Could care less, but when an msm member misunderstands the subject, I have to say something. So “Rosie O’Donnell Picks Fight with Elizabeth Hasselbeck,” and true to form a font of the msm (ABC) misconstrues or misleads as to what the real issue is.
According to ABC:
“The View" showdown is the latest example of how difficult it is to strike a balance between criticizing the war and supporting the troops.”
ABC Quoting an undeniable fact stated by the Director of Harvard University Center for Public Leadership director David Gergen:
‘"There are no clear lines about how far you can go in criticizing government during times of war. But there are customs. One custom is you can criticize a president, you can also criticize the generals but you can't criticize the troops."’
Obviously there are all kinds of opinion, however the implication in the article is more along the lines that free speech is somehow impaired. This is not the case; you can say what you want, but don’t expect to win every popularity contest you enter.
I don’t particularly care for or follow the Rosie’s Reamings, but as I understand it the upset yesterday began with comments made last week by O’Donnell; ‘"655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"’ Not being aware of the context doesn’t help, but this insinuates a comparison or questioning that allows for the belief that others may not agree that the Islamo-fascists are the terrorists; some may believe the troops are the terrorists as 655,000 civilians have died.
Whatever…if one doesn’t agree, one has the right to disagree and say something about it. This is more about those that like to say whatever they want, yet are hurt or offended when there is a backlash from people that disagree and have a different viewpoint.
Ms. O’Donnell has some wild theories (just my opinion, right?) and she gets to spout on endlessly about the Monday through Friday on TV. Of ten overshooting the person she is in disagreement with in a bullying fashion. Too busy trying to speak over the opposite side of an argument she misses what was said and then does not understand what was actually said back. This is the modus operandi of the Left for the most part; they never hear what anyone else is actually saying and therefore only end up hearing themselves further hardening their belief(s).
Instead of letting Ms. Hasselbeck’s advice and what was meant Rosie walks away from it all expecting an apology from Hasselbeck. An example of arguing for the sake of not losing:
‘"I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying," O'Donnell said to Hasselbeck.
"Did I say yes?" Hasselbeck replied.
"You said nothing and that's cowardly," O'Donnell shot back.
"No, no, no. Do not call me a coward because I sit here every single day, open my heart and tell people exactly what I believe," Hasselbeck shouted.
"So do I," retorted O'Donnell.”’
No resolution here and there never will be with someone that moves the debate/argument around.
“Who Can Say What?” Give me a break, you can say what you want…it’s being challenged that some don’t like and that is what they're really talking about.
For more fun check out “An Encore: Rosie O’Donnell and Ron Reagan Pile on America”
Trackback for this Post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6541138695073608573
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, the so called me, The Pet Haven Blog, The Amboy Times, Colloquium, Pursuing Holiness, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, stikNstein... has no mercy, The World According to Carl, Here's looking at . . .me!, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
|