Image 01 Image 03

Trump: Where is my apology from Disney CEO?

Trump: Where is my apology from Disney CEO?

Trump tweets in reaction to ABC firing of Roseanne Barr and Disney CEO apology to Valerie Jarrett.

No one is defending Roseanne Barr’s tweet about Valerie Jarrett, but you cannot deny the double standard that exists in Hollywood. Bob Iger, the CEO of ABC’s parent Disney, personally called Jarrett to apologize.

Roseanne is now beginning to defend herself, asserting one tweet shouldn’t ruin a lifetime of work:

Donald Trump weighed in on Twitter, and wondered why he hasn’t received an apology:

Roseanne retweeted Trump’s tweet:

Kelly O’Connell of NBC News asked Press Secretary Sarah Sanders about President Donald Trump’s tweet that criticized Disney CEO Robert Iger. Oh what a surprise that people forget that ESPN employee Jemele Hill called Trump and the people around him white supremacists!

From Fox News Insider:

“Where was Bob Iger’s apology to the White House staff for Jemele Hill calling the president and anyone associated with him a “white supremacist.” Hill’s employer, ESPN, is also owned by Disney.

Sanders said it is “hypocritical” that Iger took action against Barr, while deciding to re-hire former MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann to ESPN. Prior to his MSNBC show, Olbermann was an anchor on ESPN’s “SportsCenter.”

Sanders noted Olbermann’s dozens of Twitter post blasting the president as a “Nazi.” In one tweet, Olbermann called Trump a “[expletive] lying, anti-democracy [expletive] who lied to the American people with no [expletive] quote [expletive] marks.”

“You will not destroy this country, Donald Trump. Go [expletive] yourself.” read another of Olbermann’s tweets from 2017.

Sanders also pointed out that Iger remained silent when The View’s Joy Behar described “a tenet of Vice President Mike Pence’s evangelical Christianity ‘mental illness.'”

Twitter is exploding.

Trump has reframed the debate over Roseanne’s tweet into a question of media bias.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


No defense, but a probable and progressive (i.e. monotonic) mischaracterization?

The close association is between terrorist organization and a totalitarian (i.e. left-wing) regime. It is not about visual perception and color diversity (e.g. racism), although it certainly could have been.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to n.n. | May 30, 2018 at 5:15 pm

    Democrat Igor wants to run for president in 2020 I hear.

    Trump and Barr just ruined his chances for that.

No one is defending Roseanne Barr’s tweet about Valerie Jarrett

They’re not?

They should be.

The tweet isn’t extortion, incitement to violence, slander or libel. It’s not porno, it’s not a shout of “fire” in a crowded venue. Speech of this sort is physically harmless, and there’s little excuse for suppression. It’s an articulation of an idea; we can’t evaluate the quality of the idea if we can’t even hear what it is.

Some questions are tough. This isn’t one of them. One either thinks the concept of “free speech” is a good idea, or one doesn’t. And the concept is meaningless if it doesn’t include the right to be “edgy”, annoying or offensive. That’s what makes it free.

I happen to think free speech is a good idea—or, at least, a better idea than the alternative. Obviously not everyone agrees; but so what? I’d defend her tweet just on principle, no matter how dumb or tasteless it appears to be.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to tom_swift. | May 30, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    Of course everyone loves free speech, but this is not a free speech issue. Barr’s employers are totally free to fire her for a perceived offensive tweet. Only the government can impede free speech.

      The SJW’s are playing for keeps. Their game. Their rules. Their battlefield.

      While you play cricket with Lord Softsoap. “ABC had every right to..” falls from your lips as the USS Liberty heels and sinks with all hands aboard.

      Don’t bring a copy of the constitution to a knife fight.

        Ragspierre in reply to Tiki. | May 30, 2018 at 7:06 pm

        You are alt-right.

        Yes or no, please.

          Tiki in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 8:40 pm

          r u rus?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 9:34 pm

          A simple “yes” or “no” is all that’s requested.

          4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 9:57 pm

          considering your kookoo attacks on POTUS, why do you question someone else’s take of the attacks on the constitution ?

          if freedom of expression only works in the courthouse (which it does NOT, try saying something objectionable to a judge and find yourself in the pokey for 30 days).
          then we have NO freedom – i.e. conservative postings on twitter, youtube, FB etc.

          we need stop bringing paper scissors to sword fights.

          in regards to barr (not my cup of tea), she loses her gig because saying something dumb about a protected class and POTUS
          and his family (ant 10 yr old kid) get maligned without a second thought ‘freedom of speech for me but not for thee’!!!!!

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 11:46 pm

          You’re a self-identified racist puke. Eat shit.

          You are way out of line, hideously rude, and disgusting in your personal attacks, Rags. What the hell is wrong with you?

          Rags, do you imagine that your public posts are not . . . erm, public? Anything you write in public comments, you make everyone’s business. And yes, that includes the following:

          Ragspierre | May 30, 2018 at 11:46 pm

          You’re a self-identified racist puke. Eat shit.

          What does this do for you, Rags? Does it help you in some way to write this sort of personal attack on LI readers? Do you gain something in this process? Do you delight in belittling others by name-calling? Do you find some sort of perverse release in venting in this overly-personal confrontational manner? I find this very puzzling, to be honest, because I see no up-side from a reader’s perspective to this infantile rant, so you must gain some personal satisfaction or pleasure from calling people names and cursing at them. This is a bit creepy and very sad.

          I think I’m beginning to see your problem, Rags. You think everyone is a liar because you can’t distinguish your own personal judgment and on-high declarations of your version of virtue and morality from verifiable fact.

          You wrote:

          You’re a self-identified racist puke. Eat shit.

          If Tiki (or maybe 4th armored div) is a “self-identified racist puke,” where is the link to substantiate your claim as true? After all, the only way that this statement is, as you insist, true, is if we can see the evidence on which it is based.

          The “Eat shit” part is lots of fun, though, what does this do for you, Rags? Are you so filled with impotent TDS rage that you just lash out in sporadic spurts at anyone and everyone? Bah, grrrr, “eat shit” you lying LIAR sputter blubber spite-filled insistence that someone “eat shit.”

          Good grief, Rags, are you so completely off your rocker that you think this comment is not only defensible but justifiable? I guess so, but it just makes you seem a bit unhinged and not a little tragic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2018 at 7:14 am

          Now, see, YOUR’S is a crazy rant.

          I won’t provide you a link, but a close paraphrase of what 4th Amour Div. said; “I’ll just say it; blacks have made no contribution to America”. (If that’s at all inaccurate, I’m sure someone will correct me…but only with the actual quote.)

          As an LI “editor”, I had thought you read posts. I was mistaken, as you’ve amply proven.

          What is it with your insistence that an editor’s job description involves reading and remembering every post by every reader? Of course I don’t know what every reader ever wrote (and yes, Rags, I’m not alone; no one here reads every single comment–thanks in no small part to you, by the way, no one wants to read your repetitive incoherent personal attacks and ridiculously petty name-calling.)

          If 4th said this, it does indeed suggest that he has racist tendencies. My point is that I just don’t care, and I certainly don’t think people should be destroyed over their own personal thoughts and opinions.

          Do I personally hang out with racists, well, no. But am I going to wilt and swoon onto the nearest fainting couch because someone made a joke or said something racist? Nope. Frankly, I just don’t care anymore. The RAAACIST accusation has exactly zero meaning to me, and I don’t care who makes un-PC jokes, statements from thirty years ago (Paula Deen), or tweets something that is offensive.

          If some loon wants to promote white supremacy and walk around denouncing minorities, I will do what we all used to do twenty years ago: ignore and shun them (and maybe pray for their souls). I can’t work up much give-a-damn beyond that.

          inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2018 at 3:03 pm

          I think Rags must have taken Ambien last night! That would explain his bad day just like Roseanne had.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Tiki. | May 30, 2018 at 9:31 pm

        You sound quite paranoid.

          daniel_ream in reply to Henry Hawkins. | June 1, 2018 at 5:38 pm

          I’ve been watching Ragspierre’s posts steadily slide into increasing vitriol, derangement, and hysterical overreaction over the past few months. I am starting to suspect some form of degenerative mental illness; I’ve seen similar behaviour in people suffering an onset of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

I am not ‘defending’ Roseanne’s tweet, but I do NOT think that it is necessarily racist. Stupid, yes, but only because of the dishonest reactions.

First, she did NOT call Blacks apes. She said something about Valerie Jarret, who is not exactly Black, and whose facial features are NOT commonly associated with the black race. The tweet was directed at ONE person. I see more racism in those who purposely generalize the comment to make it about ALL black people.
Second, we ALL look like apes because, according to evolution theories, we share a common ancestor with apes. We ALL, regardless of race. Now, some people look MORE like apes than others, like Ron Perlman or Valerie Jarret. It doesn’t have to be about race.
I know that some will tell me “But, but, historically…”. Yes, in the past, racist bigots have claimed that Blacks look like apes. Is it true? Do we give credence to that nonsense? NO, we don’t. Racists do. There is no more similarity between Black people and apes than between White people and apes, or Eskimos and apes, and thinking or saying otherwise is a choice and could make the difference.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    “Yes, in the past, racist bigots have claimed that Blacks look like apes.”

    Yes, and they still do so, and will continue to do so in the future. The comparison of blacks to apes is less about appearance than it is about placing them as a step less than human.

    Barr tweeted that Jarrett was the genetic product of someone from the Muslim Brotherhood and ‘the Planet Of The Apes’. Do we suppose she meant Charleston Heston or one of the apes? This is necessarily racist.

      Exiliado in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 30, 2018 at 6:19 pm

      She did not say anything about genetics. You just added that.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 9:35 pm

        Exact quote from Barr tweet:

        “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby = vj.”

        VJ meaning Valerie Jarrett.

        Go ahead, explain to me how that’s not genetics and explain why you say I added this in?

          Exiliado in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 30, 2018 at 11:50 pm

          Neither the Muslim Brotherhood, nor Planet Of the Apes are biological entities able to have a baby together, much less a human.

          It can’t possibly be genetics, no matter what amount of mental gymnastics you perform, especially the one where you add a word which is obviously not in the quote.
          Roseanne used a very common rhetorical expression, a meme if you prefer to point out how Valerie Jarrett represents the intersection of two other entities, or their essential characteristics.
          There is absolutely NOTHING “genetic” about it. You performed a dishonest intellectual somersault.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | May 31, 2018 at 10:40 am

          That’s some serious pretzel logic and twisting oneself into knots to protect a, well, stupid argument. You would be the one and only person who read Barr’s tweet and didn’t think she was referring to the genetic product – a baby – of *a member* of the Muslim Brotherhood and *a member* of the species of nonhumans found on the Planet Of The Apes.

          I think you are giving Roseanne far too much credit. This was a variation on jokes that were told back when people weren’t hyper-sensitive to political incorrectness. I used to love to watch Dean Martin roasts, and it seems like every single one had someone trotting out the old, “he’s what happens when [group A] and [group B] mate and produce offspring.” I wish I could remember the one Dean Martin told about Sammy Davis, Jr. being both black and Jewish, but it escapes me as I type this (and doesn’t strike me a important enough to find, you know what I mean here).

          I am a bit appalled by the way political correctness has taken hold of all of us without our really thinking about or realizing it. As an example of what I mean, I was watching Lethal Weapon the other day, and I found myself squirming unhappily about some of the jokes. I’d seen this movie at least five times, but not recently.

          Watching it anew (through the lenses of my shiny new SJW goggles) and finding myself cringing over some of the jokes horrified me. To be clear, the jokes didn’t horrify me at all; it was my reaction to them that I find horrific.

          I’m not socially- or racially-woke, I’m a freaking socio-cultural experiment. And I’m a huge success for the left because their narrative actually influences how I see the world (at least in terms of racism and sexism). Ultimately, it even dictates how I view any film distributed prior to 2008 (pretty much when we all started to absorb the prevailing narrative that we were racists, bigots, xenophobes, and the like and were then prompted to work overtime to prove we weren’t, all the while internalizing the leftist identity narrative).

          Anyway, Roseanne should have known better, ABC can cancel the show, and the precious snowflakes on both sides of the aisle can all melt in distress and dash for the nearest safe space. Count me out.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm

    Actually, white people and other races do characterise children as monkeys, and each other, sometimes joking, and sometimes insulting.

    It is common for blacks to the the N word the same way, but then they go apeshit if others do the same.

    The level of black hypocrisy has grown by leaps and bounds. I am tired to putting up with their BS.

    I am all for blacks succeeding, on merit. But, those who are meritless should not be catered to in any way.

    Barr’s joke was funny. We have a poster on LI who refers to Trump as a orange primate with a word play, I think that Barr should be able to do the same.

      Come on, JS100…Roesanne’s joke wasn’t funny…it was lame…
      She’s a professional comedian…and that’s as good as she can do???

      Maybe Roseanne needs a team of comedy writers to help her with those tweets!

      Her old show sucked, her new show sucked…it’s the same sit-com BS we’ve seen forever…listening Ms Barr’s screeching voice is every bit as annoying as listening to a Hillary Clinton campaign speech…(I ain’t no way tarrrrrd)

      But WORST thing bout this whole deal…will be this:
      Valerie Jerritt…A Teachable moment…#everyday racism…
      That’s all we need…a lesson from St Val…
      (please…just kill me now)

Agreed. If you called an Iranian a thug, it would be odd for others to take offense on behalf of African Americans.

Who is the racist here? Because THEY associate Apes with Blacks?

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 6:20 pm

    Yes, ‘they’ do. ‘They’ being racists and their apologists. Are you the former or the latter?

    So if the comment was not racist, what was the point of the joke. Rosanne has apologized, for what, if the ‘joke’ did not contain an allusion to an ape?

    She has defended herself with rationalizations and claims that she was “4 civil rights”, but not explained what she was trying to say. She could easily clear the matter up if she just explained the joke. Perhaps you want to explain what she was thinking since you posit that only ‘they’ associated apes with blacks. What association did you make?

    No pun intended, but your dismissal doesn’t pass the laugh test.

      Yellow: ‘racists and their apologists. Are you the former or the latter?”

      How long have you been beating your wife?

      I come from a world (USMC) where the color of your skin is no more relevant than the color of your hair. No doubt that terrifies race-mongerers like you.

      I’m a mutt – Irish, black and native american. And I don’t think all races are equal, they each have advantages and disadvantages, just like males vs females, but they should be treated equal under the law.

      I’m not even sure what criteria would be useful to judge which ones are “superior” or “inferior” so why bother? When I get tribal my balkanization goes to Apache, Cherokee, Navajo or Celt, Frank, Saxon. Not white, black, Latino as you do.

      Yellow: “They’ being racists and their apologists”

      No. I clearly mean people like you who are so busy sliming everyone esle as racists that you’ve never thought to police your own racism.

      If I told a story about a Thug you would immediately picture a black male. Because you have “the bigotry of low expectations. “

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 11:09 pm

        If I told a story about a Thug

        No I wouldn’t unless the story came from a bigot like you. Then I would assume that you meant to slur someone.

        You should stay away from rhetoric. You really aren’t very bright. Even around here you stand out for all the wrong reasons.

    Milhouse in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    Jarrett is not Iranian, she is black, with some Western European and American Indian in the mix. She has no Persian ancestry, and has never been an Iranian citizen. Nor is she a Moslem, and as far as is public known she has no Moslem relatives. She’s certainly never had any known connection to the Brotherhood, beyond her membership in the pro-Brotherhood 0bama administration. So it’s beyond me what Roseanne meant by her “Moslem Brotherhood” reference. But it’s obvious what she meant by “Planet of the Apes”, and it’s sophistry to deny it. She doesn’t even deny it.

      Exiliado in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 9:04 pm

      She does deny it, but you will call her a liar in order to make facts fit your opinion.

      Milhouse, after reading some of the comments I agree we need some clarification…

      Valerie Jerrett is…Black.
      Valerie Jerrett’s father was James E Bowman, he was a doctor, he was a black guy…(look him up)
      Valerie Jerrett’s Mother is Barbra T Bowman, her father AND Valerie’s grandfather was Robert R Taylor…a black architect.(look him up)

      This means…Valerie Jerrett is….BLACK!!!!

      As a child, Valerie lived with her parents in Iran for 6 yrs.
      Yes, she was born in Iran but that doesn’t make her Iranian..
      Valerie’s parents were still American Citizens!!!

Barr has already explained that she did not know Jarrett is black (or has two invisible drops of black blood in her, as the case may be). Case is no different from the thousands of leftists, including many in our Democrat-controlled media, who mocked W for looking like a chimp. Childish but NOT extremely offensive and certainly not a firing offense, except perhaps for those whose job description requires that they at least pretend to be neutral, which does not include Barr, whose job literally is to be and play a mouthy low-rent opinionator.

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | May 30, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    Barr has already explained that she did not know Jarrett is black (or has two invisible drops of black blood in her, as the case may be).

    Bullsh*t. I don’t believe Barr claimed such a stupid thing; I think you made it up. I don’t believe anyone who knows who Jarrett is, and her position as 0bama’s éminence noire, doesn’t know she’s black. Just looking at her it’s obvious that she’s at least as black as 0bama.

      Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 7:37 pm

      Oops, it looks like Barr has indeed started claiming she didn’t know, but she keeps changing her mind about what she did think Jarrett was. Utterly implausible.

        AlecRawls in reply to Milhouse. | May 31, 2018 at 2:45 am

        Barr’s initial reply implied her ignorance of VJ’s two invisible drops of black blood. She retorted that “Islam is not a race.”

        She thought she was being called racist for calling VJ “Muslim Brotherhood,” not for the Planet of the Apes crack. After all, nobody ever got called racist for calling the white George Herbert Walker Bush a chimp.

          Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am

          What “two invisible drops”? She’s not just a white person with a touch of the tar brush. She’s blacker than 0bama, an African-American who 60 years ago would not have been allowed in the front of the bus in the South — or allowed to vote. Her father was educated at a black university and black hospitals, because few white institutions would welcome him. Her public positions have always been in the context of the black community and black politics. How could anyone who’d ever heard of her not know that? It would be like not knowing that Al Sharpton is black. Or that Sean King says he’s black.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 7:57 pm

      “Bullsh*t” does sum up your position on the issue.

        Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 30, 2018 at 8:27 pm

        It is a BS claim, whether Barr is now making it or not. It’s completely implausible.

          JohnSmith100 in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 9:02 pm

          I did not know that the lady had black ancestry, why would I or Barr know? Her claim to fame was association with Obama. Or that her father was the first affirmative admittance to MIT? I learned the hard way many years ago that affirmative degrees are far too often handed out regardless of merit. I also had the pleasure of working with some who did know their stuff.

          JohnSmith100….I googled Valerie Jerrett and found her entire background in about….5 minutes.

          Roseanne could have done the same thing…but she’d rather just talk out of her ass…Sort of like a drunk at the bar (Or Barr)
          But the drunk at the bar…(or Barr) only annoys the people around them….Twitter gives Roseanne a global reach!!!!

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 10:12 pm

          Anyone who knows who Jarrett is knows she’s black. Do you think 0bama would have a white woman in the position he had her? It’s not plausible that Barr didn’t know.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 10:26 pm

          her father was the first affirmative admittance to MIT

          No, her father was not an “affirmative admittance” anywhere. Your assumption that he was exposes not only your racism, but also your historical ignorance.

          First of all, her father did not attend MIT. That was her great-grandfather, Robert Robinson Taylor, who was the first black student there. It should be blindingly obvious that this was not an “affirmative admittance”. If you need it explained why, you’re a lost cause.

Clarification. I’m agreeing with Exiliado not Henry

“The comparison of blacks to apes is less about appearance than it is about placing them as a step less than human”

No, it’s a criticism of their propensity for uncivilized behavior, regarding them as less evolved and therefore subhuman.

    YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 6:42 pm

    Surprise, surprise – you don’t know much about apes, either. Whether you wish to call it civilization, there is little doubt that they have structure to their society.

    What’s you next rationalization? You are looking particularly foolish and ridiculous on this one.

      You make it really hard to avoid the ‘R’ word.
      Apes are way less evolved than humans, and whatever social structure they may have is nowhere being ‘civilized’.
      Go back to second grade.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 7:09 pm

        Yes, Yellow face has tried to google something and then “learn” you about it, once again.

        Apes do have more complex social structures than some other animals, but the structure is far, far less sophisticated than modern humans. Homo habilis was the first hominid to display social behaviors that are “human-like”. To suggest that human and ape or human and any other animal social structure are on the same par is ignorant of cephalization (the brain development required for such capacities).

        To suggest that social structure or not is a binary criterion is foolish. Packs and herds of many species would say hello, if they could.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 7:34 pm

        That could not have been Roseanne’s point. In the movie, the apes are quite civilized. No matter how you struggle and strive, you will never get out of this lie, alive.

        Apologies to the only Hank Williams worthy of acclaim.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to Exiliado. | May 30, 2018 at 8:48 pm

        Apes — Not Monkeys — Ace IQ Tests — ScienceDaily

        Primates having varying intellectual capacity, just like humans. Some groups of humans are much smarter than others, the difference in intelligence is dramatic, frankly so striking that those with lower average intelligence are incapable of grasping capabilities of those who are at the higher end. I bet the same is true between the dullest and smartest primates from which humanity arose.

          healthguyfsu in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 31, 2018 at 10:32 am

          Yes, this is true, but those tests were designed for apes. They would “fail” human intelligence tests because they lack our written language skills.

          Also, apes, like humans are not confined to a single species. The only surviving species today of the genus Homo is Homo Sapiens, but there are others in the fossil record. Some of these may have been reproductively compatible with modern humans and likely interbred. Many of middle European descent have at least a small fraction of Neanderthal DNA in their genome.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 8:04 pm

    Actually, all humans descended from primates, but some evolved beyond those original humans, developing higher intelligence and differing skin tones. That evolution came at great cost in terms of a brutal selection process resulting in death of those who could not delay immediate gratification.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 9:38 pm

    You’ve merely reworded what I said, the exact same thing, but somehow you consider it a rebuttal? Yikes, lol.

‘Only the government can impede free speech”

I think you may be confusing Free Speech with the 1st Amendment.

“If we list a set of rights” … begins at 1:35

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 6:57 pm

    You have a right to speak. You don’t have a license.

    The first involves consequence. The latter would suspend consequences, which is not reality.

    With the slightest exercise of thinking, we all can recall people who met the consequences of what they said, and many of them would be examples with which we agree.

      Fen in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 7:40 pm

      Thanks for the Sally Struthers survey course review.

      Roseanne has a right to say what she thinks, and ABC has the right to cut association with her.

      BOTH of them can be wrong at the same time. Libety means they both have the right to make stupid decisions.

        Fen in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 8:29 pm

        “Thanks for the Sally Struthers survey course review”

        Apologies Rags, that was a bit harsh. I’m just grouchy due to Yellow’s implied accusation of racism.

        You would think that if they really cared about racism, they wouldn’t use it so casually in debate to take cheap shots.

        Hey Yellow, I volunteered to go to Somalia and risk my life protecting food convoys and villages so little black kids wouldn’t starve to death or be executed.

        What the fuck have you ever done, Yellow, except virtue signal on Facebook? Sit down and shut up boy.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 8:11 pm

      Rags, we do not have to have a license, and you do not have any innate right to impose your opinion on others. That is a big problem right now, and the truth is that you are ill equipped to deal with the kind of backlash which is building. The problem with black conduct is that they are a minority who only receives perks from society by having a majority willing to give them. All this black activism is costing blacks support, at some point enough people will be fed up to the point that there will no longer be enough support for black positions for you to get squat.

        Ragspierre in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 30, 2018 at 9:06 pm

        This is just identity politics. I’m agin it.

        When you refer to an entire group as “them” or “they”, that is per force a racist comment. It’s also per force both stupid and false.

        Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the smartest and wisest of living Americans. There are lots of others in all races. I hope you can name many.

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 10:31 pm

          Rags, do you maintain that it’s wrong to make generalizations? To make statements about a large class that are generally true, but of necessity don’t apply to every single member of the class? That is the current leftist orthodoxy, but it seems to me to be literally insane. (And yes, I do mean “literally” literally.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | May 30, 2018 at 11:43 pm

          Generally (see what I did there?) I sure as hell DO!

          Partly because they tend NOT to be true.

          Jews: grasping, greedy, evil, dishonest, etc.

          Irish: lazy, indolent, drunken, stupid, etc.

          Norwegians (if you’re Swedish): stupid, stupid, and stupid, etc.

          I could go on, and you could add some more examples.

          To make general depictions about an entire race, culture, or other group is “generally” bigoted, stupid, false, and evil.

          People are individuals. Regardless of any “grouping”.

          Or do you disagree?

          Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2018 at 11:56 am

          I do disagree. Generalizations tend to be true, generally. Ones that aren’t tend to lose currency. What’s more, the ability to generalize is one of the most important components of human intelligence, which is why I see the refusal to do so as literally insane.

          What one must remember about generalizations is that that’s what they are, and therefore when applied to an individual member of the relevant class must be taken as very tentative, to be modified the moment any specific information becomes available about the individual. One must also take into account the context in which one finds the individual, which may in itself invalidate the generalization.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 30, 2018 at 9:41 pm

        How weak are you that you let others impose their opinions on you? Do you honestly not know how to resist unwanted opinions? That’s quite an admission, if so.

        YellowGrifterInChief in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 30, 2018 at 11:46 pm

        I’ll bet you believe every word you wrote wrote. That is the problem. Their rights are not perks. They have human rights; as well as rights guaranteed by Constitution and law.

        The problem is that the rights of minorities of color are regularly infringed upon. When they protest or complain, you claim that they are seeking perks. That antagonizes you or people like you. Should they know their place? Should they be subservient? Should they be dependent on your paternalism? Should the law go back to the fiction of separate, but equal?

        They are not dependent on your good will; although you can infringe on their freedom in contravention of the law and what is right.

        In addition, you have ceased to be the majority. You hang on to power by manipulation, intimidation and force. That will end soon.

        One last point: Not that long ago Barr would not have been considered part of that majority. I’ll bet you know why.

          JusticeDelivered in reply to YellowGrifterInChief. | May 31, 2018 at 4:22 pm

          Grifter, I love to see people achieve, as long as they earn their way. Making false claims of racism, followed by ghetto lottery litigation, is not earning one’s way.

          having kids, then mostly ignoring them, is bad for the child and society. Someone should not have deal with the result by being forced to put them down. Lying about cases like we have seen with Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and many others is outrageous.

ScottTheEngineer | May 30, 2018 at 6:30 pm

She’s a comedian. A fat, stupid comedian, but a comedian nonetheless. There shouldn’t be any restraints. If you don’t like her product change the channel.

YellowGrifterInChief | May 30, 2018 at 6:36 pm

1st, Trump has always given worse than he gets and he never apologizes. He either denies,obfuscates, blames someone else or attacks again.

2nd, Nice of Trump to make it about him. That is the only person he cares about.

3rd, shortly after the election Trump admitted that he thought Obama was born here. Trump admits Obama was born in the US. Then he backed off from his back off. He is a liar and a grifter and anyone who calls him that does not ever need to apologize.

    The take away from your post is that you use Trump’s behavior to justify behaving just as douchey.

      YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Fen. | May 30, 2018 at 6:47 pm

      So the current POTUS is a douche. Thank you for clarifying that.

        healthguyfsu in reply to YellowGrifterInChief. | May 30, 2018 at 7:11 pm

        Actually, that’s not the take away. The take away is that anything can be rationalized in the minds of the loony leftists, and we have our resident rationalizer around to demonstrate that on a near daily, pathetic basis.

          healthguyfsu in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 31, 2018 at 10:35 am

          What are you blabbering on and on about? I’ll sum it up succinctly. Your ENTIRE post is a rationalization for the bias in the media and among the public figure/celebrity class that you fail to even deny. It is against Trump, so you cite examples of why it should be allowed rather than refuting its veracity. Checkmate.

    Nobody need apologise for calling him a grifter, a con man, a bully, or a boor. But he’s been called a lot worse, much more offensive things have been said about him than this Barr tweet, and those who have done so do owe him an apology.

      YellowGrifterInChief in reply to Milhouse. | May 30, 2018 at 11:51 pm

      He owes a lot more apologies than he is owed. Has he apologized to Obama? Nevertheless, Obama was gracious to him. He didn’t have to be.

        Apologize to 0bama? For what?

        Yes, Trump owes a lot of people apologies, which they will never get, because he’s a boor. But since he decided to run for president as a Republican he has been the recipient of an insane amount of abuse from his former liberal compatriots, much more than anything he’s ever heaped on others.

        The specific point here is that what’s been said about him is an order of magnitude worse than what Roseanne said, so those who have participated in that abuse but now condemn Roseanne owe him an immediate apology, which they will not give him because they are moral cretins.

    JohnSmith100 in reply to YellowGrifterInChief. | May 30, 2018 at 8:28 pm

    No one needs to, or should apologize to grifters, or to any member of a political party which specializes in representing grifters.

      Milhouse in reply to JohnSmith100. | May 30, 2018 at 10:33 pm

      So you think Trump is not owed an apology?! You think that once someone is flawed, it’s OK to say whatever you like about him? That seems a difficult position to defend.

Yellow: “Then just once, explain the alleged rationalization. ”

What rationalization are you talking about?

(((Boogs))) | May 30, 2018 at 8:30 pm

I don’t think Yellow has much stature to condemn ad hominem. H/her posts are little more than strings of ad hominem separated by conjunctions.

I think the real question being asked by Liberals all over the country is this:

How do we get Donald Trump to take Ambian?

In the rush to judge Roseanne, I think she may have been grossly misinterpreted … she did NOT say that VJ was the result of a baby produced by an ape and the muslim brotherhood – it was the planet of the apes, which the Heston character called a madhouse – a government that systematically hunted down, captured and caged, made slaves of, killed or lobotomized white humans. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the movie, but I can not remember seeing a single human of color. Likening VJ to “planet of the apes” potentially refers to the habitual / institutionalized mistreatment of whites – and not that she was the product of relationships between an ape and the MB.

It makes more sense that RB was referring to VJ’s political ideology which seems a mix of the planet of the apes approach to dealing with white humans and MB politics.

    Boy….I don’t know, MrE…. you presented a pretty nuanced comedic concept there…
    Somehow I don’t think Roseanne was that analytical…maybe if she had been, she would have come up with a funnier joke!

    Ya know what I mean?

      MrE in reply to tgrondo. | May 31, 2018 at 1:40 pm

      Not sure I’ve ever been called “nuanced” before. 😉 I only mean to suggest another possibility because it seems everyone is explaining what Roseanne meant by her ‘tweet’, except Roseanne …

      And it REALLY bugs me that everyone on the grievance band-wagon is SO quick to jump from “Planet of the Apes” to “Ape” to “Black stereotype” … if she’d have said “an ape and an muslim” hadda baby – there’d be no doubt it was a racist statement – because those terms refer to individuals/persons … but “Planet of the Apes” and “Muslim Brotherhood” both refer to institutions / ideals / organizations … and I can see her statement as a kind of mixed metaphor to describe VJ’s political ideals.

      Like Fuzzy said below – I really don’t care what Roseanne said – because I don’t hang on anyone’s every word – and certainly not the political opinions of our vapid celebrity culture. Also, I’m peace-loving enough to give Roseanne a pass – considering how often I’ve needed a pass.

      Among the things that bug me, is the silence from the professional mental health community when this kind of crap goes down … but it may be that mental health professionals tend towards liberalism that they are silent. I’ve yet to meet the shrink who doesn’t tell patients that they own their feelings and reactions to the words and behavior of others. They don’t have to react like a torch and pitchfork wielding mob as often as someone says something ungraceful. Anyone who is a respecter and builder of relationships would seek to understand and give opportunity to clarify … that people seize on 140 characters and with them bludgeon the author – not the kind of person / group I want anything to do with much less listen to.

      Wish that the perpetually offended would learn that offense is TAKEN UP, not given and the cost of taking up offense, is the end of relationship (John 6:61-66).

        I read that Roseanne blamed Ambian for the joke…

        A joke has to be crafted. You start with a concept, a point of view…you play with the wording, maybe add some misdirection…
        A joke takes some work…but that’s exact opposite of twitter!

        I think Roseanne hasn’t explained what she was trying to say… cause SHE doesn’t know what she was trying to say…ya know what I’m sayin’???
        Ms Barr throws a partial thought up on twitter…then all hell breaks loose!

        Personally, I think twitter is a curse on modern civilization!
        (ok, I may be exaggerating…just a little)
        Most people aren’t witty enough to come up snappy content off the top of their heads…it’s one thing to say dumb stuff while hanging out with friends…friends can say “HA, HA” or “STFU”! But twitter lets you broadcast your dumb jokes to a world wide audience!!! And boy, have a lot of people paid the price!

        I’m also annoyed that somehow, Roseanne has become the representation of conservative entertainment…
        Wait a minute….Who? Roseanne??? How the hell did that happen? Was there a vote???? Did I miss the meeting???

        I agree, MrE…we could use more understanding and less…
        #We are outraged by the outrageous outrage of this outrage!!!!
        But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

        Luckily, our society has such a short attention span, this #BANTHEBARR movement will forgotten in a couple of days 🙂

        Then we can go back to the Russia thing….cause you know…it’s Russia….

    I think you are giving a lot of undue credit to Roseanne’s critical thinking abilities. That said, I’m so sick and tired of the snowflake brigade (on the left and right) that my impulse is to defend her racist comment as a racist comment.

    We are allowed to have craptasticly horrific opinions, to find distasteful attacks on terrorists and fictional ape-scapes hilarious, to make any racist remark we want. The rest of society is allowed to condemn such comments, and ABC is allowed to ax a popular show . . . just because.

    I’m wondering how many people are actually, truly, personally offended by what Roseanne wrote and how many are simply leaping on the PC-hang-the-witch faux outrage bandwagon. My guess? Valerie Jarrett and her closest friends are truly, personally offended; everyone else is just virtue signalling.

    In a related aside, I was watching an old Richard Pryor routine, and he would be pilloried to hell and back in this overly-sensitive, nothing-is-funny-EVER environment.

    Who cares if Roseanne is a card-carrying racist? I personally do not believe that she is, but does anyone really, truly care? I sincerely doubt it. Even the commenters here who are sure her comment was racist . . . um, yeah, so? In your heart of hearts do you give a damn? My guess is no.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 6:44 am

      “We are allowed to have craptasticly horrific opinions, to find distasteful attacks on terrorists and fictional ape-scapes hilarious, to make any racist remark we want.”

      Yes. We are. We are also allowed to eat the consequences.

        Gee, Rags, what a great point! I wish I had made it . . . oh, wait, I did!

        In my next sentence I write:

        The rest of society is allowed to condemn such comments, and ABC is allowed to ax a popular show . . . just because.

        Um, what was your point again, Rags? Do you think people can’t read and don’t see what you are doing? Dude, every LI reader will look at this and see it for what it is.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 6:58 am

          “Do you think people can’t read and don’t see what you are doing? Dude, every LI reader will look at this and see it for what it is.”

          Oh, please, DO explain…!!!

          I already did, Rags, and our readers certainly don’t need me to point out the obvious.

          You’ve become quite the purveyor of leftist spin techniques, Rags. You seem to think that standing on your soapbox and calling people names or insisting they are “liars” will be gobbled up by your followers as fact. Here’s the problem, Rags, LI readers are not sheep, and they can read and assess things for themselves. A further problem for you is that few LI readers share your #NeverTrump view and those who do are far too intelligent to sink to your level.

          But let’s recap, just for fun.

          I wrote:

          We are allowed to have craptasticly horrific opinions, to find distasteful attacks on terrorists and fictional ape-scapes hilarious, to make any racist remark we want. The rest of society is allowed to condemn such comments, and ABC is allowed to ax a popular show . . . just because.

          To which you replied:

          “We are allowed to have craptasticly horrific opinions, to find distasteful attacks on terrorists and fictional ape-scapes hilarious, to make any racist remark we want.”

          Yes. We are. We are also allowed to eat the consequences.

          And I responded by stating the obvious:

          Gee, Rags, what a great point! I wish I had made it . . . oh, wait, I did!

          In my next sentence I write:

          The rest of society is allowed to condemn such comments, and ABC is allowed to ax a popular show . . . just because.

          Um, what was your point again, Rags? Do you think people can’t read and don’t see what you are doing? Dude, every LI reader will look at this and see it for what it is.

          You then ask me to explain something or other, but what is unclear in this? Nothing. Your request for me to explain is intended to suggest you have a leg to stand on, but anyone can see that you do not.

          Rags, considering that your “critiques” of the president are in the lines of: “Na-na-na! Big ole orange T-rump is an evil progressive, orange Cheeto, who is racist and sexist and nasty and mean. He’s also a liar. And Cheeto-orange. Oh, and he is evil. And racist. And sexist. And nasty. And mean. Oh, and a xenophobe and stuff.”, it’s rather hard to take your “critiques” seriously. “He’s a big, bad meanie pants” is not thoughtful critique, Rags.

          I can assure you that your sense that no one is “getting” your moral, stalwart stance for the U. S. of A. is rooted, completely and firmly rooted, in your lack of anything resembling a thoughtful, viable critique. That you then add to this “T-rump’s a great big Cheeto collectivist” claptrap that “T-rump is ugly and his mom dresses him funny” does not help you at all.

          When you then go on to personally attack and call people names for the simple act of disagreeing with your (as noted, ridiculous, petty, sophomoric, superficial, and laughable,) “critique” of Trump, you find yourself disrespected and reviled. That’s on you.

          I would love to read your own coherent argument against Trump or any of his actual policies (not those fantasies you toss around as fact and that get you laughed at and mocked). I’m sure others would as well.

          Ah, so I touched a nerve. Good. Maybe you will give more thought to your comments and provide actual, thoughtful critiques of Trump’s policy.

          I’m not holding my breath, of course, but it could happen.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 8:12 am

          “Ah, so I touched a nerve.”

          Just the pity one. You’ve crawled all over the “disgust” one now for weeks.

          Get some rest. You’re nuts.

          Was this really necessary? I don’t get your compulsion to share your every thought. Most people have a filter, good manners, and a decent upbringing to guard against such specious nastiness.

          Your venom is trying, Rags, and I just don’t get it. It’s clearly not about some LI author who doesn’t share your views (since no one here does, and everyone here who disliked Trump is now supporting him), and it’s clearly not based in what I’ve said here. Have you added Fuzzy Derangement Syndrome to your TDS? If so, I’m quite flattered.

          YES! This is the stuff, Rags! Yippee!

          I hate, loathe, and despise the Ivanka family leave/child care crap and wish it would go away. I wrote about this for LI here. I cannot believe that people are okay with this; it’s just another unfunded entitlement that should not happen.

          I’ve never been behind Trump’s insistence on not touching entitlements. These are budget-busters that need to be scaled way the hell back. One thing that genuinely surprised me in the 2010’s was the number of Tea Party people who didn’t want entitlements touched (and who later advocated the $15 minimum wage). That made no sense to me at all. It still doesn’t, so no, I am not a fan of Trump on entitlements. He loves Medicare and has often proclaimed that “it works,” and he has said since the primary that he won’t touch Social Security. Our only hope with him is welfare reform. And maybe the renewable fuel standard (though he flipped on that, it’s clear that he gets the damage it is doing).

          Oooh, Rags! Talking substance with you makes my heart sing! 😛

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 10:43 am

          (Pssst… rinardmand.. pass the popcorn!)

          JusticeDelivered in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 11:51 am

          Fuzzy Slippers, I understand that toying with Rags can be entertaining, but is it fair to take advantage of Rags clear mental shortcomings 🙂

          Anonamom in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 4:38 pm

          To heck with fair, JusticeDelivered. It’s darned entertaining!

          daniel_ream in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | June 1, 2018 at 6:42 pm

          One thing that genuinely surprised me in the 2010’s was the number of Tea Party people who didn’t want entitlements touched (and who later advocated the $15 minimum wage). That made no sense to me at all.

          Why would that surprise you? Midwestern farmers are some of the biggest proponents of crony capitalism in the form of various Farm Subsidy bills. Regardless of their alleged ideology, virtually no one wants a government that will cut off their Free Shit. They don’t want to have to pay for anyone else’s Free Shit, but they’re happy to have other people pay for theirs. In that respect, the Tea Party is no different from the EBT mob. They’re just different factions of the Free Shit Army.

DouglasJBender | May 31, 2018 at 12:53 am

In Roseanne’s defense, the apes in “Planet of the Apes” were highly intelligent.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to DouglasJBender. | May 31, 2018 at 11:46 am

    Planet of the Apes intelligence was due to genetic engineering. Currently we are unable to fix those who have lower intelligence, but I am confident that the time will come when everyone can be brought up to the brain’s full potential. Considering that currently humans use only a limited amount of their brains, genetic engineering may greatly enhance intelligence for all, especially if such changes pass to offspring, as was the case in Planet of the Apes.

    Another possibility, implantable brain enhancements, these could enhance our capabilities in different ways from what genetic engineering may be capable of.

      Milhouse in reply to JusticeDelivered. | May 31, 2018 at 12:12 pm

      Considering that currently humans use only a limited amount of their brains

      Is there any evidence for that?

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Milhouse. | May 31, 2018 at 3:11 pm

        There is zero evidence for that (and you know it, lol).

        JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | May 31, 2018 at 5:43 pm

        It turns out that MRI has disproved this, most of the brain is in use, although usage is not evenly distributed.

        That error of fact does not alter the rest of the point I was making. There are dramatic variations in group average IQs and therefore their knowledge base.

VaGentleman | May 31, 2018 at 8:50 am

Trump’s not going to get his apology, and I’m not going to waste breath defending Barr. She doesn’t deserve it. I don’t see it as a first amendment issue – she spoke, they spoke, case closed. Her audience will be noted by some other network and either her show or something like it will be picked up.

It seems to me that we are in danger of losing sight of the big picture by focusing too much on the details. What Barr said was, at least, over the top and demanded a reaction from the network. What it got was an over reaction. Barr had a major hit ($) for the network. Normally, they would try to salvage it. There would be a cooling off period, hand wringing, how could this happen, apologies, donations to the cause, etc. None of that happened. 24 hours and gone! Why?

Barr was an embarassment to the network. Her show was viewed as conservative programming – and the network doesn’t want to be associated with that. Barr tweets a little guano and the network has an excuse to remove her. It decides not to let the crisis go to waste. Does a business decide to throw away millions in 24 hours or was the decision already made and only the timing remained?

The real issue is the exposure of depth of the network’s hatred and loathing for all things even remotely conservative. The civil was has started. Like it or not, we’ve all got front row seats.

So you constantly make vulgar and disgusting attacks on other people, and then try to play the victim when anyone responds. Not very attractive, Rags.

    Ragspierre in reply to rdm. | May 31, 2018 at 9:03 am

    No, actually that’s another lie.

    What I often do is simply ask a question or make an observation, which results in a knee-jerk Pavlovian attack on me personally, instead of any substantive rely. To which I respond.

    IF you were honest, you’d note the pattern. And I never play “victim”. I kick ass and take names.

Ah, yes, nothing is quite as evil, ugly, and disgusting as pointing out the truth about you, right, Rags?

Go back through the threads and you will find that you picked this fight with me based on a general comment in response to the OP. You saw fit to attempt an attack on me based on a post that had absolutely nothing to do with you. Again.

I love how you snipe at me and then cry and whinge that I am attacking you. Are you five-years-old? Sure seems like it some days. Most days. Okay, every day.

I am a bit saddened to see that you have rejected my attempt to talk about Trump policy rather than your great Goad Cheeto nonsense, but I guess I’m not really surprised. It’s so much easier to spew venomous bile and then declare yourself the rational one rather than mounting an actual defense or argument. No one’s buying it, Rags (except maybe Henry, and he’s not been around for quite some time and hasn’t seen your descent into delusion, paranoia, and hate).

P. S. Calling me a liar doesn’t make me one. You say I’ve lied in this discussion with you; fine, I’ll call you on that. Let’s see my lies. Show your cards Rags or never call anyone a liar again. ::: tosses gauntlet at Rags’ feet :::

    I can pretty much tell you right now that the “lies” will be disagreeing with him on things that are solely a matter of opinion. Such as his never-trump status et al.

    You’re so funny, Rags. In that sad sort of way a circus clown is funny when he’s crying.

    This is all you’ve got? So tragic. And you probably puffed out your whittle chesty when you wrote it, huh? All gloaty and proud that you said nothing at all and are capable of only insults and silliness.

      VaGentleman in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 9:17 am

      Little Fisties

      Little fisties in the air
      Waved by a troll named Ragspierre
      Pointing us we know not where
      It’s all just mindless sputter

      Cheeto head’s an evil guy
      The ragsman tells us by and by
      But never seems to tell us why
      The Hilda Beast was better

      Moral cowards vote him down
      No one dare dispute this clown
      From on high, his steely frown
      Strikes laughter in his foes

      In the air his little fisties
      Speak of knickers, all in twisties
      We need a good psychiatristy
      To save us from this nutter

      Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 12:15 pm

      Rags has never said or implied that “the Hildabeast was better.” The constant accusations that he did so are a major trigger point for him.

    I assure you the accidental thumbs up was completely accidental, don’t flatter yourself over it.

Rags, it’s not bizarre it’s true. _You_ are bizzare.

Rags: “We are also allowed to eat the consequences.”

So if you were banned from LI you wouldn’t email a whiney complaint to the Prof, right?

You would live up to your own rules?

    Rags, what the heck is wrong with you? You whinge and cry and whine when anyone insults you and gleefully pin your bizarre anti-Trump rage to it. You play the victim and even when you challenged me to comment on Trump policy and I happily responded, you ran for the hills. Where’s your deep desire to speak truth to power or to criticize and evaluate policy? Oh, right, nowhere. This shows me that you to be all hat and no cattle.

    For all your insistence that your TDS is nothing more than political critique in the tradition of loyal opposition, we can now all see that is untrue. You don’t want to discuss even the policy questions you personally posited. That’s bizarre . . . and revealing.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 31, 2018 at 10:24 am

      This is more apparent, insane raving. I can’t even…

        Really, Rags? What part of this inaccurate? Did you not challenge me to discuss Trump policy in this comment, and did I not go on to do just that in my response?

        The “raving” part must be the part where you are revealed as fake and a phony. You’ve long-argued that you are just loyal opposition or that you are pointing out Trump’s errors and flaws for we deplorables who are too stupid to get it. We, you’ve convinced yourself in your own mind, are happy to live in a bubble and have no idea what is going on. My response freaked you out, apparently, and upended your elitist view of we deplorables.

        Surprise! We do know what is going on, and we do have opinions that we can articulately defend. I guess that was pretty scary, huh, Rags? After all, you’ve spent the last 18 months insisting that you are intellectually, morally, and in every other way superior to us. You held yourself up as a beacon of truth and as the only person here who had the nerve to speak your truth, but the minute you are challenged, you slink away like a kicked puppy.

        No one will ever again buy your BS about how you are speaking a truth we all can’t face (and your many many variations on that theme). After all, you challenged me to discuss Trump policy, I did, and you posted hilarious comments on my sanity. Dude, you’re done; you are not the moral champion of conservatism you see yourself to be. You’re just an angry little man tilting at windmills.

      I will respond to you. The tariffs went into effect today at midnight. Just as Trump needed to walk away from the table with North Korea, he is showing the same willingness in the trade issue. Whether it is good decision or not can be debated, but the talking heads want him to fail for the most part. He can always backtrack with the power of the pen. He is doing what he said he would. It is a matter of seeing how it plays out.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Fen. | May 31, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    Rags, you have shown us that you do not know what is fact.

    You tail has been taking a beating.

I see comments all over the internet from people who obviously never watched the original show. I did. I didn’t care for it in the later seasons. The episodes ranged from a young teenaged Becky having to deal with publicly passing gas at school, Darlene’s descent into Goth and depression, domestic violence, child abuse (the source of Roseanne’s eating and Jackie’s serial relationships),taking in brothers David (The Big Bang Theory)and Mark when their mom left them, financial problems with Dan losing his job and afterwards failing at his business, Roseanne’s unstable mother, and more. They had African American friends, and there were gay characters, including Sandra Bernhard. They had a Halloween shows every year with a different twist. More than one show had multiple laugh out loud moments. The worst part about this is how the castmates threw her under the bus when they all benefited from it. I can separate the character Roseanne from the real Roseanne. Canceling the reruns hurts the others more than Roseanne. It is income loss that does not affect Roseanne as much as the castmates.

Rags, Fuzzy, please stop. You’re both better than this.

Rags, not everyone has your phenomenal memory. I believe I’m younger than you, but I often can’t remember what someone said last week or last month on some other thread, if I even read it. I think it’s unreasonable of you to expect every editor (let alone every commenter) to have read and remember every single thing ever written on this blog. So when you refer to something it would help for you to be specific.

Also, when you accuse someone of lying, except in direct response to a short comment that contains nothing but the lie, and where the nature of the lie is or should be obvious, it helps to excerpt the specific statement you’re challenging, and if its falsity is not obvious to explain why it’s a lie. I think we’d get a lot fewer of these blowups if it was always clear exactly what it is that you’re calling a lie, rather than your accusations taking on the appearance of general abuse. By the way, everyone, if it’s ever unclear what I’m calling a lie, please ask and I’ll explain. Because I always mean a specific thing, and if I don’t explain it’s because it seems obvious to me, so if it isn’t please tell me so.

Finally, Rags, the use of abusive nicknames for people seems unnecessary, and unnecessarily inflammatory. You may think them deserved, but for those coming in late, or who don’t have your proboscidean recall, it’s just off-putting.

Fuzzy, Rags usually does have a point in these attacks, often a valid one, but you have to be paying close attention to see it because he doesn’t explain.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | May 31, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    Well, fair…sorta.

    I don’t have your kind of time, and if people can’t read and follow, I guess that’s on them, not on me.

    I’m still awaiting a “yes” or “no” from Tiki-boi. I’m giving him an opportunity here…

    To put your mind at ease, Milhouse, it’s usually perfectly clear what you mean when you call someone a liar (though that is still harsh in some cases, since most people are not being intentionally deceptive but are instead sharing their viewpoint or opinion). You will then copy and paste or clearly reference the alleged lie in your response. You then go on to debunk / challenge the perceived lie you are addressing with explication and often with reference to specific laws, quotes, incidents, examples, and etc. You rarely (if ever?) prove your point that the commenter is lying, but you do add valuable fodder for further discussion, clarify issues, beg questions, effectively challenge existing opinion, and etc. If you just wrote, “you’re a big fat lying liar who lies and is an evil T-rump sucking cultist,” you would not have the respect on this site you have earned. But you know that.

Arguing with someone on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded. Politically incorrect, yet still valuable, advice given to me by a sysadmin in the early 1990’s when the internet was called “Usenet.”

Oh, and “trying to get something off the internet is like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool.”

    Milhouse in reply to MajorWood. | May 31, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    Usenet was (and is, since I suppose it still exists) not the internet. It was carried over the internet, but also off it; a lot of people got it by store-and-relay. An entire continent got it by means of physical tapes crossing the Pacific every few hours.

      daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | June 1, 2018 at 6:38 pm

      The World Wide Web isn’t “the Internet” either (and neither are Google, Facebook and YouTube, despite what parasitic erstwhile “free-speech” advocates say).

      Those of us who remember Usenet knew exactly what he meant.

    MrE in reply to MajorWood. | May 31, 2018 at 8:14 pm

    And before Usenet, was Fidonet. Still use the Usenet archives to download TV episodes whenever the DVR hiccups.

      Milhouse in reply to MrE. | May 31, 2018 at 10:04 pm

      Usenet is older than Doggienet. I remember when they first connected Doggienet to Usenet, they called it “endless September” or something like that, until AOL came along and that really was the September that never ended. Until, of course, it did, with the death of Usenet.

Question: if Planet of the Apes is insensitive towards blacks, why isn’t it banned?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | May 31, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    Because no one has said Planet Of The Apes is insensitive towards blacks, and because Planet Of The Apes isn’t insensitive to blacks.

      Well, the movie did piss off a lot of monkeys….

      I remember there were quite a few monkey actors who thought it was unfair that the studio hired humans for all the monkey rolls…