Film, Media & TV5 mins ago
Joan Rivers...unacceptable Comments ?
http://
It appears that this loud-mouth has put both feet in it again. She said this about the Gaza dead :::: "at least the ones that were killed were the ones with very low IQs"
It appears that this loud-mouth has put both feet in it again. She said this about the Gaza dead :::: "at least the ones that were killed were the ones with very low IQs"
Answers
Thanks for that Slaney, on the basis of viewing that, what she said was 100% unacceptable
09:21 Thu 14th Aug 2014
ludwig
Possible, but I suspect not 'probable'.
Something else that I think should be acknowledged - where should the Palestinians actually *go*!!!
I'm certain that if my local area were under attack, I would move - but I have options. Also it's counter-initiative to assume those who have been killed knowingly remained in an area they knew was going to be attacked.
I mean - how much warning were the four boys on the beach given?
Possible, but I suspect not 'probable'.
Something else that I think should be acknowledged - where should the Palestinians actually *go*!!!
I'm certain that if my local area were under attack, I would move - but I have options. Also it's counter-initiative to assume those who have been killed knowingly remained in an area they knew was going to be attacked.
I mean - how much warning were the four boys on the beach given?
All those on her this morning that have refused to condemn this awful woman should watch the link that slaney has given us at 10:09. (Like others, I pass on my thanks slaney)
There is now no room left for any doubt whatsoever now, that Rivers said what she said. Her outburst to camera says it all. She has been hoisted by her own petard.
I have asked twice already under what context was acceptable for her remarks, and I am still waiting for waiting for an explanation.
I have been asked if I have agenda. Well, its not secret, but I will own up to being on the side of all innocent people, especially children, that have been killed and injured in this current Gaza war. Note that I said ALL, so that includes Israeli kids as well. Not that there have been many of them of course.
There is now no room left for any doubt whatsoever now, that Rivers said what she said. Her outburst to camera says it all. She has been hoisted by her own petard.
I have asked twice already under what context was acceptable for her remarks, and I am still waiting for waiting for an explanation.
I have been asked if I have agenda. Well, its not secret, but I will own up to being on the side of all innocent people, especially children, that have been killed and injured in this current Gaza war. Note that I said ALL, so that includes Israeli kids as well. Not that there have been many of them of course.
I don't think the Frankie Boyle comparison fits here.
Joan Rivers said some extremely outrageous jokes about 9/11 - but the point about those jokes were that they had a punch line.
I recall one that went:
"You can't tell me that every single person who died in 9/11 was mourned by their partners. No, no, no - at 10am that morning there were women all over New York turning cartwheels and checking their insurance policies".
Now - tasteless as you may or may not think that is - it's clearly a joke.
What Frankie Boyle does in his stand up routines are jokes (I can't comment on him as I have only heard his joke about that swimmer, and I just thought it was childish and unfunny).
But there is a world of difference between Ms Rivers' jokes and Mr Boyle's tasteless jokes, and what Joan said at the airport.
She wasn't joking.
There wasn't a punch line.
Incidentally, I suspect she was goaded by the interviewer, but after 145 years in showbusiness, I think she should be a little more on the ball in these situations.
Joan Rivers said some extremely outrageous jokes about 9/11 - but the point about those jokes were that they had a punch line.
I recall one that went:
"You can't tell me that every single person who died in 9/11 was mourned by their partners. No, no, no - at 10am that morning there were women all over New York turning cartwheels and checking their insurance policies".
Now - tasteless as you may or may not think that is - it's clearly a joke.
What Frankie Boyle does in his stand up routines are jokes (I can't comment on him as I have only heard his joke about that swimmer, and I just thought it was childish and unfunny).
But there is a world of difference between Ms Rivers' jokes and Mr Boyle's tasteless jokes, and what Joan said at the airport.
She wasn't joking.
There wasn't a punch line.
Incidentally, I suspect she was goaded by the interviewer, but after 145 years in showbusiness, I think she should be a little more on the ball in these situations.
mikey4444
Actually no.
You might be thinking of Madonna.
(I'm allowed to say that because I'm a fan).
Getting back to Ms Rivers, I actually saw the airport clip a couple of days ago and thought at the time, "You have really overstepped the mark this time", but only today did I see her Facebook post.
A pet peeve of mine is fake apologies.
I believe this is one.
Actually no.
You might be thinking of Madonna.
(I'm allowed to say that because I'm a fan).
Getting back to Ms Rivers, I actually saw the airport clip a couple of days ago and thought at the time, "You have really overstepped the mark this time", but only today did I see her Facebook post.
A pet peeve of mine is fake apologies.
I believe this is one.
mikey.
The only post from ymb I have seen on this subject was at 0854. He said he could'nt stand the woman. That is hardly defending her is it? He stated that you seem to enjoy trial by media which he deplored.
I do not defend Joan Rivers but I agree with ymb. You love the trial by media without knowing the hard evidence. It is called hearsay.
Your post started at 0741 when you started the name calling i.e "loudmouth and went for the jugular. When others questioned your judgement as to believing all you read in the media and facebook articles I detected some wavering by you a little until slaney's thread came to your rescue and then you could say we all have no doubt now that she did say what she has been reported to have said. Would that mean that there just may of been some doubt pre Slaney's thread.I note you are jumping on the media wagon again on another thread.What sentence will you give Cliff Richard when you find him guilty of an alleged historic child abuse.The police are searching a Berkshire house. No smoke without fire with you though mikey. If the BBC have reported it it must be true.I would always wait for hard evidence before engaging keyboard. It can be dangerous to do otherwise.
The only post from ymb I have seen on this subject was at 0854. He said he could'nt stand the woman. That is hardly defending her is it? He stated that you seem to enjoy trial by media which he deplored.
I do not defend Joan Rivers but I agree with ymb. You love the trial by media without knowing the hard evidence. It is called hearsay.
Your post started at 0741 when you started the name calling i.e "loudmouth and went for the jugular. When others questioned your judgement as to believing all you read in the media and facebook articles I detected some wavering by you a little until slaney's thread came to your rescue and then you could say we all have no doubt now that she did say what she has been reported to have said. Would that mean that there just may of been some doubt pre Slaney's thread.I note you are jumping on the media wagon again on another thread.What sentence will you give Cliff Richard when you find him guilty of an alleged historic child abuse.The police are searching a Berkshire house. No smoke without fire with you though mikey. If the BBC have reported it it must be true.I would always wait for hard evidence before engaging keyboard. It can be dangerous to do otherwise.
Retro...have you watched the slaney posted link of this morning ?
Simple question...did she or did she not say those things that appear in the link ?
If you agree that she did, are you defending her, or are you condemning her, as most people on here now are ?
Don't stray off the subject...just respond to above 2 questions.
And you are still not using that space bar !
Simple question...did she or did she not say those things that appear in the link ?
If you agree that she did, are you defending her, or are you condemning her, as most people on here now are ?
Don't stray off the subject...just respond to above 2 questions.
And you are still not using that space bar !
Don't think so Roy, but I expect you will tell if I did.
Not using a space bar makes any text much more difficult to read, as they they do not "scan" as my old Editor used to drill into me. Once you have had some copy sent back for corrections a few times, you soon learn ! Its also just good grammar, and makes sense.
Not using a space bar makes any text much more difficult to read, as they they do not "scan" as my old Editor used to drill into me. Once you have had some copy sent back for corrections a few times, you soon learn ! Its also just good grammar, and makes sense.
Yes I did read slaney's link at 0854. Simple answer.....Yes she did say those thing she was accused of on the link. Why ask ,if I agree she did say these things, if I am defending her or condemning her? Read the first paragraph of line four on my previous post. My three year old granddaughter can clearly read what I said without the pathetic criticism of my use/non use of a space bar. I have'nt strayed off the subject and I suggest you read thoroughly what others have posted before jumping to conclusions.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.