That didn't last long. ABC Cancels Roseanne after tweet about Obama aid.

[jamil]

The usual celebrity crutch is "my account was hacked" when they say something they regret later. Blaming a drug is pretty close to that as far as how dumb it is.

When the facts don't seem to square with it, yeah. Like someone said, if the typical reaction is to be incoherent, and the only thing incoherent (well, incoherent for her) was the racist comment, nah. Not buying it.

 

[HoughMade]

Support ideas, not people, and you'll never look like an idiot for going "all in" for someone like Roseanne (or...oh, nevermind) when they inevitably do something stupid.

 

[indiucky]

Support ideas, not people, and you'll never look like an idiot for going "all in" for someone like Roseanne (or...oh, nevermind) when they inevitably do something stupid.

QFT....My hand hovered over the keyboard while this train wreck was happening....."To tweet or not to tweet???" That was the question before me...

I refrained....Thank the Lord almighty I refrained....

 

[Kutnupe14]

I understand. There must be irrefutable, ironclad evidence to make any accusations against the Obama administration. No evidence required if the target is Republican or conservative.

No, you don't understand. When I present a case against someone, I give a specific reason, and then back it up with a source that lists factual evidence, and the reader can decide one way or the other. Not exactly a high bar. You assessed a punishment for Jarrett, without explaining a crime. I think it's fair to figure out what see did before sending her to the gallows. And for the record, as much as some may like it to be the case, having a position in the prior administration doesn't meet the criteria.

 

[indiucky]

Houghmade was so right...She just got offered and accepted a job on INFOWars.....Wow...Just wow..."I had the number one show on network TV and two days later I'm hanging with Alex Jones..."

And seems excited...

 

[HoughMade]

Walsh: Conservatives never should have embraced Roseanne to begin with

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31231/walsh-conservatives-never-should-have-embraced-matt-walsh?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

 

[BugI02]

I disagree about what she's saying. How much has she actually supported Trump?

As noted by GPIAsfhugygnsbcchnnir, she uses her platform to amplify the stuff around him. And, honestly, alot of it is the crazier side of things.

She made her name doing mocking-style comedy. The original Roseanne wasn't really a documentary, it was a mockery. Of all sorts of stuff.

What makes you think she isn't mocking all the stuff she amplifies?

Seems like you're beginning to 'rub up against' Poe's law (and is that a banana in your pocket ....)

 

[BugI02]

... but she may be a woke liberal... We need a new label for that.

van Winkles?

 

[BugI02]

I've never seen anything like the past couple of years....The moment I knew Trump was not only going to win the nomination but the Presidency is when at the RNC Convention a guy in a suit was trying to get some blue collar older women out of there because they said they were Democrats...The anger and passion in that rural woman's face was something I'd never seen before...Like a waking lioness...She growled at him and said, "You got life long yellow dog Democrats coming to support one of your candidates and you're going to run us off??? NEVER...And her and her friends began shouting "TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! and then others took up the chant and the guy backed off....

Strange days indeed....Twitter is addictive....You were one of my first followers then MC Grease...I appreciate it....I made need your help in figuring out how to block folks and to keep the Eurotrash hookers from messaging me...But not Jenna Jameson...She always likes my tweets and even said one was awesome...

Paris Hilton is following you!? Must be the breechcloth

 

[BugI02]

When everyone is righteously indignant, then no one is.

No no! When everyone is righteously indignant ... then everyone is!

 

[BugI02]

Houghmade was so right...She just got offered and accepted a job on INFOWars.....Wow...Just wow..."I had the number one show on network TV and two days later I'm hanging with Alex Jones..."

And seems excited...

Sigh, another one lost to Old Scratch

 

[KJQ6945]

Roseanne has always been a hate spewing leftist. She has said, and done, way more vile things than this. She's no conservative, and never has been. Just another diseased liberal. Had she made the remark about Trump, her show wouldn't be cancelled, and she be on the late night talk shows to repeat it.

Again, does anybody really care?

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Hah, yikes


Ambien maker: Racism is not a side-effect of our drug.

Does Ambien turn you into Clayton Bigsby or does it just help introduce him to the rest of the world?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Roseanne has always been a hate spewing leftist. She has said, and done, way more vile things than this. She's no conservative, and never has been. Just another diseased liberal. Had she made the remark about Trump, her show wouldn't be cancelled, and she be on the late night talk shows to repeat it.

Again, does anybody really care?

Really, I mean really? Keep in mind we are in a Trump world... and the for the most part the what you are saying about Roseanne, can be said about Trump. Is he a leftist too? Celebrity, long history of supporting liberal causes/candidates, throwing shade at people... what's the difference here?

 

[HoughMade]

Really, I mean really? Keep in mind we are in a Trump world... and the for the most part the what you are saying about Roseanne, can be said about Trump. Is he a leftist too? Celebrity, long history of supporting liberal causes/candidates, throwing shade at people... what's the difference here?

Well, Trump is doing many things that are not leftist regardless of what he has said in the past. Roseanne has never really actively supported anything conservative...but why the comparison?

 

[KJQ6945]

Really, I mean really? Keep in mind we are in a Trump world... and the for the most part the what you are saying about Roseanne, can be said about Trump. Is he a leftist too? Celebrity, long history of supporting liberal causes/candidates, throwing shade at people... what's the difference here?

Very little in my mind.
Hillary was a known factor. She was a loser. Trump, we had a chance with. My biggest hope for Trump was a decent Supreme Court pick. I had no illusions of grandeur.
Im relatively pleased by some things he's done, but irritated but many others. You just assume, wrongly, that all conservatives are giddy about him.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

First... the reason for the inequality? Whites weren't oppressed in America. Period.

"******" was a specifically racially-charged word back then. There is no equal to it when it comes to another race calling something to white people. We can and should all acknowledge this. However, we should also be able to acknowledge that was a long time ago, and we've grown and evolved past those dark times.

There are words that... when said from a white to a black person, carry a LOT of weight... compared to words said from anyone else to a white person. That's how it is, that's how it will be, and that's how it will be for many decades to come. The inequality is there for a reason.

So...

It's less likely a celebrity is going to be fired for using white-racial terms as opposed to the much heavier black-racial terms.

I think it likely that there are some of Irish ancestry that would disagree with that statement.

 

[actaeon277]

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think it likely that there are some of Irish ancestry that would disagree with that statement.

Short version, modern notion of color = race isn't the construct used by our ancestors. "Moral" and cultural components were also "racial" traits.

Longer version:

Whites weren't oppressed as Whites. Our modern construct of race and who's "White" isn't how people 200 years ago saw and understood race. Again referring back to the 1850's book I linked to earlier, the author discusses earlier texts and "Caucasian"

The Caucasian...is the only species in which white races with rosy cheeks are found ; but it embraces besides sundry brunette, brown, and black races - not regarding color as a satisfactory test of race. The principal races which he includes under the Caucasian head are, the Germanic, Celtic, Semitic, and Hindoo. The latter differ much in color, some being black, others fair, comprising all intermediate shades, and are probably a mixture of different primitive stocks.

"Bretons", the "species" most British, compared to the "Celts":

Celts...are communicative, impetuous, versatile ; they pass rapidly from courage to timidity, and from audacity to despair. This is a distinctive character of the Celtic race, now , as in ancient Gauls. The Bretons are entirely different: they are taciturn ; hold strongly to the ideas and usages ; are persevering and melancholic ; in a word, both in morale and physique, they present the type of a southern race...The Celts, we have seen reason to believe, are by no means to be regarded as the primal heirs of the land, but are, on the contrary, comparatively recent intruders. Ages before their migration to Europe, an unknown Allophylian race had wandered to this remote island of the sea....

In the book "1493" the author talks about tapestries that are essentially flow charts for determining race in the European colonies of South America. As Europeans, Indians, Asians, and Africans interbred, the idea of race began to become more fluid. Prior to the Columbian Exchange, people almost entirely stayed where they were from. Africans were in Africa. Europeans were in Europe. Etc. The Columbian Exchange changes that, the first really large scale populations outside of their native land. So, when a man who's the son of a Spanish father and Indian mother procreates with a African woman, what race is the resultant child? Consult the flow chart. Going from memory, there were some 18 possible results, and it could change based on which parent was which sex. So, yes, not just about skin color or what we understand as genetics.

 

[Route 45]

In the book "1493" the author talks about tapestries that are essentially flow charts for determining race in the European colonies of South America. As Europeans, Indians, Asians, and Africans interbred, the idea of race began to become more fluid. Prior to the Columbian Exchange, people almost entirely stayed where they were from. Africans were in Africa. Europeans were in Europe. Etc. The Columbian Exchange changes that, the first really large scale populations outside of their native land. So, when a man who's the son of a Spanish father and Indian mother procreates with a African woman, what race is the resultant child? Consult the flow chart. Going from memory, there were some 18 possible results, and it could change based on which parent was which sex. So, yes, not just about skin color or what we understand as genetics.

Imagine how much better the world would be if people dedicated the brain power required to dwell on this type of ****ing nonsense to finding a cure to diseases that plague us, or other issues more weighty than what label they can slap on themselves to feel some kind of misguided pride in something that they had absolutely no hand in.