^
Now is it correct that they replaced Roseanne's new show with repeats of Cosby?
Now is it correct that they replaced Roseanne's new show with repeats of Cosby?
American TV: The New Roseanne is the Ultimate Shitlord
- Thread starter RIslander
- Start date
Had a suspicion they'd do this.
The pussy-hat wearing aunt / sister would be too much of a stretch as that character was always a side character.
Whereas in being a producer as well, no surprise Sara Gilbert will gladly usurp the former queen to now take up the sitcom throne.
The pussy-hat wearing aunt / sister would be too much of a stretch as that character was always a side character.
Whereas in being a producer as well, no surprise Sara Gilbert will gladly usurp the former queen to now take up the sitcom throne.
One word can get you fired and lynched in this anti-White sentiment.
A black guy can say how happy he is to kill all the White people in his movie - Jamie Foxx. That is fine.
It should be funny when Whites are in the minority - those progressives will then find out how much that will be worth - they can look to South Africa for inspiration already.
CynicalContrarian said:
Hilarious - will she turn lesbian like in real life? It's amazing already how Hollywood pushed this ugly incapable actress with one facial expression for so long. They will soon find out that she will reach 10% of the core demographic of Roseanne.
Clown world.
Who on the Right watches this shit anyway? When your level of right wing political involvement doesn't even surpass "won't watch left wing networks no matter what" then I don't give a single fuck if Roseanne's new show being cancelled triggers you.*
*Not directed specifically at anyone here.
Turn off the fucking television. Read a book. Read the RVF. Kill video game terrorists if you want. Just stop sucking from the progressive boob tube because they toss you a conservative bone every now and then. Is it really that hard?
The collective response of the entire Right over this cancellation should have been, "doesn't affect me, I don't watch the ABC". The problem is not that Roseanne was cancelled. The problem is that anyone gives a shit.
Who on the Right watches this shit anyway? When your level of right wing political involvement doesn't even surpass "won't watch left wing networks no matter what" then I don't give a single fuck if Roseanne's new show being cancelled triggers you.*
*Not directed specifically at anyone here.
Turn off the fucking television. Read a book. Read the RVF. Kill video game terrorists if you want. Just stop sucking from the progressive boob tube because they toss you a conservative bone every now and then. Is it really that hard?
The collective response of the entire Right over this cancellation should have been, "doesn't affect me, I don't watch the ABC". The problem is not that Roseanne was cancelled. The problem is that anyone gives a shit.
Zelcorpion said:CynicalContrarian said:
Hilarious - will she turn lesbian like in real life? It's amazing already how Hollywood pushed this ugly incapable actress with one facial expression for so long. They will soon find out that she will reach 10% of the core demographic of Roseanne.
I keep saying this, and I fear the message is getting overlooked: Lesbians are 100% pure evil. They always, always, always will end up fucking over anything that anybody else has built.
Roseanne worked like a crazed bitch to build that show. Creating a TV show is insanely hard work. Sure she made a dumb mistake...all too easy when you're the person in the arena, covered with blood and dirt, fighting to build something. (Former hubby Tom Arnold said "she was probably getting no sleep at all, I'm not surprised she was taking Ambien").
Then there are the parasites like Gilbert who are paid a pittance to come in and say a few lines. Making no real contribution. But being a Lesbian, of course constantly seething with hatred every second against the man or straight woman who is actually building the product.
When the Lesbo parasite gets her chance to strike and kill, she does it without hesitation. Kills the show, kills the startup, kills the organization. Slowly or quickly. They kill and tear down anything they can. That's what lesbians DO.
Remember again, that lesbians are fundamentally different from gay men. Gay men are a minor quirk of nature. Lesbian women are a rejection of nature itself.
Shun them. I can't put it any more clearly. Shun them because they will ALWAYS fuck you over. Always. Because fucking over others is their world view.
< Generally yes - lesbians are often in positions of power, in child protective service amply applied and misuse that power often with a male hatred.
But a few exceptions exist:
Camille Paglia
Rosa Koire:
Fighter against the globalist Agenda 21 for a long time already.
But alas - those women are extremely high in IQ and intellectual prowess. For everyone of those you get 10 fat feminazis on steroids who hate men and families - they lap up the anti-male feminist SJW doctrine up like nothing.
But a few exceptions exist:
Camille Paglia
Rosa Koire:
Fighter against the globalist Agenda 21 for a long time already.
But alas - those women are extremely high in IQ and intellectual prowess. For everyone of those you get 10 fat feminazis on steroids who hate men and families - they lap up the anti-male feminist SJW doctrine up like nothing.
I've used Camille Paglia on a lot of my leftwing and feminazi friends. Some of them have pretty much wrote her off as "internalizing the patriarchy" even when they know she is a fucking lesbian.
I'm convinced these lefties are actually truly evil people because I can't wrap my head around this many people being so blatantly fucking stupid when logic is hitting them in the face. I feel like one would have to be getting paid in some way to outwardly support such insane ideas.
I mean I just watched a video of a based Pakistani guy literally telling gay guy that we kill homosexuals. The homo starts telling the former Muslim Paki he's racist, Islamophobic and Homophobic. The Pakistani guy looked like his head was going to explode attempting to explain this shit to him. The Paki finally says yeah when I was growing up in Pakistan and a practicing Muslim I thought homos should die in the most violent way possible and the gay guy goes see you're Homophopic. The Pakistani guy is like dude, I'm talking about when I was a Muslim which I'm not a Muslim now.
To be this blind in logic and still have the ability to cross the street without getting hit by a car seems impossible to me.
I'm convinced these lefties are actually truly evil people because I can't wrap my head around this many people being so blatantly fucking stupid when logic is hitting them in the face. I feel like one would have to be getting paid in some way to outwardly support such insane ideas.
I mean I just watched a video of a based Pakistani guy literally telling gay guy that we kill homosexuals. The homo starts telling the former Muslim Paki he's racist, Islamophobic and Homophobic. The Pakistani guy looked like his head was going to explode attempting to explain this shit to him. The Paki finally says yeah when I was growing up in Pakistan and a practicing Muslim I thought homos should die in the most violent way possible and the gay guy goes see you're Homophopic. The Pakistani guy is like dude, I'm talking about when I was a Muslim which I'm not a Muslim now.
To be this blind in logic and still have the ability to cross the street without getting hit by a car seems impossible to me.
nola said:
"I've used Camille Paglia on a lot of my leftwing and feminazi friends. Some of them have pretty much wrote her off as "internalizing the patriarchy" even when they know she is a fucking lesbian."
They're not thinkers. They're the modern-day variation of the old religious fanatics you tried to avoid growing up.
"Internalized the patriarchy" is the pseudo-intellectual version of "He's controlled by Satan." Back in the old days, if you mentioned to my old Catholic aunts that someone had a reasoned critique of Catholicism, they dismissed it saying he was possessed by Satan.
I'm not kidding about this. People really used to believe that and if you argued, they'd counter-argue "How do you know he isn't possessed?" I had this discussion with both my old aunts and a "Catechism" teacher, who genuinely believed in the devil possessing people.
This is one reason the movie "The Exorcist" was so big. It was a "told you so!" moment for these nuts. They saw it as a confirmation of their beliefs: "Look what happens when you let Satan in!!" See? SEE????!!"
So, I'll repeat a phrase from the above post: To be this blind in logic and still have the ability to cross the street without getting hit by a car seems impossible to me.
^ and ^^ shared 
otd:
otd:
Days of Broken Arrows said:
Rather amusing that the Useful Idiot type lives in an era / age where life could not be any easier.
Instant coffee.
Instant entertainment.
Instant this, that & the other.
Yet they cling to whatever deluded juvenile fantasy of theirs happens to be. Simply to avoid the harsh truths of life.
Socialism does not work. Diversity leads to division. Alternate lifestyles are rarely stable. Etc., etc.
They can barely handle the convenience of the modern world.
If we were to cut off the power, I'd bet we'd encounter level of reee-steria previously unheard of...
As for Roseanne.
On the podcast interviewing Candace Owens, Joe Rogan mentioned that Roseanne herself was nigh on worn out physically while making that latest season (at age 66).
So it's doubtful she would have been able to do much with a 2nd season anyway.
< They could make John Goodman the star of the show and continue Roseanne without Roseanne. He is popular enough among the core audience. They could have Roseanne die of a heart-attack and him dating other women - even that is funny at his age.
But I guess that would be blasphemy to have a man be the patriarch of the household. Let's just make the loser daughter the star that no one really likes.
But I guess that would be blasphemy to have a man be the patriarch of the household. Let's just make the loser daughter the star that no one really likes.
Zelcorpion said:
Oh well.
The crash & burn of 'Darlene' will allow us to chuckle from the sidelines if nothing else.
Interesting how “7th Heaven” reruns eventually came back on after the Stephen Collins, A SELF ADMITTED PEDOPHILE, situation came to light.
Libtard logic dictates that it's much more acceptable to be a pedophile than to say something purportedly “raycisss”.
Libtard logic dictates that it's much more acceptable to be a pedophile than to say something purportedly “raycisss”.
spokepoker
Hummingbird
CynicalContrarian said:Oh well.Zelcorpion said:
The crash & burn of 'Darlene' will allow us to chuckle from the sidelines if nothing else.
Reminds me of the spinoff that chick had from Beavis and Butthead.
A Roseanne Spinoff Could Be Announced This Week
https://screenrant.com/roseanne-spinoff-announcement-soon/
A Roseanne spinoff is looking more and more likely, with insiders expecting an announcement from ABC as early as this week. ABC has been contemplating a potential spinoff centered around Darlene Conner (Sara Gilbert) ever since they canceled the hit Roseanne revival last month; a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account.
Roseanne had already been renewed for a second season when the series was canceled, so that left ABC with an open primetime slot to fill. While some people were hoping ABC would revive Agent Carter, it seems they plan on moving forward with a Roseanne spinoff. Aside from Gilbert, the Roseanne executive producers are reportedly scrambling to find a way to bring back Dan (John Goodman), Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), and possibly the rest of the revival cast– minus Barr, of course.
https://screenrant.com/roseanne-spinoff-announcement-soon/
A Roseanne spinoff is looking more and more likely, with insiders expecting an announcement from ABC as early as this week. ABC has been contemplating a potential spinoff centered around Darlene Conner (Sara Gilbert) ever since they canceled the hit Roseanne revival last month; a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account.
Roseanne had already been renewed for a second season when the series was canceled, so that left ABC with an open primetime slot to fill. While some people were hoping ABC would revive Agent Carter, it seems they plan on moving forward with a Roseanne spinoff. Aside from Gilbert, the Roseanne executive producers are reportedly scrambling to find a way to bring back Dan (John Goodman), Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), and possibly the rest of the revival cast– minus Barr, of course.
CynicalContrarian said:
"...a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account."
This sentence is a textbook example of why journalism as a field is now despised by so many Americans. It's not the big focus of the journalist's stories. The bias is easy to spot there. It's the little things they throw in on the sly.
This writer's use of the words "horrifically racist" is such a phrase. It's not "reporting." He's editorializing. And he's stoking hysteria by using a hyperbolic phrase.
Roseanne has said she didn't know the woman targeted by the Tweet, Valerie Jarrett, was even black. Whether that's true or not, it's part of the public record. Therefore, the phrase "unintentionally racist" might apply. An honest reporter has to acknowledge this.
But even if she did know, Roseanne's Tweet was more idiotic, immature, and just plain bigoted than "horrifically racist." Whatever the case, "career-destroying Tweet" would have been the most accurate description.
Back in the old days, copy editors would comb through your every word and pull out phrases that you might have reflexively written without really them through. Copy editors were largely purged from publications because of the great 2008-09 downturn, so this kind of poor writing is what you now get.
Most readers don't see little things like this, but still feel them on an emotional level. This is how reporters insidiously get their biases to slip through their stories.
If I had any ambition, I'd hold a "how to decode journalists" courses. As with "Seinfeld," it's all about "the little things."
^
You're right.
But it's precisely because of the financial situation that papers are publishing divisive opinion pieces. The reason they work so well is not because they're catering to a liberal agenda (many liberals are sick of identity politics) but because it makes people click. It's good for people to keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions about society based on tabloid articles.
You're right.
But it's precisely because of the financial situation that papers are publishing divisive opinion pieces. The reason they work so well is not because they're catering to a liberal agenda (many liberals are sick of identity politics) but because it makes people click. It's good for people to keep that in mind before jumping to conclusions about society based on tabloid articles.