The View

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

Ive heard all tis stuff happened on the view and i keep seeing the video over and over and OVER again! I know that Rosie is leaving next month and i know that she's gettin fired bc of how she's been and for questioning 9/11 and everything. Sooo WHAT HAPPENED?? WHAT THE HECK WERE THEY FIGHTING FOR?!?

Laurie · Post by **Laurie** » Thu May 24, 2007 7:25 pm

I think they are acting like spoiled two year olds. ABC should cancel the show as it has been going down hill for some time. At least if ABC cancelled the show we would not have to see all of the bickering.

WatchaCall · Post by **WatchaCall** » Thu May 24, 2007 7:51 pm

Unfortunately, the bickering will increase the show's ratings.

That said, kudos to Elizabeth for at least finally standing up to Rosie. I'm all for free speech, but saying that Sept. 11 was orchestrated by the president crosses the line. A statement such as that best be backed up by some evidence.

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Thu May 24, 2007 9:02 pm

WatchaCall wrote:Unfortunately, the bickering will increase the show's ratings.

That said, kudos to Elizabeth for at least finally standing up to Rosie. I'm all for free speech, but saying that Sept. 11 was orchestrated by the president crosses the line. A statement such as that best be backed up by some evidence.

there are PLENTY of peeps with evidence to bakc up that statement..my dad went to bed but i'll post some of the research that he found and stuff...its pretty interesting actually and kinda scary...

cubsmith08 · Post by **cubsmith08** » Sat May 26, 2007 2:34 pm

yeah, after watching that, my respect for elizabeth hasselbeck went way up! no, i don't agree with her on everything...but i think she did an AWESOME job standing up to rosie!

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sat May 26, 2007 2:49 pm

cubsmith08 wrote:yeah, after watching that, my respect for elizabeth hasselbeck went way up! no, i don't agree with her on everything...but i think she did an AWESOME job standing up to rosie!

but WHAT WERE THEY FIGHTING ABOUT?!?

cubsmith08 · Post by **cubsmith08** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:13 pm

LOVEistheREVERSAL wrote:
WatchaCall wrote:Unfortunately, the bickering will increase the show's ratings.

That said, kudos to Elizabeth for at least finally standing up to Rosie. I'm all for free speech, but saying that Sept. 11 was orchestrated by the president crosses the line. A statement such as that best be backed up by some evidence.

there are PLENTY of peeps with evidence to bakc up that statement..my dad went to bed but i'll post some of the research that he found and stuff...its pretty interesting actually and kinda scary...

BUT is the research you are finding reliable??

you can find ANYTHING you want on the internet to support anything you want it to! in my opinion, unless it's something issued by the government (online), or a major tv network, i'm not going to believe it!

they were "fighting" because rosie said that the american troops were terrorists!

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sat May 26, 2007 3:17 pm

cubsmith08 wrote:
LOVEistheREVERSAL wrote:
WatchaCall wrote:Unfortunately, the bickering will increase the show's ratings.

That said, kudos to Elizabeth for at least finally standing up to Rosie. I'm all for free speech, but saying that Sept. 11 was orchestrated by the president crosses the line. A statement such as that best be backed up by some evidence.

there are PLENTY of peeps with evidence to bakc up that statement..my dad went to bed but i'll post some of the research that he found and stuff...its pretty interesting actually and kinda scary...
BUT is the research you are finding reliable?? you can find ANYTHING you want on the internet to support anything you want it to! in my opinion, unless it's something issued by the government (online), or a major tv network, i'm not going to believe it!

the problem is that the goverment isnt always reliable...he got a movie that was a documentary *not made by the gov btw* and they showed actual footage of 9/11 and even the way the towers went down looked like a demolition and not like the plane was the reason it went down... and *i not exactly sure of this one but i know the main jist* the type metal that supported the walls in the tower couldnt have melted from the fire because there's NO WAY that fire could be hot enough to do it...

WatchaCall · Post by **WatchaCall** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:26 pm

LOVEistheREVERSAL wrote:
cubsmith08 wrote:yeah, after watching that, my respect for elizabeth hasselbeck went way up! no, i don't agree with her on everything...but i think she did an AWESOME job standing up to rosie!

but WHAT WERE THEY FIGHTING ABOUT?!?

Rosie made a reference to casualties in Iraq and asked "who the real terrorists" were. She was obviously suggesting that our country or our president was on the same level as terrorists.

From what I gather, Rosie was upset that Elizabeth, who has a conservative point of view, didn't come to Rosie's defense when Rosie was criticized for her remarks. That's what fueled the whole thing.

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sat May 26, 2007 3:29 pm

WatchaCall wrote:
LOVEistheREVERSAL wrote:
cubsmith08 wrote:yeah, after watching that, my respect for elizabeth hasselbeck went way up! no, i don't agree with her on everything...but i think she did an AWESOME job standing up to rosie!

but WHAT WERE THEY FIGHTING ABOUT?!?
Rosie made a reference to casualties in Iraq and asked "who the real terrorists" were. She was obviously suggesting that our country or our president was on the same level as terrorists.

From what I gather, Rosie was upset that Elizabeth, who has a conservative point of view, didn't come to Rosie's defense when Rosie was criticized for her remarks. That's what fueled the whole thing.

OoOooOoooOH thnx mucho!

Clodius Albinus · Post by **Clodius Albinus** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:56 pm

If you're actually interested in a response to those kooks, LOVEistheREVERSAL, please read this extended Popular Mechanics rebuttal. You really don't want to buy into the stupid arguments of a bunch of conspiracy theory morons who, as soon as you buy the loathsome argument that the government did, will try to sell you a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to clue you in on the global Jewish conspiracy, or perhaps promote their literature on how a shadowy cabal of Jewish financiers, Trilateral Commission members, Carlyle Group partners and Illuminati types are secretly controlling the world.

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sat May 26, 2007 5:10 pm

Joseph Schumpeter wrote:If you're actually interested in a response to those kooks, LOVEistheREVERSAL, please read this extended Popular Mechanics rebuttal. You really don't want to buy into the stupid arguments of a bunch of conspiracy theory morons who, as soon as you buy the loathsome argument that the government did, will try to sell you a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to clue you in on the global Jewish conspiracy, or perhaps promote their literature on how a shadowy cabal of Jewish financiers, Trilateral Commission members, Carlyle Group partners and Illuminati types are secretly controlling the world.

lol thnx mucho..ill read it

*read it and honestyl that all went WAY over my head..got an article in lamen's terms?

*

Skid · Post by **Skid** » Sat May 26, 2007 5:53 pm

I can't find one, though here is an article directly focusing on the points made by Rosie and her goons.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/9 ... 13805.html

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sat May 26, 2007 5:54 pm

Skid wrote:I can't find one, though here is an article directly focusing on the points made by Rosie and her goons.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/9 ... 13805.html

thnx Skid...btw u still think Starfield is silly?

Clodius Albinus · Post by **Clodius Albinus** » Sat May 26, 2007 6:14 pm

That is in layman's terms, and Popular Mechanics is written, as the name suggests, for a general audience. There are, of course, some technical arguments therein, but that's a hazard of the subject. If someone writes, for instance, "The metal frame wouldn't have collapsed under the circumstances described in the official account," it isn't sufficient to say "Yes it would!" You have to back it up with a bit of physics, some discussion of metallurgy, etc.

Some attempts to refute the events of September 11th are more sophisticated than others, and don't fall into the easiest of traps, but one common "argument" is that the fires would not have burned hot enough to "melt" steel, with melt defined (usually implicitly) as the ability to turn steel columns of the thickness found in the World Trade Center into a liquid. This, however, is facially pointless. The frame had only to weaken, not melt, for the building to collapse. Put a metal rod in a fire for a while, or even run scalding water over a spoon, then try to bend it. You'll find that it bends much more easily after the heat is applied than before. Now, in neither case did the metal melt -- but it doesn't need to. If you have an enormous, extraordinarily heavy skyscraper and its support columns become malleable and lose their structure integrity, they don't need to dissolve or melt for the entire building to come crashing down.

I am not even remotely qualified to address the sort of arguments advanced by many of the conspiracy theorists, as I simply don't know enough about physics to engage the matter properly. The Popular Mechanics article provides a much better response than I could, and other reputable sources have published similarly effective rebuttals.

cubsmith08 · Post by **cubsmith08** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:47 pm

Joseph Schumpeter wrote:If you're actually interested in a response to those kooks, LOVEistheREVERSAL, please read this extended Popular Mechanics rebuttal. You really don't want to buy into the stupid arguments of a bunch of conspiracy theory morons who, as soon as you buy the loathsome argument that the government did, will try to sell you a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to clue you in on the global Jewish conspiracy, or perhaps promote their literature on how a shadowy cabal of Jewish financiers, Trilateral Commission members, Carlyle Group partners and Illuminati types are secretly controlling the world.

are you saying that we're kooks??

Clodius Albinus · Post by **Clodius Albinus** » Sun May 27, 2007 1:05 pm

You're young, and you've naively bought into the lies and distortions of others. I ask only that you review the evidence.

As for those whose lies you've bought into, kooks is far too mild a word, as it indicates merely that they are idiots. Many, however, quite readily mix in other elements, such as anti-semitism, racism, anarchism, virulent anti-Americanism, etc.

FrayedAroundTheEdges · Sun May 27, 2007 2:19 pm

Joseph Schumpeter wrote:You're young, and you've naively bought into the lies and distortions of others. I ask only that you review the evidence.

As for those whose lies you've bought into, kooks is far too mild a word, as it indicates merely that they are idiots. Many, however, quite readily mix in other elements, such as anti-semitism, racism, anarchism, virulent anti-Americanism, etc.

i didnt really mean to turn this into a debate *but one of the admins pleez feel free to move this to the CCDS if u feel like its goint that way* i just wanted to know what happened...although it might slightly be my fault cuz i brought up the "evidence" to back up the metal stuff an everything..sry peeps

Aram · Post by **Aram** » Sun May 27, 2007 2:30 pm

We've actually already debated this topic until it is nil and void.

Any other contribution to it would be redundant.

cubsmith08 · Post by **cubsmith08** » Sun May 27, 2007 5:23 pm

so you're saying that we're "uninformed" and "naive"?? just because i'm younger than you certainly doesn't mean that you're more informed on this issue! i'm not saying i know everything, but come on!! you don't even know me so you have no right to say that!

do you think that i believe in the conspiracy theory?? because i don't!

*i'm not meaning to be rude or offend anyone...just pointing out the facts*