Oprah denies Palin for show appearance.

[Gan]

OHZ NOEZ, ANOTHER POLL!

So Oprah refuses to interview Palin until after the election. (http://www.tmz.com/2008/09/05/oprah-to-palin-i-can-pencil-you-in-later/)

Yes, she's a staunch Obama supporter. And her qualification remarks were that she's not having either candidate on until after the election.

She's had Obama on the show twice, each time before he announced his candidacy.

Fair move by Oprah? Bias move by Oprah? Should she have Obama and Palin?

What will it do to the vajayjay audience that she's cultivated over the years? Perhaps she'll have to do two "gift" shows for a few years to make up for it?

[NocturnalRob]

fuck Oprah, that fat cow.

[Tisket]

I'd be upset if she'd had Biden on and then refused Palin. Has she?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Even if it wasn't before Obama became a candidate, it's her show. Her reasoning could be "You're a stupid bitch and I couldn't go more than a minute without punching you in the face so no" and that's just how it'd have to be.

Anyway, since no one is gonna be on I think she's being as fair as she can. So whatever.

[Gan]

Note: The Poll on the website shows 80% chose biased. 20% chose fair choice by Oprah.

Now realize that this article was found on Drudge - so your sample is somewhat skewed to Drudge readership.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Why don't you have a poll option for McCain being on Oprah?

I'd vote for McCain if he jumped on the couch and howled about how much he loved Palin.

Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21i4j5_bs40

[Ashliana]

Who cares if she's biased? She's a talk show host, not a news source. Are people never allowed to take positions? It's her show, and she can do what she wants to.

Edit: I hit "a fair move" on the poll, but I don't necessarily disagree with "a biased move," either. There's just nothing wrong about her being biased, is all. Can't change my vote now, though. Bleh.

[Clove]

I don't dispute that she has every right to be as biased as she wants to be; it's her show. But I think she's being biased by not inviting Republican candidates on her show when she's had Obama on (even if it was before he announced his candidacy).

[Gan]

Why don't you have a poll option for McCain being on Oprah?

I'd vote for McCain if he jumped on the couch and howled about how much he loved Palin.

I thought a narrowed focus would be in order since Oprah is all about Obama and the story was about Palin being denied a spot on her show.

For all intents and purposes - have both sets on. Give her audience a chance to see how she discusses the issues - since her show is about discussing issues from a woman's perspective.

She's actually doing a disservice to her audience by not covering both camps. Or she's really telling people she can not be objective enough to interview both camps. :shrug:

If entertainers wish to use their influence (either on air or off air) to become involved politics then they should be prepared for the other edge of the sword. Not that I have not said this before in other stupid entertainer/political threads or anything.

[Tisket]

Jesus, now we have Oprah-gate. Lame.

[Ashliana]

I just see this as the same thing as a musician coming to play at a fundraising event for one of the candidates. She's doing what she does for a living, involving the candidate of her choice, trying to prop them up.

Would a musician have to play at the other candidate's event? Silly. It's only because she's on TV, "interviewing." But it's not a news report. She doesn't have to, nor should she be expected to, interview the other side as well.

[Tisket]

I imagine her show's sponsors are the ones mourning her decision most.

[Clove]

Jesus, now we have Oprah-gate. Lame.
It will never compare to your babygate.

[Gan]

LOL

[Tisket]

lmao

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Jesus, now we have Oprah-gate. Lame.

Racist.

[Stanley Burrell]

Oprah sucks.

This is more interesting rhetoric, here:

Exclusive: Heart's Nancy Wilson responds to McCain campaign's use of 'Barracuda' at Republican convention.

Thursday afternoon, Heart e-mailed out a statement regarding vice-presidential candidate Sarah "Barracuda" Palin's use of their similarly monikered song at the Republican National Convention: "The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," it read. "We have asked the Republican campaign publicly not to use our music. We hope our wishes will be honored."

But after McCain finished his speech accepting the GOP's presidential nomination tonight, Palin joined him on stage, and the song was used again: Heart's "Barracuda" played as balloons fell. With that elephant in the room, Heart's Nancy Wilson felt compelled to personally respond. "I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," she said in a phone call to EW.com after the speech. "I feel completely f---ed over." She and sister Ann Wilson then e-mailed the following exclusive statement:

"Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image. The song 'Barracuda' was written in the late 70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. (The 'Barracuda' represented the business.) While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there's irony in Republican strategists' choice to make use of it there."

The Heart-McCain incident isn't the only example of music-related controversy on this year's presidential campaign trail. Click here to read Chris Willman's report about Barack Obama's eyebrow-raising use of Brooks & Dunn's "Only in America" after his nomination-acceptance address last week.

[CrystalTears]

Sure she can do whatever she wants and invite or deny whomever she wants to be on her show. It doesn't make it any less biased.

[Mabus]

Would a musician have to play at the other candidate's event?
Just a strange aside, and I have not been able to find information on either convention, but I have been wondering whether either campaign paid their ASCAP/BMI music licensing fee to play all those copyrighted works.

Both parties vote for the RIAA protection laws, but I wonder if they follow them (or if they put in exclusions for their political usage of copyrighted music).

Nevermind. Back to Oprah.

[Stanley Burrell]

Sure she can do whatever she wants and invite or deny whomever she wants to be on her show. It doesn't make it any less biased.

BECAUSE I'M OPRAH!

http://www.thestream.tv/shows/fluffer/images/episodes/fluffer_episode_112.jpg

Er, Debra Wilson. Who is > than Oprah. Times a number greater than infinity.

[Ashliana]

Debra Wilson is hilarious.. "MY BUTTHOLE'S AN ATM!"

[Stanley Burrell]

Both parties vote for the RIAA protection laws, but I wonder if they follow them?

I'd wonder that as well. Especially if I made a post pretending that I wondered that, as well, when I actually didn't wonder, because (no wonder) it's wonderfully obvious as is, Wonderboy.

[Stanley Burrell]

Debra Wilson is hilarious.. "MY BUTTHOLE'S AN ATM!"

My Ex looked like a bigger boobed version of her and since then I have <3'd black girls with straightened hair. It's so fucking sexy. I don't really care if they wear shower caps to bed. They can perform. I even met up with a black female GemStone player. Things were a bit more complicated, or rather, more expected when I made that silly mistake. Good times, either way.

[Jorddyn]

It's biased.

It's not a news show.

I don't care.

[TheEschaton]

It's obviously a biased move, but as it's her show and she has the right to choose who's on it, who cares?

[ClydeR]

What will it do to the vajayjay audience that she's cultivated over the years? Perhaps she'll have to do two "gift" shows for a few years to make up for it?

I hope you're not going over to the side that favors the fairness doctrine, because that's what it sounds like.

[Warriorbird]

Who cares? Oprah watchers aren't her target audience.

[Sean]

I voted for the obligatory who cares option. It's a talk show not a news source all of her guests are biased to her opinion of who would make a good/bad guest or just to whoever she wants to talk to. If she doesn't want to talk to Palin or have her on her show that's her business. If Palin really feels bad about not being on a morning talk show she can always call Tyra she's had Obama on too.

[Parkbandit]

Everyone is saying it's biased.. I think I might disagree to a point.

Obama was on her show before he declared himself a candidate (even though he knew he was running). There are election rules you have to follow once you DO declare. Since he declared, he hasn't been on her show.

And I think it's her show, she should be able to do whatever she wants to do (within the election laws).

[crb]

Palin should go on Martha Stewart

[Parkbandit]

Who cares? Oprah watchers aren't her target audience.

Actually, I think you are wrong.

Oprah's demographics are exactly why Palin was put on the ticket.. women 35 years and older.

[Keller]

Did Palin submit some kind of application to be on the Oprah show?

As far as I know television shows invite guests.

[Hulkein]

Considering a large theme in Oprah's show is about women and empowering them, it's pretty stupid to not invite her. She's hurting her viewers.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Hulkein
Considering a large theme in Oprah's show is about women and empowering them, it's pretty stupid to not invite her. She's hurting her viewers.

Only if she felt the underlying theme behind Sarah Palin's message beyond being selected VP was the message she wanted to send to her viewers.

[Warriorbird]

Palin was put onto the ticket to appeal to the base. 50+ liberal women are Oprah's main audience.

I doubt Oprah finds Palin terribly empowering.

[diethx]

Only if she felt the underlying theme behind Sarah Palin's message beyond being selected VP was the message she wanted to send to her viewers.

Ding ding ding! Not everyone believes in Palin's sort of "empowerment" - socially, that is.

[Methais]

Even if it wasn't before Obama became a candidate, it's her show. Her reasoning could be "You're a stupid bitch and I couldn't go more than a minute without punching you in the face so no" and that's just how it'd have to be.

Anyway, since no one is gonna be on I think she's being as fair as she can. So whatever.

Chances are it's more like, "You're white and me and Obama are black. And you're also thin and hot and I'm fat and disgusting."

[Hulkein]

Only if she felt the underlying theme behind Sarah Palin's message beyond being selected VP was the message she wanted to send to her viewers.

False. Regardless of the message her being on a major ticket and the possibility of her being the first female VP is significant for the theme of her show.

[AnticorRifling]

It doesn't matter, the people that watch Oprah can't vote anyways.

[Gan]

I hope you're not going over to the side that favors the fairness doctrine, because that's what it sounds like.

I do not support the fairness doctrine.

If you're having trouble figuring out the point I'm after then you might ask for someone to assist you.

[Parkbandit]

Palin was put onto the ticket to appeal to the base. 50+ liberal women are Oprah's main audience.

I doubt Oprah finds Palin terribly empowering.

Feel free to quote the source of this demographic.. that Oprah's main audience is 50+ liberal women.

[Drunken Durfin]

Oprah staff in revolt over hosting Palin...

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/tv/am-oprah0905,0,2528366.story?track=rss

I wonder if they forgot who signs their checks?

[Parkbandit]

Oprah staff in revolt over hosting Palin...

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/tv/am-oprah0905,0,2528366.story?track=rss

I wonder if they forgot who signs their checks?

Hopefully, they are all unionized and can force her to do whatever they want.

Sweet, sweet irony.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Hulkein
False. Regardless of the message her being on a major ticket and the possibility of her being the first female VP is significant for the theme of her show.

What's she going to go on Oprah and say to empower women that hasn't come up in the "liberal media's" vetting of her? Unless you live with your head in the sand you already know her accomplishments and obstacles and where she stands and how she got there.

[Drunken Durfin]

Hopefully, they are all unionized and can force her to do whatever they want.

Sweet, sweet irony.

Doubtful. She does not employ union writers. As for the rest of the staff, who knows.

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2007/11/oprah---working.html

Update:

"The truth is, back in Chicago, Oprah herself also runs a 100% non-union shop. Both her show and her magazine are 100% union free."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/9/113133/649/215/419808

[thefarmer]

Has she had any presidential nominees on her show (after being elected by their respective parties)?

If not, I don't see the issue.

[Hulkein]

What's she going to go on Oprah and say to empower women that hasn't come up in the "liberal media's" vetting of her? Unless you live with your head in the sand you already know her accomplishments and obstacles and where she stands and how she got there.

Is your argument seriously that 'unless your head is in the sand you know how she got there'? That can be said for almost every celebrity she has on her show, including Obama. "Obama has two books out, why waste time listening to him just read his books!"

I can think of several things that she could talk to her about that would have zero to do with the substance of her politics. I have a hard time believing that you can't.

[Parkbandit]

Doubtful. She does not employ union writers. As for the rest of the staff, who knows.

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2007/11/oprah---working.html

Update:

"The truth is, back in Chicago, Oprah herself also runs a 100% non-union shop. Both her show and her magazine are 100% union free."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/9/113133/649/215/419808

Well, well, well... how convenient for her?

I DO wonder why that is.

[Drunken Durfin]

So a bunch of people she gave a job to can't force her to do something she does not want with what she worked to create?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Hulkein
Is your argument seriously that 'unless your head is in the sand you know how she got there'? That can be said for almost every celebrity she has on her show, including Obama. "Obama has two books out, why waste time listening to him just read his books!"

I can think of several things that she could talk to her about that would have zero to do with the substance of her politics. I have a hard time believing that you can't.

Not that require her to be on the show during election season.

[Gan]

So a bunch of people she gave a job to can't force her to do something she does not want with what she worked to create?

The only problem is that what she has created (primarily her reputation and popularity) are very subjective to opinion. What happens when she loses half of her fan base that support things like her show, magazine, etc.? The real danger is that she's pissing off other women - whom her business is built around, who want to see another woman in a historical position on her show.

It would be something completely different if her business was not subject so much to popularity and opinion.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

What makes you think she's in danger of pissing off half of her fan base?

[Gan]

What makes you think she's in danger of pissing off half of her fan base?

What makes you think she wont?

Or do you think her fan base is made up of 100% democrats who are apathetic to women in significant positions in our society?

[Drunken Durfin]

That is a valid point, but I was responding to obviously sarcastic "I DO wonder why that is."

I am on the "biased move" side of the fence on this one, but it is HER show. If she wants to make a move that might affect her fan base that is her decision. I highly doubt that it will though. This time next year I seriously doubt anyone will even care if Palin was on the show or not before the election...no matter who wins.

[Gan]

I agree that it is her show. And yes, she can do with it what she wants. She can drive it into the ground or disband everything tomorrow if she wanted (everything she was owner or major shareholder of that is).

But its not her money that is bartered for her 'services'. Its her fans/customers/advertisers/etc. Thats a lifeline I would be very careful about cutting into. IMO

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't believe her viewers are made up mostly or even half of women who are going to stop watching and supporting her because she tells Palin "Ask again after the election" just like all the other presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Seriously, it's not like Oprah is some pundit show watched by house moms who just can't get enough of politics. It's filled with her favorite books, her helping poor kids in Africa, survivors of domestic abuse, people with marital problems, people that are extraordinary. People aren't watching it to decide the election, and I find it hard to believe that even 1 percent of her regular viewers, subscribers, etc are gonna be up in arms that Palin is gonna have to try again in December or even KNOW in the first place that Palin tried to get onto the show.

I think you're seriously jumping the gun or else making a pretty outlandish hyperbole to think she's alienating a ton of viewers or cutting some sort of Neo-Con Housewife lifeblood. If that was the case she would have lost them back when she went out to speak at Obama rallies and the like.

[Drunken Durfin]

I just don't see it being that big of an issue. Not having Palin on the show will not cause the millions of women who watch her show to suddenly throw in the towel. They might get upset a bit and play with the remote, but I just can't see it being the downfall of the Harpo Empire.

[Hulkein]

Not that require her to be on the show during election season.

I guess you're right if you don't buy into the whole abstract 'timeliness' part of interviews/journalism.

[Gan]

I think you're seriously jumping the gun or else making a pretty outlandish hyperbole to think she's alienating a ton of viewers or cutting some sort of Neo-Con Housewife lifeblood. If that was the case she would have lost them back when she went out to speak at Obama rallies and the like.

And for my next trick - I'll be making predictions on next week's lottery numbers...

Seriously - I'm just throwing out a possible backlash that is already gaining notariety in the press. ;)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

And for my next trick - I'll be making predictions on next week's lottery numbers...

Seriously - I'm just throwing out a possible backlash that is already gaining notariety in the press. ;)

YES PLZ ON THE LOTTERY.

And yeah I guess it could backlash on her but I do get why she would prevent them all from coming on since they've become candidates. If she does allow them all "their say" then she only further involves herself and gets herself negative press because both sides will be critical and say she was "too easy" to the other side and biased towards their own. :/

Kinda screwed either way.

[Apathy]

Palin should get on Martha Stewart

Yes.

[Drunken Durfin]

This whole Oprah thing was a hoax. I love the interweb, it is teh awesomeness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5736716&page=1

"The item in today's 'Drudge Report' is categorically untrue," Winfrey said in a written statement provided to ABCNews.com. "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Bush's response

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/imagedream/Funny/BushNiggaWhat.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Glad to see Gan is still posting bullshit off the Drudge Report.

But yanno, he was seriously thinking about voting for Obama....

[Gan]

At one point, I was. ;)

The great thing is that you cant prove otherwise. No matter how much you dream up 'evidence'. I bet you also are a judge in your own little fantasy land.

[Parkbandit]

This whole Oprah thing was a hoax. I love the interweb, it is teh awesomeness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5736716&page=1

"The item in today's 'Drudge Report' is categorically untrue," Winfrey said in a written statement provided to ABCNews.com. "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show.


I hadn't realized that all someone has to do is claim it's untrue to MAKE it untrue.

Awesome.

[Drunken Durfin]

I hadn't realized that all someone has to do is claim it's untrue to MAKE it untrue.

Awesome.

I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Drudge and TMZ. This explains a lot.

[Keller]

I hadn't realized that all someone has to do is claim it's untrue to MAKE it untrue.

Awesome.

Wasn't that your justification for defending Ilvane?

[Gan]

So we can expect Palin on Oprah's show anyday then?


(wait for it)

[Parkbandit]

I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Drudge and TMZ. This explains a lot.

I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Oprah. This explains a lot.

[Gan]

(CNN)-The Florida Federation of Republican Women made the decision to boycott the Oprah Winfrey Show Saturday, after the media mogul refused to have Gov. Sarah Palin as a guest on her show until after the election wraps up.

"Women in Florida helped build Oprah into the icon she is today," Linda Ivell, President of the FFRW said in a statement. "We are deeply disappointed in Ms. Winfrey's decision to sit out the greatest political moment in the history of women since suffrage."

The talk show host denied accusations Friday, that she was even considering the vice presidential nominee as a guest.

"At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a plat for any of the candidates," Winfrey wrote in a statement, responding to a story from The Drudge report claiming her staff was "sharply divided" on whether they should book the Alaska Governor.

Winfrey agreed Palin would be a "fantastic interview," but wouldn't invite her on until after the November elections.

The Florida Federation of Republican Women, the "largest political organization in Florida," celebrating the groups 58 year anniversary is also encouraging members to cancel subscriptions to O Magazine, Ivell said.


"We find it to be an abuse of her power -gained on the backs of our patronage of her advertising empire - to use her program to so blatantly support Obama in the face of this historic moment. So, we are tuning out and canceling our subscriptions to O Magazine and encourage other women to do the same," Ms Ivell said.

Winfrey came under fire from some of her supporters in December after campaigning with the Democratic nominee in South Carolina.

Ivell did not say the Florida Republicans would be tuning out indefinitely, but at least until 'after the election.' Adding, she and her members respect the decision to support Obama, "as every American is entitled to their personal opinion and vote."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/florida-republican-group-to-boycott-oprah/#more-17374
__________________________________________________ _

This was kind of expected (moreso from a Republican organization standpoint).

And not that the total number of participants from FL will impact Oprah's bottom line with any significance. But it definately highlights the risks I mentioned earlier that entertainers face when they get involved in politics, especially when the entertainers are isolated entertainers rather than grouped with a cast (from a boycott/series or show perspective).

[Drunken Durfin]

I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Oprah. This explains a lot.

If Oprah is refuting something that has been reported that she said, her comments are not hearsay. TMZ saying that Oprah said something is hearsay.

[Parkbandit]

If Oprah is refuting something that has been reported that she said, her comments are not hearsay. TMZ saying that Oprah said something is hearsay.
Using your "logic", I think it's safe to assume you believe EVERYThING that Bush says, no matter what the press, websites and blogs claim. If you can answer yes to that, then I'll concede your point.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

(CNN)-The Florida Federation of Republican Women made the decision to boycott the Oprah Winfrey Show Saturday, after the media mogul refused to have Gov. Sarah Palin as a guest on her show until after the election wraps up.

"Women in Florida helped build Oprah into the icon she is today," Linda Ivell, President of the FFRW said in a statement. "We are deeply disappointed in Ms. Winfrey's decision to sit out the greatest political moment in the history of women since suffrage."

The talk show host denied accusations Friday, that she was even considering the vice presidential nominee as a guest.

"At the beginning of this presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a plat for any of the candidates," Winfrey wrote in a statement, responding to a story from The Drudge report claiming her staff was "sharply divided" on whether they should book the Alaska Governor.

Winfrey agreed Palin would be a "fantastic interview," but wouldn't invite her on until after the November elections.

The Florida Federation of Republican Women, the "largest political organization in Florida," celebrating the groups 58 year anniversary is also encouraging members to cancel subscriptions to O Magazine, Ivell said.


"We find it to be an abuse of her power -gained on the backs of our patronage of her advertising empire - to use her program to so blatantly support Obama in the face of this historic moment. So, we are tuning out and canceling our subscriptions to O Magazine and encourage other women to do the same," Ms Ivell said.

Winfrey came under fire from some of her supporters in December after campaigning with the Democratic nominee in South Carolina.

Ivell did not say the Florida Republicans would be tuning out indefinitely, but at least until 'after the election.' Adding, she and her members respect the decision to support Obama, "as every American is entitled to their personal opinion and vote."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/florida-republican-group-to-boycott-oprah/#more-17374
__________________________________________________ _

This was kind of expected (moreso from a Republican organization standpoint).

And not that the total number of participants from FL will impact Oprah's bottom line with any significance. But it definately highlights the risks I mentioned earlier that entertainers face when they get involved in politics, especially when the entertainers are isolated entertainers rather than grouped with a cast (from a boycott/series or show perspective).

I don't think it's a big deal at all.

Some women from Florida are saying they won't watch her show. I'll bet some still will, and a lot probably never watched it in the first place.

It's not like a nationwide boycott by housewives across all political divides and with housewives who don't care about politics (quite a few don't). That would hurt her bottom line. Women from Florida getting their panties twisted into knots is probably no problem for Oprah and her ratings.

[Drunken Durfin]

Using your "logic", I think it's safe to assume you believe EVERYThING that Bush says, no matter what the press, websites and blogs claim. If you can answer yes to that, then I'll concede your point.

You claiming that my pointing out your misuse of the word hearsay is flawed logic is just plain stupid. The attempt to argue a completely separate set of of events after I pointed it out is just a failed attempt at misdirection sir.

Thank you for playing.

[ElanthianSiren]

She should have both on. -The more television appearances by Palin, the more we can learn about her. It's irresponsible of Oprah to keep her viewers from the candidate IMO, especially as Obama has already been on her show and is currently in the race. :shrug:

[Parkbandit]

You claiming that my pointing out your misuse of the word hearsay is flawed logic is just plain stupid. The attempt to argue a completely separate set of of events after I pointed it out is just a failed attempt at misdirection sir.

Thank you for playing.
Incorrect as usual.

You claim that Oprah saying there is no discussion at all about Palin is good enough for you to take as a fact and that any talk otherwise is heresay. Great. I'm saying you should afford that same yardstick to Bush to the same reason you gave. Your inability to do that makes your point mute, since obviously you don't even believe in it. As for any distraction, I believe you are engaging in it far more by concentrating on the definition of hearsay.

[Sean]

His point wasn't that Oprah is telling the truth, or that Bush is for that matter, but that you misused the word hearsay. It seems pretty cut and dry.

[Gan]

I don't think it's a big deal at all.

Some women from Florida are saying they won't watch her show. I'll bet some still will, and a lot probably never watched it in the first place.

It's not like a nationwide boycott by housewives across all political divides and with housewives who don't care about politics (quite a few don't). That would hurt her bottom line. Women from Florida getting their panties twisted into knots is probably no problem for Oprah and her ratings.

I'm curious to know if you think that Florida is the only place where this will happen.

[Drunken Durfin]

His point wasn't that Oprah is telling the truth, or that Bush is for that matter, but that you misused the word hearsay. It seems pretty cut and dry.

Sean got it, you didn't. Go back to bed.

[Parkbandit]

His point wasn't that Oprah is telling the truth, or that Bush is for that matter, but that you misused the word hearsay. It seems pretty cut and dry.

thank you Captain Obvious. Read my last sentence again. It's pretty clear I acknowledge that.

[Parkbandit]

Sean got it, you didn't. Go back to bed.
Again, I acknowledge the misuse. I was making a point by copying your post an turning it around on you.

NOW that I realize the term hearsay was used correctly, perhaps you could address my post without ducking the definition of a single word.

[Gan]

She should have both on. -The more television appearances by Palin, the more we can learn about her. It's irresponsible of Oprah to keep her viewers from the candidate IMO, especially as Obama has already been on her show and is currently in the race. :shrug:

So you've converted over to Republican!

I knew you could be turned!

:whistle:

[Drunken Durfin]

Again, I acknowledge the misuse. I was making a point by copying your post an turning it around on you.

NOW that I realize the term hearsay was used correctly, perhaps you could address my post without ducking the definition of a single word.

You = Missing the point.

Me = Explaining it in small words so you can understand.

Your comment, "I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Oprah" is what I was addressing, nothing else. In the context you used it, it is nonsensical. Trying to turn this into something else is just failed attempt to save face for a poorly thought out retort. Let it go and move on.

[Parkbandit]

You = Missing the point.

Me = Explaining it in small words so you can understand.

Your comment, "I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Oprah" is what I was addressing, nothing else. In the context you used it, it is nonsensical. Trying to turn this into something else is just failed attempt to save face for a poorly thought out retort. Let it go and move on.

Clearly you would like to just brush this under the rug since you are being a complete ignorant little hypocrite.. but then I wouldn't be living up to my Biggest Douche bag award if I just let it go for your benefit.. would I. Don't focus your tiny little brain on the word Hearsay.. since I simply mimicked your retarded response and turned it around. YES, THE TERM WAS USED INCORRECTLY THERE.. BUT MY POINT WASN'T THE DEFINITION.. IT WAS YOUR HYPOCRISY.


Here's a quick synopsis of this thread... page 1 - 6 you and I seemed to be in complete agreement. It's her show, let her do with it what she wants.

Then you posted this:


This whole Oprah thing was a hoax. I love the interweb, it is teh awesomeness.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5736716&page=1

"The item in today's 'Drudge Report' is categorically untrue," Winfrey said in a written statement provided to ABCNews.com. "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show.


To which my reply was:


I hadn't realized that all someone has to do is claim it's untrue to MAKE it untrue.

Awesome.

You came back with:


I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Drudge and TMZ. This explains a lot.

This implies that you believe Drudge and TMZ to be somehow dishonest about their reporting on this story and that once Oprah stated that it wasn't true, that you simply took her word as gospel.

My POINT is simply this (and I'll try to dumb it down for you... clearly you have a reading comprehension issue)

If you simply give the benefit of the doubt to Oprah.. regardless of the multiple sources on this story saying it IS true.. then I would assume you would use this same benchmark for anyone.. George W Bush included. Anyone stating otherwise is simply promoting hearsay and doesn't know the facts like the person in question. You were willing to believe Oprah, despite the reports to the contrary.. simply because she SAID so.

While I realize you have not stated in this specific thread that you are voting for Obama.. it might be construed that you hold some bias about your decision making process... you know, since Oprah is a very vocal Obama supporter and all..

[Warriorbird]

It's tough... relying on Drudge as a source renders your side's point moot too, PB... thus getting neither of you anywhere.

That's politics and America.

[Gan]

It's tough... relying on Drudge as a source renders your side's point moot too, PB... thus getting neither of you anywhere.

That's politics and America.

The issue of 'un-named sources' aside. Perhaps Drudge's real intent was simply to call attention to the fact that Oprah will not let Palin on her show and to point out that there are people who are speaking out against her decision?

Why do things always have to be so one dimensional?

Either way - its now a headline and it now has national attention, regardless if Drudge scooped it or not.

[Warriorbird]

Perhaps it was... perhaps it was another Obama slam. TMZ demonstrably wants to stir up celebrity scandals to further their business.

[Drunken Durfin]

You = still missing the piont. Reading comprehension issues, me? How clear can I be?

Your comment, "I hadn't realized how much weight you put in hearsay from Oprah" is what I was addressing, nothing else.

Sitting back and developing some rational for the statement and then posting a brain dump of your "master plan" behind the hearsay boo boo is wasting everyone's time. You are making a bigger deal out of this than my jab warrants. Get over it already.

[Parkbandit]

You = still missing the piont. Reading comprehension issues, me? How clear can I be?


Sitting back and developing some rational for the statement and then posting a brain dump of your "master plan" behind the hearsay boo boo is wasting everyone's time. You are making a bigger deal out of this than my jab warrants. Get over it already.

Yes.. I realize it was my fault in attempting to find some rationale in yet another stupid post of yours.

But have no fear.. I never consider it a waste of time pointing out your hypocrisy and stupidity. Mission accomplished yet again.

PS- YES I REALIZE that you haven't endorsed Obama in this specific thread, therefore I had to make the assumption based on your vote in another thread.

[Parkbandit]

Perhaps it was... perhaps it was another Obama slam. TMZ demonstrably wants to stir up celebrity scandals to further their business.

I doubt TMZ is some conservative think tank, hell bent on outting the liberal losers of this world.

Although, it would be quite refreshing if they were...

[Sean]

I'm just glad we can stop harping on the agendas of the Washington Post or the New York Times now that we've accepted TMZ and The Drudge Report as valid sources.

[Parkbandit]

I'm just glad we can stop harping on the agendas of the Washington Post or the New York Times now that we've accepted TMZ and The Drudge Report as valid sources.

I'm not surprised you missed the entire point.

Someone get me a tack hammer.

[Jenisi]

Wow there are 10 pages on a poll that "Palin" got REFUSED to be on the show when the article linked clearly says Here's the statement: "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show." And further says "Here's the statement: " I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

I think it's a smart move on her part. She tries to keep her show informative on neutral subjects such as the latest good book or how to lose weight. Hence why she is so popular, she stays away from a lot of controversial issues... shit housewives care about.

[CrystalTears]

The article information has changed since Oprah stated the information was not true.

[Gan]

Wow there are 10 pages on a poll that "Palin" got REFUSED to be on the show when the article linked clearly says Here's the statement: "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show." And further says "Here's the statement: " I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

I think it's a smart move on her part. She tries to keep her show informative on neutral subjects such as the latest good book or how to lose weight. Hence why she is so popular, she stays away from a lot of controversial issues... shit housewives care about.

So you're saying that the 10 pages of discussion was over your head or something?
:D

[Sean]

TMZ advances rumor as news in effort to break a story 1st, drudge will do this too although it's primarily just a compilation site. While their agenda may not be left or right (debatable in the case of drudge) they certainly aren't purely interested in reporting news that's been verified. We hear about the unnamed sources used by the liberal media or the lack of verification on stories by the post or times but somehow TMZ breaking a story about Oprah which Oprah denies is true is acceptable here. But if someone questions TMZ's use of hearsay you come back with BUT YOU BELIEVE OPRAH AND IF YOU BELIEVES OPRAH WHY NOT BUSH!?!

[Parkbandit]

TMZ advances rumor as news in effort to break a story 1st, drudge will do this too although it's primarily just a compilation site. While their agenda may not be left or right (debatable in the case of drudge) they certainly aren't purely interested in reporting news that's been verified. We hear about the unnamed sources used by the liberal media or the lack of verification on stories by the post or times but somehow TMZ breaking a story about Oprah which Oprah denies is true is acceptable here. But if someone questions TMZ's use of hearsay you come back with BUT YOU BELIEVE OPRAH AND IF YOU BELIEVES OPRAH WHY NOT BUSH!?!

I was going to pick this one out to use..

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4108WWE2XVL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

but clearly it's no where near big enough. I think I'll need to go with this one..

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh264/xbox360game/items/sledgehammer.jpg

[Back]

Wow there are 10 pages on a poll that "Palin" got REFUSED to be on the show when the article linked clearly says Here's the statement: "There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show." And further says "Here's the statement: " I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

I think it's a smart move on her part. She tries to keep her show informative on neutral subjects such as the latest good book or how to lose weight. Hence why she is so popular, she stays away from a lot of controversial issues... shit housewives care about.



TMZ advances rumor as news in effort to break a story 1st, drudge will do this too although it's primarily just a compilation site. While their agenda may not be left or right (debatable in the case of drudge) they certainly aren't purely interested in reporting news that's been verified. We hear about the unnamed sources used by the liberal media or the lack of verification on stories by the post or times but somehow TMZ breaking a story about Oprah which Oprah denies is true is acceptable here. But if someone questions TMZ's use of hearsay you come back with BUT YOU BELIEVE OPRAH AND IF YOU BELIEVES OPRAH WHY NOT BUSH!?!

/endthread

[Drunken Durfin]

Yes.. I realize it was my fault in attempting to find some rationale in yet another stupid post of yours.

But have no fear.. I never consider it a waste of time pointing out your hypocrisy and stupidity. Mission accomplished yet again.

PS- YES I REALIZE that you haven't endorsed Obama in this specific thread, therefore I had to make the assumption based on your vote in another thread.

My endorsement of Obama was never questioned in this thread, nor is it relevant. If you click on the poll results you will see that I voted "a biased move" for this one. This thread, since you can't read the title, is about the alleged stance that Oprah was taking with regard to Palin being on her show. Hypocrisy and stupidity? Not here. Mission accomplished? Hardly.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/c/c5/Mission-accomplished.jpg

[DeV]

Biased, but if you don't watch her show why the FUCK would you care anyway? She's a talk show host for goodness sake. If she wants an audience, go on the Daily Show for "crying" out loud.