TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Rosie O'Donnell's VIEW upset me this morning.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rosie O'Donnell's VIEW upset me this morning. - Page 3

post #61 of 82
I was upset about the comment she made about the pet recall, but I was even MORE upset about her tirade regarding conspiracies behind the WTC attacks, and the kidnapped soldiers.

My first reaction to her spouting off about the WTC was, "Are you a Civil Engineer? Architect? What do you know???!!!" SHE is not a credible source, and was not giving credit to anyone who would be. Your average American may take what she says as truth and run with it. She's presenting her point of view, yes (and she is entitled to do so) but to state it as fact, not opinion, is misleading and dangerous.

And don't get me started on the fact that she said, "For the first time in history fire has melted steel." (If you find the video on Youtube, that is what she said.) I wonder how steel mills make their steel?

I also feel sorry for those soldiers who are kidnapped, as well as their families because they have to deal with people who think that they did it on purpose. :/
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsRNmom View Post
I like Rosie but she lost my vote the other day when on the air she was talking about how her and Kelly's sex life is great...TMI Rosie...IMO
I'm surprised too at the way she talks about her relationship with Kelly, but she does have just as much right to talk about her "sex life" as anyone else does, whether people like it or not. IMO.

We have a tv in the breakroom at work so I usually get to see some of The View and I did not care for the comment she made about the pet food recall. That was not called for. But, like so many other people, Rosie is just not an animal person.

I do like Rosie though. It's strange, because usually loud, big mouth, obnoxious people get on my last nerve...but Rosie makes me laugh. I think she's a very intelligent woman. She does seem to be very tense/uptight though lately.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalee View Post
I'm surprised too at the way she talks about her relationship with Kelly, but she does have just as much right to talk about her "sex life" as anyone else does, whether people like it or not. IMO.

<snip>

She does seem to be very tense/uptight though lately.
Well, maybe her sex life really isn't that great.

Personally, I wouldn't want to hear about the sex life of ANY of the people on that show - or any show! - regardless of who or what sex their partners may be. I didn't want to hear Angie and Billy Bob talk about their sex life either when they were together, and I love Angelina Jolie. So it's not about her sexual orientation, I just think that what goes on in the bedroom should stay there.
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
my view on her is about the same as trump's
Ditto! Rosie is a slf absorbed, self serving blowhard!
post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Well, maybe her sex life really isn't that great.

Personally, I wouldn't want to hear about the sex life of ANY of the people on that show - or any show! - regardless of who or what sex their partners may be. I didn't want to hear Angie and Billy Bob talk about their sex life either when they were together, and I love Angelina Jolie. So it's not about her sexual orientation, I just think that what goes on in the bedroom should stay there.
That's what I meant..I don't care who she is with, but I think things like that from anybody should not be shared with the public on TV..
post #66 of 82
I think she has a valid point. I don't think it means that she doesn't like animals or what ever she is just strongly against this war which don't blame her for. Soldiers may have chose to join the military to protect us, but they didn't choose where they were put. They didn't get to decide if this war was necessary or not. I love animals and I think they are very important but think about it. If you had a child and a cat and they were both standing in the middle of the road about to be hit by a car would you save your child or your cat. It sucks to think of it that way but maybe that was Rosies thinking in the back of her head. I think it is horrible about the pet food recall but the war is a bigger issue regardless and there should be more coverage on it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be coverage on the pet food recall because there should though they are both big issues and without a doubt they should both be covered regardless, the war is still a bigger issue and it is killing way more people then it should.
post #67 of 82
That `save the child or the cat' argument always sticks in my craw. I would try to save both. A life is a life. People look askance at me when I say that but I can't help the way I feel.

As for the war vs pet food recall, the war cannot be the top story overshadowing every single other for an indefinite period. If we didn't have correct and proper coverage of other news items all that would happen is that we would become even more immersed than we are, and life would not go on, it would remain locked in a stasis revolving around war, war, war.

People need other things to think about. Life does go on, and there are other important issues. It certainly does not mean that the soldiers dying aren't important, but lives lost are lives lost - human, animal, man, woman, child - and any needless, preventable loss of life should be given due attention. Irresponsibility, poisoning, deaths - these are important, current issues. They need to be covered and given no more and no less attention than they deserve.
post #68 of 82
These are two distinctly separate issues, and for many, the food recall hits closer to home then the war in Iraq. And, while the court of public opinion seems to have very little weight over the war, the pet food recall is something we Americans can actually DO something about...we can simply opt to switch to different foods, and feel healthier products to our pets.

I used to love Rosie's show...but since it's gone off the air, she's been nothing but sincerely annoying to me.
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
I think she has a valid point. I don't think it means that she doesn't like animals or what ever she is just strongly against this war which don't blame her for. Soldiers may have chose to join the military to protect us, but they didn't choose where they were put. They didn't get to decide if this war was necessary or not. I love animals and I think they are very important but think about it. If you had a child and a cat and they were both standing in the middle of the road about to be hit by a car would you save your child or your cat. It sucks to think of it that way but maybe that was Rosies thinking in the back of her head. I think it is horrible about the pet food recall but the war is a bigger issue regardless and there should be more coverage on it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be coverage on the pet food recall because there should though they are both big issues and without a doubt they should both be covered regardless, the war is still a bigger issue and it is killing way more people then it should.
Why weigh which is more important to begin with?
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
That `save the child or the cat' argument always sticks in my craw. I would try to save both. A life is a life. People look askance at me when I say that but I can't help the way I feel.

As for the war vs pet food recall, the war cannot be the top story overshadowing every single other for an indefinite period. If we didn't have correct and proper coverage of other news items all that would happen is that we would become even more immersed than we are, and life would not go on, it would remain locked in a stasis revolving around war, war, war.

People need other things to think about. Life does go on, and there are other important issues. It certainly does not mean that the soldiers dying aren't important, but lives lost are lives lost - human, animal, man, woman, child - and any needless, preventable loss of life should be given due attention. Irresponsibility, poisoning, deaths - these are important, current issues. They need to be covered and given no more and no less attention than they deserve.
Okay, and I'm not really directing this at you, but you bring up a number of very valid points in your post, so I'm quoting, lol!

I completely agree with your point on the "save the cat or save the person". I would try to save both. But then again, my kid would grab the cat and I could grab the kid.. and both would be saved, but that's because my kid adores animals the same way that I do. He'd be the one hanging off the cliff by one finger trying to save the kitty from falling off instead of worrying about whether he was going to make it himself. It runs in the family, lol.

That being said, though.. I honestly can say that I'd save my cat before I'd save a lot of people. Anyone that is close enough to me that I *might* (or might not, sort of debatable) choose to save instead of my cat.. someone who's life might be more important, all would do their damndest to save the animal first, so I just don't ever see it becoming a conflict for me. I mean, you have to base a hypothetical question on what you'd do in real life if you were presented with the hypothetical situation and you have to base that on your real life experiences and by extention, those people that you directly relate with everyday. And in that circumstance, I might be presented with that scenario at some point in time, but.. I know it would never be an absolute cut and dried situation.

Now, I'm of the opinion that the war, in fact, needs to be blasted on the front cover of every newspaper every single day because it is way too important to have taken the back seat that it's taken because it's not in our face every single day. I mean, there is a very distinct feeling here in this thread (and I'm just as guilty) where we've all pretty much just said, a.) there's nothing we can do about it, and b.) we've forgotten about it, or it's not as important because it's not right here in front of us. It *should* be just as important as if it were happening in our country. Our lives really do need to be about war, war war, because war war war is what's happening. It's a very spoiled outlook and reaction for us to simply forget about it because we can, because it's not happening here. Is it less important because it's in a different country? America is, imo, far more culpable for taking a war to another country than it would be if we'd been invaded and were defending ourselves. In fact, we should be doing far more about it now. We could do something about it, we're just too happy to ignore and be lazy about it to actually have accomplished anything. We're every bit as capable of doing something about this as we are able to do something about the pet food issue, it's just a little more difficult and more energy expended. Again, I'm just as guilty as everyone else, but I do admit that I could be a lot more active about it. I also admit that I tend to forget about it just like everyone else.

I think that's Rosie's point. I completely see what she's saying. It's not that pets are less important (though she handled it the wrong way), it's that war is one of the most important things going on right now, and we don't hear about it. We need to. I think the media needs to smack us in the face every day with it so we'll get off our butts and do something about it.

That, of course, doesn't work for those that are in favor of the war, but.. you know, those of us that don't.. well..we need to be doing more about it and we're not. But I think that's a lot of what she's saying. Dunno. I think if people were forced to think about it and not able to just put it out of their head because that's the easier route, we might actually be able to do something about it. It is rather disheartening to have it in our faces all the time every day, but I do think maybe that's what we need to motivate us.

Again, KitEKats, that's not directed specifically at you, I just think you brought up a lot of really good points.. there have been a number of posts of a similar type. I think you're right about a lot of things and the way people see it, in some respects, though, I have to disagree a little bit.
post #71 of 82
Actually, the pet food recall is just as important as the war, because it does effect a lot of people as well. Now, what the media really needs to do, is stop all the coverage of stupid American Idol and cover the war more. Every time I watch the news, it's about who may or may not get booted off. I don't care and this isn't something that needs to be in the news. Of course, I really don't care what Rosie or any celebrity has to say. They have no clue of the real world
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat View Post
Actually, the pet food recall is just as important as the war, because it does effect a lot of people as well. Now, what the media really needs to do, is stop all the coverage of stupid American Idol and cover the war more. Every time I watch the news, it's about who may or may not get booted off. I don't care and this isn't something that needs to be in the news. Of course, I really don't care what Rosie or any celebrity has to say. They have no clue of the real world
since the number of pets treated is over 40,000 that is alot of people that having to deal with . the news anymore is a joke, its not about the news comeone they spend a ton of time with celebrity news, who is dating who etc, and sorry neet, but who cares about american idol(lol we my get kicked off this forums for saying this) and i fully agree, i dont care or even want to hear what celebrity people have to say. they are just there to make me forget the real world a few hours, that it.
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat View Post
Actually, the pet food recall is just as important as the war, because it does effect a lot of people as well. Now, what the media really needs to do, is stop all the coverage of stupid American Idol and cover the war more...
How about stopping the coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith case too?
post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
How about stopping the coverage of the Anna Nichole Smith case too?
Yes!! That too!!
post #75 of 82
I definitely agree that the pet food recall is every bit as important. Of course, that's because we all think that pets are as important as humans. Not everyone would see it that way. I thought I was pretty clear in my post that I found both issues to be equally important, or rather, one was not less important than the other, but when I went back and reread it.. I didn't make that clear, so I'm clarifying now.

I do not think the war should have gotten more coverage than the recall. I do think though, that it needs to get a lot more coverage than it is getting. You guys are completely right about this... we see more about Brittany, Anna, American Idols, stars in general.. who lost weight, who gained weight.. and while I don't suggest that those are unimportant issues or things that should not be covered.. I am suggesting that we need a lot more coverage of the war (and the recall too, actually), but my post was about the war and Rosie's comment. I think basically the soldiers and our pets have both gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to media.
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krazycatlover View Post
I think she has a valid point. I don't think it means that she doesn't like animals or what ever she is just strongly against this war which don't blame her for. Soldiers may have chose to join the military to protect us, but they didn't choose where they were put. They didn't get to decide if this war was necessary or not. I love animals and I think they are very important but think about it. If you had a child and a cat and they were both standing in the middle of the road about to be hit by a car would you save your child or your cat. It sucks to think of it that way but maybe that was Rosies thinking in the back of her head. I think it is horrible about the pet food recall but the war is a bigger issue regardless and there should be more coverage on it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be coverage on the pet food recall because there should though they are both big issues and without a doubt they should both be covered regardless, the war is still a bigger issue and it is killing way more people then it should.
I'm about to reiterate a point other members have already made about the cat vs. child scenario. This "which would you save, your cat or your kid" thing makes me want to scream. Why does it always come down to that when people discuss animal issues? As Rockcat points out, why does one issue even need to be weighed against the other? Using the kid vs. cat logic, why not take it one step further - how about saving my kid vs. your kid? How does imagining what one would do in an *extreme* situation have any relevance to how people should think about current issues? Where does this kind of thinking get us?

Rosie's comments are typical of those who have no feeling, let alone love, for animals. To these kind of people, there is *always* something more important to discuss or care about than animals. Having nothing to add to the subject of the recall, she steered the discussion right back to the war, a subject on which she seems to have limitless and loudmouthed opinion.

I believe that most rational humans are capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time. We don't need to rank issues in order of "importance" to feel justified in giving thought to them.

And btw, not enough war coverage? Huh? You can't turn on the TV news and not hear about Iraq, ditto for radio news and talk radio. Newspapers run articles on the war every day, and there's tons of war info on the Internet. What's needed is balanced, unbiased coverage.
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
And btw, not enough war coverage? Huh? You can't turn on the TV news and not hear about Iraq, ditto for radio news and talk radio. Newspapers run articles on the war every day, and there's tons of war info on the Internet. What's needed is balanced, unbiased coverage.
Well, that is partially true. We do have some news coverage. It's a very positive spin on the situation. I'll conceed that indeed there is some coverage.. I just tend to forget it because I turn it off when they start talking about Bush with stars in their eyes and adoration in the voice and how wonderful the war is.
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
Well, that is partially true. We do have some news coverage. It's a very positive spin on the situation. I'll conceed that indeed there is some coverage.. I just tend to forget it because I turn it off when they start talking about Bush with stars in their eyes and adoration in the voice and how wonderful the war is.
You're kidding, right? "Some" news coverage? There's plenty. But "a very positive spin on the situation"??? Where??? Not if you're watching ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc. Their anti-war bias is glaring.

The ONLY network that ever reports on anything good happening in Iraq is Fox. And if you're referring to Fox, I strongly disagree with you that they speak about the President "with stars in their eyes and adoration in the voice and how "wonderful" the war is". There are things on which they agree with the President. But there are other issues, pertaining to the war, as well as separate issues such as immigration, with which they don't agree. They do not hesitate to disagree with Bush or criticize him when they feel he's fallen short of conservative ideals.

Most important, supporters of the war do not believe it is "wonderful". War is never wonderful.
post #79 of 82
However, supporters of the war do believe it's right.

Oh, and by the way.. I live in the DC metro area. The only station around here that doesn't glorify Bush and his regime is NPR, or the world/international channels/stations.
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAreBetter View Post
However, supporters of the war do believe it's right.

Oh, and by the way.. I live in the DC metro area. The only station around here that doesn't glorify Bush and his regime is NPR, or the world/international channels/stations.

lol i really dont know what station you hear, but i have not seen any of the news networks glorify bush or the war. sounds more like you are allowing your dislike of it to cloud what you hear by using the term regime is proof of that. As for NPR they are so ulta liberal that you can not trust them anymore then i trust Rush in giving me news.

there is no glory in war accept in the movies of course. however the major news network know that telling something good will not sale, so they never tell you anything good about what is going on in iraq. Only one that will tell you some of the good stuff is fox. did any of them report on new schools opening, or new hosptials going in etc, nope of couse not. and i like someone already said, i hear alot of people on fox who disagree with bush.

How i did not support going into iraq, we are there now, to leave will cause more issues, way more deaths then if we stayed. as the old saying goes there only thing worse then a battle won is a battle lost. I really do think that things will get way worst for both the iraq and for the west if we just leave.
post #81 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
there is no glory in war accept in the movies of course. however the major news network know that telling something good will not sale, so they never tell you anything good about what is going on in iraq. Only one that will tell you some of the good stuff is fox. did any of them report on new schools opening, or new hosptials going in etc, nope of couse not. and i like someone already said, i hear alot of people on fox who disagree with bush.
What about all the Iraqi people who came out to vote? They came out in the midst of the possibility of being killed if they did vote, but they came out in huge numbers. Voting is something they are now able to do.

Quote:
How i did not support going into iraq, we are there now, to leave will cause more issues, way more deaths then if we stayed. as the old saying goes there only thing worse then a battle won is a battle lost. I really do think that things will get way worst for both the iraq and for the west if we just leave.
I agree with this as well. I really didn't like or support the idea of going into Iraq. I felt we could have used our forces in other areas better. But, we are there and we just can't pull out now.
post #82 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
lol i really dont know what station you hear, but i have not seen any of the news networks glorify bush or the war. sounds more like you are allowing your dislike of it to cloud what you hear by using the term regime is proof of that. As for NPR they are so ulta liberal that you can not trust them anymore then i trust Rush in giving me news.

there is no glory in war accept in the movies of course. however the major news network know that telling something good will not sale, so they never tell you anything good about what is going on in iraq. Only one that will tell you some of the good stuff is fox. did any of them report on new schools opening, or new hosptials going in etc, nope of couse not. and i like someone already said, i hear alot of people on fox who disagree with bush.

How i did not support going into iraq, we are there now, to leave will cause more issues, way more deaths then if we stayed. as the old saying goes there only thing worse then a battle won is a battle lost. I really do think that things will get way worst for both the iraq and for the west if we just leave.
Well, actually, I do agree that now that we've invaded their country, completely tossed their country into chaos, we do need to stay there and fix it. But, it's my opinion, and may or may not be fact.. I'm not stating that it is fact.. that we are not fixing it. IMO, I don't think a feasible plan is in effect or going to be.

What I hear on NPR is.. NPR does interviews with conservatives and liberals, and you hear what is being said on both sides.. any supreme court deliberation coverage is live and you, again, from both sides.

But anyway.. this is all completely off-topic. I will let this go, and simply say that I obviously differ in opinion from others and you know, what I've posted is my opinions. Others may not feel the same, and .. that's why I'm pro-choice in all sense of the words. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions and I don't fault anyone else for that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Rosie O'Donnell's VIEW upset me this morning.