entire Dixie Chicks thing is that as long as I have been a music fan (dating back to the late 1950s) the "liberal elites" have continually trashed country music, calling it "redneck music", etc. Yet all of a sudden, when a "country band" disses the current Republican President, they all rush out and buy their music?
And TIME Magazine and the NY Times, among others, in 2006 treated the Chicks as heroes, whereas a couple of years earlier, TIME was trashing another country star, Toby Keith, for daring to do a song trashing terrorists. Can you say "double standard"?
Del, I really don't think you
February 2, 2007 - 21:13 ET by mandrakeDel, I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Everyone fron Bob Dylan to John Lennon sites Hank Williams as an influence. George Harrison learned to play guitar from Chet Atkins. They made a major movie about Johnny Cash. Liberals love country music.
Perhaps I wasn't specific eno
February 2, 2007 - 22:50 ET by Del DolemontePerhaps I wasn't specific enough-by "liberal elites", I primarily meant to describe people like those in academia, as well as the media sources like the NY Times that cater to such people. There are of course exceptions, but I'm sure that the majority of stuffy university professors still listen to classical music on NPR. I've even heard anecdotal evidence of such people buying Dixie Chicks CDs purely on principle, listening to them once, and then relegating them to the cd collection, never to be played again. In my experiences, these people will listen to the true country greats, but would never be caught dead listening to Little Jimmy Dickens or the Statler Brothers.
And despite the fact that Toby Keith is in reality a Democrat, he was banned from an ABC 4th of July special by elite liberal Peter Jennings, solely because of his patriotic song against terrorism. If you look at PBS, which is definitely the TV network of the intellectual elite, country music programs are barely seen at all-maybe one per season at Pledge Time. Yet we are treated to endless rock music shows, evidenced by endless re-runs of PBS's "Tribute to James Taylor", with a Who's Who of left-leaning musicians with not a conservative in sight. And the only regularly scheduled "country music show" on PBS, "Austin City Limits" more or less confines itself these days to left-leaning country bands and artists, despite the fact that Republicans pretty much dominate the genre.
Del, I see your point. It's j
February 2, 2007 - 23:13 ET by mandrakeDel, I see your point. It's just that there are so many types of liberals on this site. Ya got your libs, super-libs and elite-libs. I sometimes forget which one I am. :-)
BTW..I really do love country music!
Johnny Cash, btw, could be co
February 3, 2007 - 18:34 ET by Del DolemonteJohnny Cash, btw, could be considered a "liberal" in the country music field, due to his championing the "little man" and "working man" in many of his songs. However, he was also rejected by many liberals, due to his Christianity.
I was at one of Johnny's last concerts in the mid-1990s, and was shocked to see a group of very well-dressed people, obviously not your garden variety of country music fans, get up and walk out of the show when Johnny started his "gospel segment".
Do they get any dumber?
February 2, 2007 - 16:56 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI don't think you can get any dumber that Whoopi and Rosie...but folks, I predicted June 15, 2007 as Rosie's last day back in the late fall...and I believe my accuracy will exceed Pat "Robber"son in one fell swoop!
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Bashing??
February 2, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Gary HallLet's just simply understand the facts, here. There is no comparison between the non-stop onslaught of basing and smear from the left on the right and the little bits of bashing on the left from the right.
...
February 2, 2007 - 17:55 ET by JnobleAnyone watch Goldberg on The O'Reilly Factor last night? She started off OK and then unknowingly showed the world the major difference between how a liberal thinks and everyone else does: "I make my decisions based on how I feel" O'Reilly pointed out that you need more than "feelings", you need some sort of reality or logic to back it up. Nope, she kept emphasizing that she basis her politics on her "feelings" and not much else. There you have it. The difference bewteen a lefty and a righty/libertarian. (In a related topic, the band Rush wrote a great long prog-rock suite 'Hemispheres' in the late '70s which was all about heart vs the rational mind)
Okay, watch "The View&qu
February 2, 2007 - 18:00 ET by SMGalbraithOkay, watch "The View" for a week and come back here and convince me that the following was a good idea.
The right of citizens in the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Whoa. Just noticed this. Is t
February 2, 2007 - 18:41 ET by tracheostomyWhoa. Just noticed this. Is this a joke or something? I think we're forgetting that we have a pretty even playing field (as far as gender goes) when it comes to liberal bias.
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
Goldberg: Then don't listen t
February 2, 2007 - 18:37 ET by tracheostomyGoldberg: Then don't listen to it.
Does this mean Whoopi opposes any public protest that she disagrees with?
Hasslebeck was right on. Love ya girl!
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
Does the audience ever applau
February 2, 2007 - 18:45 ET by HumanEventsDoes the audience ever applaud for anything Elisabeth Hasselbeck says? I never watch "The View" but any time I read transcripts or hear audio clips the only applause has been in response to one of the kooky libs like Rosie or Joy.
Actually, seeing as how the audience clapped loudly when Rosie said "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam" I think I know the answer to my question.
No, but they loudly booed Beh
February 2, 2007 - 18:59 ET by tracheostomyNo, but they loudly booed Behar once.
Forgot which topic it was on.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? It was fantastic. I just kept playing it over and over and over. . .
-PJ
Draft Condi for '08!
UPDATE: Here's the little gem
February 2, 2007 - 19:02 ET by tracheostomyUPDATE: Here's the little gem! =D
-PJ
Thanks tracheostomy. Good to
February 2, 2007 - 19:18 ET by HumanEventsThanks tracheostomy. Good to see the audience at The View jeered, rather than cheered, that sewage from Behar. I guess on that particular day it wasn't a Phil Donahue type audience!
Joy Rehab is a loon
February 2, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Jack BauerBehar: "Think Ku Klux Klan, when they burn the cross."
Hasselbeck: "I'm not ok with that."
Behar: "Well, but I mean it’s the same thing. It’s the burning."
Sure, a white supremacist KKK mob in white sheets, burning a cross on an African-American's lawn is EXACTLY the same as me buying a Dixie Chick CDs in 1999, and then burning it 5 years later.
In fact, even thinking of stomping a Dixie Chicks CD is tantemount to being a bigot and racist.
How could I have missed that?
I must hate trees and I tra
February 2, 2007 - 20:17 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI must hate trees and I trample all over their 1st amendment rights whenever I burn portions of them in my fireplace.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Mean G. Gun Safety Tip #8:
February 2, 2007 - 20:20 ET by Jack BauerMean G.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey.
I'd still rather give it to a monkey than a liberal.
My shucky darn, I never listen to this twaddle, but...
February 2, 2007 - 20:32 ET by acaiguanaMy shucky darn, I never listen to this twaddle, but...
Goldberg: "Nobody has a right to burn it. They can say I don’t like it, I don’t want to hear it."
What? Goldberg was out burning the flag in protest the other day and somebody threw a CD on it?
It's a CD! It is not some sacred text from a Buddhist Monk that can never be replaced or that carries some sort of ideas in it. Next thing you know I won't be able to burn my ex-ex-ex-girlfriend's love letters because the third (or fourth) new wife doesn't want them around.
OK, Bush is a Nazi. Restricting our rights. Limiting our freedoms. Looking over our shoulders. Germany in 1933. Burn those books (sorta silly since most people out of Public Schools can't read their diplomas) but what the hey, this is important.
My only closing comment (as if there were any other kind except for Joe Biden) is:
Get a life.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
the very idea
February 2, 2007 - 20:48 ET by tumbler_2007Who's idea is it to invite Whoopi Goldberg? Is she now Babaw Walter's token negress? Or have they determined Whoopi comes by her opinions on glass slippers?
My wife attended a party once at Whoopi's (1978-9 San Diego) when Whoopi was a star at the Rep Theatre there. No sooner did my wife, accompanied by her sister (hispanics, if it matters) no sooner did she pass the entrance into Whoopi's apartment, than they were offered drugs. (Actually, POT, I won't lie.) Which we haven't the taste for, ever.) She related this incident to me. This before we became engaged.
To expect wisdom from Whoopi Goldberg is the same as to call Conservative Voice, our confrere in this blog forum, a wise conservative. Neither of them fish or cut bait. They merely bloviate.
so are you trying to pick a
February 3, 2007 - 03:38 ET by Conservative Voiceso are you trying to pick a fight oh wise one?
tumbler
February 3, 2007 - 15:47 ET by Conservative VoiceI have noticed you haven't answered my question oh wise one...which goes to say it was just another drive by shooting of the mouth. If anyone is akin to whoopi or Rosie it is you. I haven't even sparred with you in quite some time and yet you take the opportunity to make an untruthful remark...that is rude and cowardly. Hmmm methinks you are Rosie, who likes to take the grand-stand and who thinks they are the smartest & wisest person in the room...when in reality you're a pig and a smart ass. You are such an intellectual light weight, stop wasting everyone's time.
Hey, Whoopie - pull my finger.
February 2, 2007 - 21:08 ET by acaiguanaHey, Whoopie - pull my finger.
Just kidding.
Seriously, what's the difference between an American Flag and a CD of cheap pop music?
Click on the link to take the rest of the IQ test and find out your IQ!
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Well for starters:CD's are ro
February 2, 2007 - 22:47 ET by AtheistRepublicanWell for starters:
I hope that clears a few things up for you.
Sorry, Athiest, I lost you after 'round' and 'rectangle'.
February 2, 2007 - 22:51 ET by acaiguanaSorry, Athiest, I lost you after 'round' and 'rectangle'.
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
*WARNING: Insulting one-liner
February 2, 2007 - 22:35 ET by Roger the Shrubber*WARNING: Insulting one-liner towards Liberals ahead*
Judging by the photo above, was it "Bad Hair Friday" on the View?
::: laughing ::: .... That wa
February 2, 2007 - 22:41 ET by::: laughing :::
Hasselbeck was close; she was
February 2, 2007 - 22:38 ET byHasselbeck was close; she was oh so close. But she missed a great opportunity to say so much more.
It is a form of speech, because it is 'saying' something. The reason it is okay to burn the CD is because it is not saying anything that is illegal to say. We cannot legally threaten a person's life. We cannot legally burn something on someone else's land, nor are we allowed to harass others--that is what the KKK did, when they burned crosses. And we cannot commit treason; burning the flag is an act of treason, therefore it should be illegal. Burning a flag is a threat to our nation; burning a flag is a way of saying that a person wants to bring down the nation of which the flag stands for.
We can however burn a CD or our bras, should we choose to--because neither of which says or does anything illegal. mmm..... Well, as long as we own the merchandise. And one cannot say that the burning of bras in the "60s went over any better with Playtex, than burning CDs is going over with the Dixie Chicks (Who, by the way, I like.)
Gosh, I have got to get a job on the view and help Hasselbeck out. She is all alone there and so young to be up against such monsters.
Please make it stop
February 2, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Front_RangeI am ready to explode! The View is so bad I can't take it anymore. Please make it stop. Please. I am now imploding. No more View. No more View. No More View. No More Rosie.
Oh Yeah
February 2, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Front_RangeAnd I was going to say that maybe this sequence would blow the hatch off of The View:
4 8 15 16 23 42
FR - That's the great thing a
February 2, 2007 - 23:31 ET by Free StinkerFR - That's the great thing about Newsbusters. They watch this cr@p so we don't have to! :-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Progressive Forefathers
February 3, 2007 - 02:47 ET by mastersofdeceitFirst off I'd like to thank NB for continuing to be a instrumental educational tool I can use for teaching my 13 yr. old.
There is so much ignorance in this conversation that needs to be addressed. Let me say that I agree with other posters that Hasselback should be replaced or needs a backup. My pick is Ilana Mercer. Now let's go point by point.
1. Goldberg-"..started burning books"-The Little Ladies need to be reminded that it was their American "progressive" forefathers that were burning German books in the street and doing silly things like calling sauerkraut "Freedom Cabbage". This was of course after Germany attacked mother Russia, before they were just warning the US govt not to be "war mongers" and attack Germany.
2. Re: "McCarthy era-esque"-Trying to invoke the Hollywood Blacklist, O'donut needs to be reminded that the starting of the "blacklist" was actually started by the Hollywood studios.
3. Goldberg-"when they started burning art"-Here we can check in with the groundbreaking Bauhaus School. Persecuted and closed down mainly because according to the nazis "infested and ran by homosexuals and jews". This is something that will also not sit well with the offspring, sons of the nazis. You know gay, artists. Regardless of Jew or not.
4. Behar-"think KKK, when they burn the Cross"- This is certainly a nice bone to throw out with a black liberal guest on. But the burning of the Cross, by a group that was formed to be the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, I forget how many Republicans did the KKK kill in the late 1800's? (the question is rhetorical, I already know the #) The cross burning is because the KKK is virulently anti-Catholic. That's why some people (democrats) got worried about Catholic John Kennedy.
5. Goldberg-"nobody has the right to burn it."-Not really going to address this stupidity, but Gberg probably thought Cat Stevens steamroller over disco records was funny.
"they can say I don't like it, I don't want to hear it"-Which is exactly the way I feel about the bitching about Fox, Rush, "Right-wing radio", Fairness Doctrine etc. Shut up, if you don't want to hear it turn it off.
"See that my grave is kept clean"- Blind Lemon Jefferson
Hypo-Liberal Obfuscation
February 3, 2007 - 07:28 ET by Mr. TerryI'll tell you what burns me up, it is the hypocritical word twisting of the liberals. I'm so very sick of references to the nazis in 1933 Germany. You are not honest, you are just blowing smoke.
Tell me also (Ms.) Goldberg, WHY do you invoke the KKK into this conversation? The true Klan was a civil war holdover. Any thinking American realizes the evil that it was, that is one of the reasons we went to war amongst ourselves. What! on God's green earth does opposing and burning Dixie Chicks CD's have to do with hanging innocent slaves and former slaves?
Black woman speak with forked tongue.
The Bloated-One strikes again !
February 3, 2007 - 09:06 ET by Johnnyboy792Once again Rosie talks out of the side of her face. She states that going after the chicks was a "witch hunt !" Even though it was acceptable for her to use her talk show to attack Tom Selleck for his views. No government entity has done a single thing to the chicks, only the public, which according to the ass-backwards logic of Rosie & Whoopi is wrong !
I am absolutely fed up with t
February 3, 2007 - 11:05 ET by i was just thinkingI am absolutely fed up with the left's continued trivialization of the Nazi period and the Holocaust. Every comment made comparing events in our country today to those of the 1930's/40's in Germany is a comment on their ignorance of history and their willingness to politicize that history, thereby minimalizing the misery suffered by millions.
The 1933 book-burning included the works of Freud, Einstein, Thomas Mann, Jack London, H.G. Wells, and many others. In his speech to the Hitler Youth (at the book-burning), Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister for Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, said
"...The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end. The breakthrough of the German revolution has again cleared the way on the German path...The future German man will not just be a man of books, but a man of character. It is to this end that we want to educate you. As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear of death, and to regain respect for death - this is the task of this young generation. And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past. This is a strong, great and symbolic deed - a deed which should document the following for the world to know - Here the intellectual foundation of the November (Democratic) Republic is sinking to the ground, but from this wreckage the phoenix of a new spirit will triumphantly rise..."
I am totally appalled at the ignorance that can equate the comparitively insipid music of the Dixie Chicks with the intellectual brilliance of such writers as Mann and Einstein, and the TRUE loss of freedom of speech that followed.
On a side note, Rosie should perhaps actually STUDY the McCarthy period. I can't call to mind any of today's Hollywood personalities who are being barred from working as a result of their public declarations and political statements. I have heard of no blacklist.
Unfortunately, their "facts" as presented on "The View" are taken at face-value by a population that is often ignorant of true facts that disprove their statements.
THE View... as if there is no other.