Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Hey! Now they're saying that Rosie is making an early exit and won't be back....
Oh, forget it.... who cares.....
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
What the hell are you watching the view for 82? Too much time working at home? Yes, elizabeth is cute... naive, but cute. Though I'm not a fan of Rosie... it's obvious that you and Elizebeth come from the same school of thought.
Why do you feel it necessary to make fun of Rosie's weight? What on earth does that have to do with why you don't like her? You don't like her political opinion...so... you insult her size? I never understood that behavior, seems childish to me.
Some conservatives bitch about actors/musicians giving their political opinion...yet they tune in hear a Survivor participant spout out hers. Lovely.. just more evidence of hypocrisy from the shut up unless I agree with you crowd.
What the hell are you watching the view for 82? Too much time working at home? Yes, elizabeth is cute... naive, but cute. Though I'm not a fan of Rosie... it's obvious that you and Elizebeth come from the same school of thought.
Why do you feel it necessary to make fun of Rosie's weight? What on earth does that have to do with why you don't like her? You don't like her political opinion...so... you insult her size? I never understood that behavior, seems childish to me.
Some conservatives bitch about actors/musicians giving their political opinion...yet they tune in hear a Survivor participant spout out hers. Lovely.. just more evidence of hypocrisy from the shut up unless I agree with you crowd.
It's not nearly as complicated as you make it KloD... First, I most certainly do NOT tune in to The View...
I despise Rosie because she is an ignorant, bitter FLU (Fat, Loud & UGLY)...
Seriously, Laura Schwartz is a hard core dem., yet she does not come close to being the irritant Rosie is... Rosie plays the victim better than anybody. What a sow...
It's not nearly as complicated as you make it KloD... First, I most certainly do NOT tune in to The View...
I despise Rosie because she is an ignorant, bitter FLU (Fat, Loud & UGLY)...
Seriously, Laura Schwartz is a hard core dem., yet she does not come close to being the irritant Rosie is... Rosie plays the victim better than anybody. What a sow...
Again, you hate her because she's fat and ugly? She's a sow because she plays a victim? What exactly is she bitter about? She's freakin' rich, has a family, famous, and has yours and the rest of the conservatives panties in a collective bunch.
You post BS from Coulter and claim it funny.. are you gonna claim she's a less of a loud mouth than Rosie? If you do, you're absolutely wrong and absolutely biased.
Again, you hate her because she's fat and ugly? She's a sow because she plays a victim? What exactly is she bitter about? She's freakin' rich, has a family, famous, and has yours and the rest of the conservatives panties in a collective bunch.
You post BS from Coulter and claim it funny.. are you gonna claim she's a less of a loud mouth than Rosie? If you do, you're absolutely wrong and absolutely biased.
Actually, I agree that Coulter and Rosie are more close than they are apart...
I hate them both... however, I find Coulter to be much more humorous and less of a victim... "What is Rosie bitter about"??? If you can get some of the other radical left loonies to answer that question, you can then perhaps understand Rosie...
I'm a radical left loonie? Ok, what ever you say... What is with you and the name calling? Seriously. Coulter isn't funny in the least.. OH! Maybe it's that she repeatedly calls people names that you appreciate?
Why don't you just tell me what she's bitter about as my fellow radical left loonies are currently hiding in their tinfoil hats.
I'm a radical left loonie? Ok, what ever you say... What is with you and the name calling? Seriously. Coulter isn't funny in the least.. OH! Maybe it's that she repeatedly calls people names that you appreciate?
Why don't you just tell me what she's bitter about as my fellow radical left loonies are currently hiding in their tinfoil hats.
KloD - why do you attempt such childish tactics... Where did I call YOU a radical left loonie?? If you desire to carry that moniker, have at it but I did not characterize you as such.
Since I occupy a place on the political spectrum as far away as possible from people like Rosie, I can't even begin to understand their bitterness... You will have to rip the tinfoil lids off your pals at first chance and hope they can enlighten you... As for me - I couldn't care less...
To bemused conservatives, it looks like yet another example of analytic overkill by the intelligentsia -- a jobs program for the (mostly liberal) academic boys (and girls) in the social sciences, whose quantitative tools have been brought to bear to prove the obvious.
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.
Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.
People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative.
Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap.
Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.
On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a "new relationship between government and people." Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says, "The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times." Henceforth the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: "Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough." So, liberals: Smile -- you've won.
Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.
But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .
You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.
KloD - why do you attempt such childish tactics...
This from the guy calling people names..
Quote:
Where did I call YOU a radical left loonie?? If you desire to carry that moniker, have at it but I did not characterize you as such.
Not sure what you meant by this?
Quote:
If you can get some of the other radical left loonies to answer that question, you can then perhaps understand Rosie...
If that wasn't calling me such, ok. I guess I don't understand that comment.
Quote:
Since I occupy a place on the political spectrum as far away as possible from people like Rosie, I can't even begin to understand their bitterness... You will have to rip the tinfoil lids off your pals at first chance and hope they can enlighten you... As for me - I couldn't care less...
So you've repeatedly called her bitter and when I ask you why, you claim to not care. So you don't know, but you know she's bitter?
You make my head spin.
To bemused conservatives, it looks like yet another example of analytic overkill by the intelligentsia -- a jobs program for the (mostly liberal) academic boys (and girls) in the social sciences, whose quantitative tools have been brought to bear to prove the obvious.
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals -- in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves "very happy," only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.
Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.
People in the Sun Belt -- almost entirely red states -- have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative.
Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap.
Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.
On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a "new relationship between government and people." Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says, "The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times." Henceforth the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: "Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough." So, liberals: Smile -- you've won.
Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals. Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers, millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades. To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.
But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy automobiles because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.). And then there is -- was -- all that rustic beauty paved over for highways. (And for those giant parking lots at exurban mega-churches. The less said about them the better.) And automobiles discourage the egalitarian enjoyment of mass transit. And automobiles, by facilitating suburban sprawl, deny sprawl's victims -- that word must make an appearance in liberal laments; and lament is what liberals do -- the uplifting communitarian experience of high-density living. And automobiles . . .
You see? Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed. And not one conducive to happiness.
Cosmic Defender Champion!
So you've repeatedly called her bitter and when I ask you why, you claim to not care. So you don't know, but you know she's bitter? 
Linear Mode
