Will Someone Please Pull Rosey O'donald Of The View? She called the soldiers terrorists

[Mermaid711 0]

I am really getting fed up with Rosey O'Donald's anti war comments. Most anti war comments, although I dissagree with, I can put up with. But Rosey I just can't stand. Now Before I go intothis, let me just say that my father served in Iraq.

 

Here is what the article I said, and I quote:

 

The *BLEEP* fight between Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck officially went nuclear -- and we mean nuclear -- on this morning's "The View," and it's a miracle, frankly, that fists didn't fly.

 

As usual, Rosie and Elisabeth started in on one another on the topic of Iraq, but it quickly got personal when Rosie, clearly still miffed that Elisabeth hadn't defended her over the whole soldiers-as-terrorists fracas, demanded to know whether Hasselbeck really thought Rosie felt that U.S. soldiers were terrorists, "as my friend, since September." When Elisabeth didn't give her a yes-or-no answer, the verbal fisticuffs began in earnest. In fact, producers saw fit to go split-screen, just to amp up the volume.

 

Name-calling ensued, with Rosie calling Elisabeth "cowardly," and Elisabeth spitting back at Ro that she's not "poor little Elisabeth," even smacking down guest co-host Sherri Shepherd's suggestion that she chill for the sake of her unborn child, saying, "The baby's FINE."

 

Joy Behar -- not at all wisecracking and with not inconsiderable exasperation -- asked, "Who's directing this show?! We need a commercial break! What is this, PBS?"

It just makes me sick!
Edited May 25, 2007 by Mermaid711 (see edit history)

[Smack 0]

...She is already leaving.Giving attention to her just fuels the fire. She loves to say outrageous stuff, haven't you noticed?And, we all know that our soldiers aren't terrorists, though the one who got 100 years in jail is a terrorist, I assume she was talking of him and way over-generalized, but her saying something like that doesn't surprise me.

[FolkRockFan 0]

Yep - she's leaving in...I want to say June. She can't leave fast enough, IMO. She's annoying on all fronts, really. It's just too bad that she can't *reasonably* discuss subjects. If she could debate, discuss or argue like an adult - as in: she listens as well as speaks and gives others the same courtesies that she expects - I wouldn't have any problem with her whatsoever even though I disagree with a lot of her opinions.

[Tetraca 0]

She's too provacative for some stuffy executive that only cares about ratings and money to pull her off for good. She'll return as a guest, no matter how much people hate her and want her off the show. At least, that's what I would think would happen.

[Spyda 0]

I personally like Rosie, I dont like her views, but she made the show interesting and she boosted the ratings. I'm a dude, and the view before Rosie was a show where some wome talked about their women problems, but with Rosie they are women talking about women problemes while fighting and getting all mad. THis to me is the only reason I would have to watch this show, a good old fashion chick fight!!

[Watermonkey 0]

Rosie, love her or hate her, stuck to her principals with regards to her impending departure from The View, which will probably happen sooner then the end of her contract. The executive producers wanted to control her "view" and she wouldn't have any of it. They wouldn't allow her to bring on Professor Steven Jones regarding the physics involved with the destruction of the three buildings at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and they were trying to limit what she had to say on other aspects of current events too. They wanted her to continue because they know she's responsible for the higher ratings the show has been getting of late and they offered her a very lucrative contract but she had to agree to shut her mouth about 9/11 Truth and she turned it down. I never liked her before because of her anti-gun views and I still don't like her for that, but she's commanded my respect for standing up for free speech and not letting money get in the way of getting the truth out. She'll probably get her own show now... Stay tuned, she'll be back.

[wenster 0]

I don't know whether she was trying to go out with another boom and hope to get another job or what but it was quite outlived with her and her comments. Sometimes I think she just makes up stuff to say and sticks to it. There's really no need to say that Elisabeth didn't defend her point of view on what was said. She's just instigating just for more ratings and whatever. They even let Donald Trump go on phone on other tv talk shows and let him speak his mind about the whole issue. He still calls her a nasty person or whatever the equivalent of that he said.

[Kioku 0]

Somebody needs to tell Rosie that steel loses at least 50% of its structural integrity at the level jet fire burns.

[thejestergl 0]

I also agree that Rosie did seem to have said the wrong things by calling soldiers terrorists. I personally am on the fence when it comes to the war. I do feel that we shoudl support the troops that are in Iraq because if they are there they should know that we back home are behind them. You don't want them feeling as though they are fighting for no reason. This comment by Rosie really struck it cold, there is no reason to have said such harsh words. I am currently writing letters to our soldiers to encourage them and let them know that we care for them. Again, I will not say whether I am for or against the war in the big picture, but I do support the troops that are already there or who might be shipped there.

[Watermonkey 0]

Somebody needs to tell Rosie that steel loses at least 50% of its structural integrity at the level jet fire burns.

That wouldn't be relevant since the jet fuel burned off in just a matter of minutes, what little remained after the explosive fireball of fuel burned just after impact. According to NIST (a government agency) and independent structural engineers and physicists, even at half strength structural steel such as that used in the core of the WTC 1 and 2 could've stood stress two to three times what the load was during the event. Also, NIST determined no steel samples reached 600 degrees Celsius, indeed nothing exceeded 230 degrees Celsius. Someone has already probably told Rosie, and the rest of the world, the buildings one and two were designed to survive multiple impacts of Boeing 707 airplanes at the same time without failure. Finally, according to the Law of Conservation of Momentum, the buildings should not have even remotely fallen into their footprints. Only a controlled demolition can explain the implosion and free-fall in which the buildings were observed falling. Any other "official" explanation defies the laws of physics, but is standard fare for the lies of government.
Yeah, I think Rosie is adequately informed. Want to see a good lecture? Go here: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ , maybe you'll learn something new... Hope you're not on dial-up, the lecture is a couple hours in length. It might prepare you for college lectures if you're not there yet.