Roseanne Insults Brangelina....What A Bitch!

[ElderPredator]

For many years now, I've always hated Roseanne due to the fact that she is an unfunny and untalented hack. How her show even got past the pilot episode is beyond me. Well, she's done one even worse by insulting Hollywood's royal couple just because she feels like it. Roseanne Barr (Bitch!) decided to write a blog about Brangelina and she attacked their politics, their children and she said that they barely give anything to charity......is she off her meds?

I know she's probably just looking for an extra five minutes of worthless fame but to she even attacked their newborn twins and called Angelina an "evil spawn" of Jon Voight. If I were Brad or Angelina, I'd personally dig up all the shit in Roseanne's life through private investigators and post it all over the internet. What a f#cking bitch!

Here's the video:

Link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2008/08/20/sbt.roseanne.brangelina.cnn

Roseanne, I hate you even more. :mad:


Actress/comedian/blogger Roseanne is taking aim at Hollywood's golden couple Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.

In a post on her website, RoseanneWorld.com, she slams the superstar twosome, dubbing Jolie as Jon Voight's "evil spawn" and Pitt "vacuous."

Roseanne writes that while the couple rake in about $40 million U.S. a year making "violent psychopathic movies," they only give $3 million of it away to starving children in an attempt to look as if they "give a crap about humanity."

She also takes aim at the couple's newborn twins as she writes, "they spit out more dunces that will consume more than their fair share and wreck the earth even more."

The former sitcom star also attacks Jolie for admitting she is still undecided about the upcoming presidential election.

"Aren't you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the African daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the Republican party's worldwide economic assault on Africa over the last few decades since Reagan?" Roseanne blogs.

She also writes that "it might be good for your Asian and African children's self-esteem to know you support a brown man (Barack Obama) for the leader of the free world."

She signs off by telling Jolie to go back to making movies about women who "love to handle big guns and shoot hundreds of people to death."

[thedudeman69]

Oh no, she is such a fucking bitch because she doesn't run around kissing ass like Pitt and Jolie

Oh no. I actually agree with her here, but that is a first.

[ElderPredator]

Oh no, she is such a fucking bitch because she doesn't run around kissing ass like Pitt and Jolie

Oh no. I actually agree with her here, but that is a first.

Are you serious? You agree with that fat cunt? At least these two have talent and believe in what they're doing. That bitch shouldn't even be able to say their names, let alone insult them.

I'm not kissing Brangelina's ass either, I just hate stupid talentless people who think that their opinion means something when it absolutely doesn't.

[ElderPredator]

Oh well, it's just jealousy anyway. Done.

[Smiert Spionam]

Fuck me, Elder, I definitely came into this thread ready to let that huge bitch Roseanne have it, but.....well.....for once, I actually agree with the fat cow. She's actually got a fuckin' point, and that kindof scares me.

Wow.

[a7xfan]

just a jealous fat bitch :D

[KenSPT]

She might not have worded her opinions in the classiest of ways, but her points are valid.

I love how the argument against her is that she's "jealous" as opposed to stating things that nullify her points. If you can't prove that she's wrong with facts, then you don't deserve to speak.

I guess, in this country, if you criticize someone who's in a higher social class than you you must be doing it out of bitter jealousy. It's sad that that's the way people think.

[Tweek]

She might not have worded her opinions in the classiest of ways, but her points are valid.

I love how the argument against her is that she's "jealous" as opposed to stating things that nullify her points. If you can't prove that she's wrong with facts, then you don't deserve to speak.

I guess, in this country, if you criticize someone who's in a higher social class than you you must be doing it out of bitter jealousy. It's sad that that's the way people think.

What he said. ^

Really the part that I might agree with most is referring to Zahara and Maddox.

Oh and the argument isn't merely jealousy. It's that she's fat and jealous. Remember, a fat celebrity thread, no matter what's happened, will always turn into a thread about their fat.

[ilovemovies]

Sorry but she IS a bitch. For a couple reasons.


1) She criticizes them for only giving away 3 mil of their 40 mil, well I don't know if that's true but even if it is true what the fuck has she done? It's still something and who really gives a fuck what their motivation is for giving away the money. I always hate it when people bitch about a celebs motivation for giving to charity. I'm mean, really. At least there are doing something.

and

2) The comments about their children were uncalled for. I mean really. Talk about being completely classless.

Ugh. I never liked her. Never liked her show. The only thing she's ever done I liked was her cameo in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.

Go the fuck away Rosanne. :mad:

[ElderPredator]

2) The comments about their children were uncalled for. I mean really. Talk about being completely classless.


That's exactly why I'm pissed off. She crossed the line with that bullshit.

[Smiert Spionam]

That's exactly why I'm pissed off. She crossed the line with that bullshit.

C'mon....for fucks sake, its not like they're even their real kids.

I'm not saying she's not a bitch, because she is, but she still has a point.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Sorry but she IS a bitch. For a couple reasons.


1) She criticizes them for only giving away 3 mil of their 40 mil, well I don't know if that's true but even if it is true what the fuck has she done? It's still something and who really gives a fuck what their motivation is for giving away the money. I always hate it when people bitch about a celebs motivation for giving to charity. I'm mean, really. At least there are doing something.

and

2) The comments about their children were uncalled for. I mean really. Talk about being completely classless.

I completely agree. Although I did like her show a lot.

What the hell is she babbling about with the "violent psychopathic movies" bullshit? Should an actor who acts in violent movies feel guilty about making money through them? What a load of shit.

And attacking children is the lowest you can go.

And stuff like this - "Aren't you supposed to be somewhat enlightened, or do you not know that the African daughter you hold in every picture had parents who suffered and died because of the Republican party's worldwide economic assault on Africa over the last few decades since Reagan?" -

is such a gross simplification and devoid of any meaning. Way to try and sound intellectual and fall flat on your face.

C'mon....for fucks sake, its not like they're even their real kids.
For fuck's sake, are you for real?

[KenSPT]

Okay, first off; I'm far from a Roseanne Barr fan, but I do feel the need to still defend her in this situation ...

Sorry but she IS a bitch. For a couple reasons.


1) She criticizes them for only giving away 3 mil of their 40 mil, well I don't know if that's true but even if it is true what the fuck has she done? It's still something and who really gives a fuck what their motivation is for giving away the money. I always hate it when people bitch about a celebs motivation for giving to charity. I'm mean, really. At least there are doing something.

Roseanne Barr has done countless charity performances throughout her career, and was heavily active in the hurricane relief fund of 2006. She not only donated large portions of her own money, but she also did countless events to rally up larger donations.

As for your comment about motivation, it means everything.

Charity is something you should do because you want to help people. It should never be a PR ploy, and it should never be something to get you on the cover of magazines, or get you awards.

George Steinbrenner once made the statement, "I don't talk about the charity work I do, because that's not the point of charity work." Nothing could be more true.

If a celebrities motivation in donating is to up their stock in the eyes of the movie-going public, then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. It sets the wrong example for society, and gives the wrong impression as for the real meaning behind philanthropy.

2) The comments about their children were uncalled for. I mean really. Talk about being completely classless.

Once again, as I said in my first post, she did not approach this in the most refined way, and as such it's taking away from some of the points she's trying to make.

Ugh. I never liked her. Never liked her show. The only thing she's ever done I liked was her cameo in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.

Go the fuck away Rosanne. :mad:

Irrelevant to the conversation.

[ElderPredator]

C'mon....for fucks sake, its not like they're even their real kids.

I'm not saying she's not a bitch, because she is, but she still has a point.

What do you mean they're not her real kids? They're adopted into the family and will remain part of the family for the rest of their lives. They are Angelina and Brad's children. Besides, Roseanne insulted their twins as well.

[Reigh Kaufman]

What the hell, man? "They're not even their real kids?"

Christ eating a cantaloupe. Stupidest comment I have read this week - and this week has really spiked.

Anyway, my opinion is this: everyone should mind their own business. Why does Roseanne even care what two people she has never met get up to?

Didn't she fuck her chauffeur and then marry him and then divorce him? I think I remember something like that. Wonder if she liked all the nasty comments made by a bunch of strangers then?

What I really want to know is - who cared enough to interview this has-been?

[Tweek]

What do you mean they're not her real kids? They're adopted into the family and will remain part of the family for the rest of their lives. They are Angelina and Brad's children. Besides, Roseanne insulted their twins as well.

When people say "real" kids" or "real" parents they mean biological.

[muttly69]

NO, they are robo-kids.

[Reigh Kaufman]

When people say "real" kids" or "real" parents they mean biological.

Sorry, Tweek, but I think we all knew that. The inference of the statement is that because the chidren are adopted, Brad and Angelina don't need to feel aggrieved by the comments because they are in some way "inferior".

[ElderPredator]

Sorry, Tweek, but I think we all knew that. The inference of the statement is that because the chidren are adopted, Brad and Angelina don't need to feel aggrieved by the comments because they are in some way "inferior".

Couldn't have said it better.

[Crimson_Regret]

I really hate the whole 'The ONLY give $3million a year to charities'.. if they didn't give any (like alot of celebs) no one would say a word.

Anyway - In my opinion Brad and Angelina do some really great things with their money and time, more than the average person and ALOT more than the average celebrity.

My friend went to stay in a nature reserve in Namibia last year, while he was there Angelina Jolie was going to visit, she often gives the reserve money and she had paid for there new fences (which in a reserve that size, is quite an amount) and wanted to help them put them up... Unfortunatly she couldn't make it because her Mother had died... but still.

Don't get me wrong, I know these little things are easy for someone like Angelina Jolie to do, but the fact is she does them, when most other celebrities don't.

Sure, she could do more... but so could you, and so could I.

I REALLY don't understand the hate for her.

[ilovemovies]

Charity is something you should do because you want to help people. It should never be a PR ploy, and it should never be something to get you on the cover of magazines, or get you awards.

George Steinbrenner once made the statement, "I don't talk about the charity work I do, because that's not the point of charity work." Nothing could be more true.

If a celebrities motivation in donating is to up their stock in the eyes of the movie-going public, then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. It sets the wrong example for society, and gives the wrong impression as for the real meaning behind philanthropy.






Tell that the people who actually benefit from charity. Tell them that celebrities who give money so that they look good shouldn't give money because they don't have the proper motivation.

Giving money to charity is a generous thing regardless of what the motivation for giving away is.

[KenSPT]

Tell that the people who actually benefit from charity. Tell them that celebrities who give money so that they look good shouldn't give money because they don't have the proper motivation.

Giving money to charity is a generous thing regardless of what the motivation for giving away is.

Yes, it's a generous thing regardless, but doing it for the wrong reasons defeats the purpose of charity. Charity is supposed to be a selfless act.

It's great that their money goes to help the needy, it truly is, but it sets a bad example for charitable work. It teaches people that you should be glorified for your philanthropy, when in reality it should be something you do out of the goodness of your heart. What bothers me is that society deems these people as heroic givers, when in reality their heart is in the wrong place.

I have much more respect for a middle class family who donates whatever they can afford on a monthly basis, and get no press for it, than I do for people like Brad, Angelina, Oprah, and others who simply donate money so that it ups their positive image.

If these people weren't famous, if they were middle-class Americans like every other Average Joe, do you think they'd be that interested in helping people as they are now? I don't think they would be.

[Crimson_Regret]

Yes, it's a generous thing regardless, but doing it for the wrong reasons defeats the purpose of charity. Charity is supposed to be a selfless act.

It's great that their money goes to help the needy, it truly is, but it sets a bad example for charitable work. It teaches people that you should be glorified for your philanthropy, when in reality it should be something you do out of the goodness of your heart.

I have much more respect for a middle class family who donates whatever they can afford on a monthly basis, and get no press for it, than I do for people like Brad, Angelina, Oprah, and others who simply donate money so that it ups their positive image.

If these people weren't famous, if they were middle-class Americans like every other Average Joe, do you think they'd be that interested in helping people as they are now? I don't think they would be.

Thats your cynical view... It is possible that successful people aren't all cold hearted Ego-Fiends.

People's view on Angelina won't change, thats fair enough. I, for one, am glad she does what she does...

[KenSPT]

Thats your cynical view... It is possible that successful people aren't all cold hearted Ego-Fiends.

People's view on Angelina won't change, thats fair enough. I, for one, am glad she does what she does...

Show me some facts about what Angelina Jolie did for charity before she became "Angelina Jolie" and had to worry about public image.

In the event she was always philanthropic, I will say I was wrong about her motivations, but if not it further proves my point.

The same can be said about Brad Pitt, Oprah Winfrey, Tyra Banks, etc, etc ...

[Smiert Spionam]

What the hell, man? "They're not even their real kids?"

Christ eating a cantaloupe. Stupidest comment I have read this week - and this week has really spiked.

First of all, let me say that the comments that Rosanne made that I agreed with were the ones highlighted in the OP. After watching the vid, I do think she went a little far with some of shit she said, but the point she was trying to make still stands.

My comment about Zahara and Maddox not being their real kids was in response to what I thought was everyone believing the kids were "attacked" merely because they were mentioned. From what was shown in the OP, she wasn't insulting the kids, but the circumstances by which they were adopted and raised, which again, I can agree with. But alas, as I said, she did take some of her comments a bit far....

Still, I was in no way at all saying they were "inferior" because they weren't Brad/Angelina's biological children and I resent your insinuation. I'd have appreciated if you'd have actually waited for my rebuttal before jumping to conclusions.

[Crimson_Regret]

Show me some facts about what Angelina Jolie did for charity before she became "Angelina Jolie" and had to worry about public image.

In the event she was always philanthropic, I will say I was wrong about her motivations, but if not it further proves my point.

The same can be said about Brad Pitt, Oprah Winfrey, Tyra Banks, etc, etc ...

Thats a fair point - But I often say "If I won the lottery I would do this", "If I was rich I would do that" - There's no way I could hope to do any of that stuff now...

I don't know Angelina Jolie, and she could well be a horrible, ego driven cow - I just think this assumed hatred that people have for her is a little unwarrented.

Whatever she did, the press would pick up on it, would it be better for her to not do any of this stuff, just so it wasn't covered on E!

[Tweek]

Sorry, Tweek, but I think we all knew that. The inference of the statement is that because the chidren are adopted, Brad and Angelina don't need to feel aggrieved by the comments because they are in some way "inferior".

hehe
Where's that Captain Obvious pic when you need it, eh?:(

[BakeTheMooCow]

What I really want to know is - who cared enough to interview this has-been?

She's just spouting off on her blog (http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/). Petty, cowardly stuff.


From what was shown in the OP, she wasn't insulting the kids, but the circumstances by which they were adopted and raised, which again, I can agree with.

How is this not insulting the kids? :

"jon voight your evil spawn angelina jolie and her vacuous hubby brad pitt make about forty million dollars a year in violent psychopathic movies and give away three of it to starving children trying to look as if they give a crap about humanity as they spit out more dunces that will consume more than their fair share and wreck the earth even more. (just sayin')."

Charity is supposed to be a selfless act.

Who says? I've seen people give to charity because their mother died of cancer, or because they want to feel good about themselves, or because they don't want their children to suffer from diseases in the future. These are all selfish reasons. I've also seen people give anonymously and generously. It's all charity. Charity is nothing but the donation of time and money to a cause. And we don't know Angelina Jolie's intentions, do we?

[ilovemovies]

I'm pretty sure Jolie is doing to because she genuinly wants to help. I remember reading that it all started when she was shooting the movie Beyond Borders in Cambodia. It had a profound impact I believe and it's also where she adopted her first child, Maddox.

I do believe Oprah to be the read deal too. She really seems get a real joy of helping people. Plus, she does it so many times where as if she had selfish motivations, she wouldn't do it nearly as much. That just wouldn't make sense.

[fooknasty]

How in the hell are people defending Roseanne? She is acting like a complete bitch for no reason whatsoever.

So fucking what if they make $40 million for violent movies. They are actors!! They shouldn't be ashamed of what they do in the slightest bit!

And where in the fuck does she get off saying they 'only' donate $3 million?!?! Pitt and Jolie have done so much for the Katrina victims and both are very involved with other political endeavors.

This shit just pisses me off, but more so that people actually defend her.

Not her real kids. FUCK...

[Smiert Spionam]

How is this not insulting the kids? :

"jon voight your evil spawn angelina jolie and her vacuous hubby brad pitt make about forty million dollars a year in violent psychopathic movies and give away three of it to starving children trying to look as if they give a crap about humanity as they spit out more dunces that will consume more than their fair share and wreck the earth even more. (just sayin')."



Did you even read my fucking post, or did you just look for something to disagree with? I said that the portions I was replying to initially were the ones highlighted in the first post and even that I agreed that her comments went too far once I actually watched the vid.

[KenSPT]

Who says? I've seen people give to charity because their mother died of cancer, or because they want to feel good about themselves, or because they don't want their children to suffer from diseases in the future. These are all selfish reasons. I've also seen people give anonymously and generously. It's all charity. Charity is nothing but the donation of time and money to a cause. And we don't know Angelina Jolie's intentions, do we?

It's one thing to be inspired to start working for a cause, like the death of a loved one causing you to want to work towards cancer research, or a drunk driving accident causing you to work for MADD. That's fine, and happens all the time.

Feeling good about ones-self is fine too. I would hope you would feel good about yourself after giving.

My issue is when people give to charity to benefit themselves financially, which is what I believe Brad, Angelina, Oprah, and others do.

Their career is their public image, and by donating to charity they are supporting that image. They're not doing it because they were inspired, they're not doing it because they want to help, they're doing it so that people like you hold them in such high regard. A perception that helps their image, aids their career, and in the long run puts more money in their pockets.

If they were so adamant about their charitable ventures, why not keep their donations quiet? Why not donate the $3M anonymously? It's an easy enough thing to do. They don't do that though, because then it wouldn't benefit them or their careers.

USA Today won't post a story about an anonymous $3M donation made to cancer research, but they would sure as hell run a story about a $3M donation made by "Brangelina" to the same cause.

I'm glad the money gets donated, I really am, but what pisses me off is the self-congratulatory praising that occurs after the check is cashed.

Charity shouldn't be about YOU, it should be about the people you help.

[JJFlamingo]

Tom Arnold is a stronger man than I, since at one time he had to get up and maintain an erection over her...:D

[NuclearMisfit]

That's exactly why I'm pissed off. She crossed the line with that bullshit.

But its Roseanne we are talking about here. Roseanne and class dont really belong in the same sentence and Ive never seen anything where shes never really been too classy. This is the same woman who sang the national anthem then grabbed her crotch. She should be able to state her opinions no matter how crass they are. Rosie O Donell still has a books worth of stupid over opinionated shit than Roseanne does.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Tom Arnold is a stronger man than I, since at one time he had to get up and maintain an erection over her...:D

That reminds me of this classic moment when Tom Arnold was on Conan: -

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/157034/david_cross_on_conan_obrien/

:D

[ilovemovies]

It's one thing to be inspired to start working for a cause, like the death of a loved one causing you to want to work towards cancer research, or a drunk driving accident causing you to work for MADD. That's fine, and happens all the time.

Feeling good about ones-self is fine too. I would hope you would feel good about yourself after giving.

My issue is when people give to charity to benefit themselves financially, which is what I believe Brad, Angelina, Oprah, and others do.

Their career is their public image, and by donating to charity they are supporting that image. They're not doing it because they were inspired, they're not doing it because they want to help, they're doing it so that people like you hold them in such high regard. A perception that helps their image, aids their career, and in the long run puts more money in their pockets.

If they were so adamant about their charitable ventures, why not keep their donations quiet? Why not donate the $3M anonymously? It's an easy enough thing to do. They don't do that though, because then it wouldn't benefit them or their careers.

USA Today won't post a story about an anonymous $3M donation made to cancer research, but they would sure as hell run a story about a $3M donation made by "Brangelina" to the same cause.

I'm glad the money gets donated, I really am, but what pisses me off is the self-congratulatory praising that occurs after the check is cashed.

Charity shouldn't be about YOU, it should be about the people you help.


It's not just about donating money but also about using their celebrity to shine a light on a problem that people either don't know or pay attention to. Like Pitt with building homes for Katrina victims, Jolie and children in poverty in third world nations or Clooney and co. with Darfur, ect.

They are puting their fame for good causes.

[KenSPT]

It's not just about donating money but also about using their celebrity to shine a light on a problem that people either don't know or pay attention to. Like Pitt with building homes for Katrina victims, Jolie and children in poverty in third world nations or Clooney and co. with Darfur, ect.

They are puting their fame for good causes.

... and they do it because, in the end, it's good for their reputation and career.

If it didn't give them so much positive PR, it would never be done.

[NathanRomano]

Soooo,

Can I kill her now?

[AndrewDB]

I'm confused.

She's mad because they're "working" and giving away their money .. yet .. we haven't seen her in a movie since 2004?.. ok Yeah, she was in an episode of My Name Is Earl in 2006, but.. that doesn't count.


Me thinks someones a smidge... just a smidge jealous.

[KenSPT]

I'm confused.

She's mad because they're "working" and giving away their money .. yet .. we haven't seen her in a movie since 2004?.. ok Yeah, she was in an episode of My Name Is Earl in 2006, but.. that doesn't count.


Me thinks someones a smidge... just a smidge jealous.

Yeah, whenever someone criticizes someone who has more money than them it has to be jealousy ... :rolleyes:

[AndrewDB]

Yeah, whenever someone criticizes someone who has more money than them it has to be jealousy ... :rolleyes:


I wasn't saying that per se Ken .. I was just saying, she's jealous that:

A: They have more money. B: They're actually working and C: They're doing something with the money they're earning while working.

[Cop No. 633]

Yeah, whenever someone criticizes someone who has more money than them it has to be jealousy ... :rolleyes:

http://www.goodluckdeluxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/old-man-laughing.jpg

Honestly, I think alot of the Dane Cook hate stems from jealousy. What you'll notice is that girls don't hate him, only a portion of guys, and those guys hate him because girls don't.

[KenSPT]

Honestly, I think alot of the Dane Cook hate stems from jealousy. What you'll notice is that girls don't hate him, only a portion of guys, and those guys hate him because girls don't.

Good for you and taking a completely different argument, that doesn't fit into the context of the discussion, and inserting it in there. Oh, but you used a funny picture, that must mean you're smart and witty ... yet you didn't add anything to the argument yourself. Big surprise.

Anyways, the Dane Cook statement represents a different situation, because in the Dane Cook situation the argument for jealousy fits.

You see, the guys who hate Dane Cook can never make a solid argument as to why they don't like him. They'll always make generic comments like, "he sucks", which are less of an argument and more of an ignorant opinion.

In this situation, Roseanne made points defending her position. Granted, the points she made were not presented in the most professional/classy way, but the points she made worked with her point of view. She made some valid arguments, which if presented in a more professional manner would have to be taken seriously.

However, the people hating on her aren't disputing her arguments, they're simply saying that she hates them because she's jealous. As opposed to debating her arguments with arguments of their own, they're making generic comments that she's jealous and leaving it at that. It's an easy out.

Explain to me how Roseanne is wrong and I'll take your arguments seriously, don't simply insult the womans career, weight, and level of class and think that you're taking part in an intelligent discussion.

[KenSPT]

I wasn't saying that per se Ken .. I was just saying, she's jealous that:

A: They have more money. B: They're actually working and C: They're doing something with the money they're earning while working.

So you're saying exactly what I thought you were saying. Thanks for clearing that up.

[a7xfan]

Explain to me how Roseanne is wrong and I'll take your arguments seriously, don't simply insult the womans career, weight, and level of class and think that you're taking part in an intelligent discussion.


do you have some sort of crush on her? :p :D

anyways, she may have put meat on her 'arguments' but, yeah...it all stems from jealousy.

just cause her fame has burnt out and no one gives a flying fuck about her career anymore, she takes aim at people who...are doing well in terms of finance and popularity. and insulting their kids in unacceptable. fat cow.

i mean, your presuming that they are just doing the charity work for their image. this could be said for every person who every donated a vast ammount of money to a charity. are these people doing this for their image? i hate how people presume celebs do this stuff for their own popularity. #

is there not just a little, just a little chance, that they actually give a crap about the charity's they are donating to and helping?

in your mind, i guess it is a no, which is why i don't like people with your sort of personality. just presuming that celebs are evil people.

[DME]

... and they do it because, in the end, it's good for their reputation and career.

If it didn't give them so much positive PR, it would never be done.

Never be done by them, or never be done by anyone?

If the former, then the question arises of "Would it receive as much attention if done by those who aren't celebrities and don't call attention to their philanthropy?"

If the latter, then it brings up the question of whether or not it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason or do nothing at all.

Of course, all of this presumes that you are correct in presuming that the aforementioned celebrities are disingenous in their charity work.

[KenSPT]

do you have some sort of crush on her? :p :D

anyways, she may have put meat on her 'arguments' but, yeah...it all stems from jealousy.

just cause her fame has burned out and no one give a flying fuck about her career anymore, she takes aim at people who...are doing well in terms of finance and popularity. and insulting their kids in unacceptable. fat cow.

whoever said something like 'their not their real kids' is very retarded.

Do I have a crush on her? Are you a 3rd grader?

Anyways, to answer my question, no you can't make a coherent argument as to why she's wrong beyond calling her "retarded". Thus, you'll blame it on jealousy.

If you can't come up with facts as to WHY she's wrong in her statements, and your only argument is that she's jealous, then you're either unable to defend your point of view or you're unwilling to. Either way, you're adding nothing to the conversation.

Never be done by them, or never be done by anyone?

If the former, then the question arises of "Would it receive as much attention if done by those who aren't celebrities and don't call attention to their philanthropy?"

If the latter, then it brings up the question of whether or not it's better to do the right thing for the wrong reason or do nothing at all.

Of course, all of this presumes that you are correct in presuming that the aforementioned celebrities are disingenous in their charity work.

I have a friend, she 28 and lives paycheck to paycheck. Every week she takes a few bucks and puts it aside. At the end of a month she has a good $50-$100 put aside, money that she could put towards further bills or bank away to give herself some security.

She doesn't do that though, do you know what she does? She donates it to the American Cancer Association, and she does it anonymously. Money that she needs, money that she could use, she donates. She does it because she feels that strongly about the cause.

She doesn't get praised for what she does. She doesn't get awards. Hell, the only reason I found out about it was because I ended up showing up at her house when she was putting the money order in the envelope.

That is what charity is about. It's about doing something that you believe is right. It shouldn't be an outlet used to gain praise, awards, or financial bonuses; it should be a selfless act to support something that is dear to you.

My friend never gets praised and she never gets cheered, and she wouldn't want to. She does it because she supports the cause, "Brangelina" does it for good PR.

As I said before, I'll change my tune if I find out that they did charity work prior to their fame, but until then I stand by my statement that it's nothing more than a PR stunt to make them the "Hollywood A-List Couple" that they've become.

[a7xfan]

Do I have a crush on her? Are you a 3rd grader?

Anyways, to answer my question, no you can't make a coherent argument as to why she's wrong beyond calling her "retarded". Thus, you'll blame it on jealousy.

If you can't come up with facts as to WHY she's wrong in her statements, and your only argument is that she's jealous, then you're either unable to defend your point of view or you're unwilling to. Either way, you're adding nothing to the conversation.


Talking about being LS :rolleyes:

my opening line was an obvious joke, get a sense of humour

secondly, it's funny how everything that everyone apart from you are saying is wrong, really, you just dismiss comments by saying 'your adding nothing to the conversation'
you will only accept arguments based on facts?, where is roseanne's facts?, does she have reciepts or secret videotapes of brad and angelina assaulting african kids, no she doesn't.

she's just some fat hack trying to get a bit of fame for he own fat self.

and to add, there is such thing as jealousy, ever heard of it? stop dismissing this as an explanation for her stupid rant.

[AshleysDad]

I have heard Roseanne does a lot of charity work, but does not get nearly the amount of press that Brad and Angelina get for it. Roseanne does things like this every now and then to get her name back in the media. And look, everyone is talking about her. I think she is trying to get a spot on The View. Angelina and Brad are easy targets, because it is very unlikely that they will respond back through the media. The attack she made is just too stupid to debate. The attack is more about her than about Angelina and Brad.

[KenSPT]

Talking about being LS :rolleyes:

my opening line was an obvious joke, get a sense of humour

secondly, it's funny how everything that everyone apart from you are saying is wrong, really, you just dismiss comments by saying 'your adding nothing to the conversation'
you will only accept arguments based on facts?, where is roseanne's facts?, does she have reciepts or secret videotapes of brad and angelina assaulting african kids, no she doesn't.

she's just some fat hack trying to get a bit of fame for he own fat self.

and to add, there is such thing as jealousy, ever heard of it? stop dismissing this as an explanation for her stupid rant.

This may be my last post in this thread, because I don't want this to get too heated and insulting. That would defeat the purpose of this thread, and this board.

That being said, onto my rebuttal.

Yes, normally when I'm in a discussion with someone and my goal is to prove or disprove a point, I like to see facts.

I know, crazy concept.

Roseanne presented facts to back up her opinions.

She questioned the amount of money they donated as opposed to what they made, and she had the numbers to back that up.

She presented facts in terms of the situation with the African child's family in Africa. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

The problem is, she coupled her facts with senseless cursing and unintelligent blabber, which causes her to not be taken seriously. It's doing her a disservice, because had she formulated her words correctly, she would probably be seen in a better light in this situation.

You can't prove jealousy. Barring Roseanne coming out and saying, "I wrote this out of jealousy.", it's all hearsay. You can prove Roseanne's jealousy just as much as I can prove Brangelina's motivations. The difference is, I can be proven wrong.

You can very easily prove me wrong by showing me some documentation proving that Brangelina did charitable work prior to becoming rich and famous. That will prove that they cared about causes prior to caring about their public image. It's as simple as that.

If I come across as dismissive, and say that people aren't adding anything to the conversation, it's because ... well ... people aren't adding anything to the conversation.

With the exception of Crimson Regret, who came across as very intelligent in his debates with me, the "arguments" from people who disagree with me have been childish.

People have argued that Roseanne is wrong because she is "fat", "unsuccessful", or "retarded". How am I supposed to take that seriously? Cap onto that the fact that people misspell words in the process of typing such dribble. It's embarrassing.

If I'm supposed to take an argument seriously, it should be presented in a professional, intelligent, manner. It's a simple concept, one that they teach throughout ones schooling.

[Brendan M.]

She signs off by telling Jolie to go back to making movies about women who "love to handle big guns and shoot hundreds of people to death."

Speaking of which, I just saw Wanted a couple of days ago. Good movie. I'd sit through that again any day than watch an episode or Rosanne.

[a7xfan]

This may be my last post in this thread, because I don't want this to get too heated and insulting. That would defeat the purpose of this thread, and this board.

That being said, onto my rebuttal.

Yes, normally when I'm in a discussion with someone and my goal is to prove or disprove a point, I like to see facts.

I know, crazy concept.

Roseanne presented facts to back up her opinions.

She questioned the amount of money they donated as opposed to what they made, and she had the numbers to back that up.

She presented facts in terms of the situation with the African child's family in Africa. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant.

The problem is, she coupled her facts with senseless cursing and unintelligent blabber, which causes her to not be taken seriously. It's doing her a disservice, because had she formulated her words correctly, she would probably be seen in a better light in this situation.

You can't prove jealousy. Barring Roseanne coming out and saying, "I wrote this out of jealousy.", it's all hearsay. You can prove Roseanne's jealousy just as much as I can prove Brangelina's motivations. The difference is, I can be proven wrong.

You can very easily prove me wrong by showing me some documentation proving that Brangelina did charitable work prior to becoming rich and famous. That will prove that they cared about causes prior to caring about their public image. It's as simple as that.

If I come across as dismissive, and say that people aren't adding anything to the conversation, it's because ... well ... people aren't adding anything to the conversation.

With the exception of Crimson Regret, who came across as very intelligent in his debates with me, the "arguments" from people who disagree with me have been childish.

People have argued that Roseanne is wrong because she is "fat", "unsuccessful", or "retarded". How am I supposed to take that seriously? Cap onto that the fact that people misspell words in the process of typing such dribble. It's embarrassing.

If I'm supposed to take an argument seriously, it should be presented in a professional, intelligent, manner. It's a simple concept, one that they teach throughout ones schooling.


hmm, i think you may have got this forums mixed up with 'the national law system discussion board' cause you are talking absolute dribble about all these 'facts and figures' your demanding.

your saying that roseanne has valid points herself, yet all she has done (like the rest of us) is read newpaper or magazine articles, and to take them as 'fact' is a really silly thing to do, so yes she is just firing off for absolutely no reason.

secondly, it isn't wise to say that everyone except one person's arguments have been childish, no, they have not. in all honesty everyone who has made some sort or argument or comment have expressed their opinion, just like your girlfriend roseanne has, yet you think that because they dont have fucking reciepts of donations or fucking personal diary's from brad and angelina, they are automatically wrong.

and just to add, your making yourself come across like a massive jerk, especially in that last paragraph.

[Lindsey]

I feel a closed thread coming on soon.

Remember the rules folks...

[ilovemovies]

Facts my ass. Rosanne has given no facts whatsoever in her blog. It's all opinion and she comes across as someone who is desperately trying to call attention to herself. She's a has-been desperate for attention.

How the hell does she know how Brad and Angelina give? It's pure speculation on her part. All of it is merely just conjecture.

[countchocula]

It's her website. She can blog about whatever she wants to. That said, it's impossible to know what Angelina Jolie's motivations are. Sure, she could donate anonymously, but if you want to draw attention to a certain cause, you can't exactly do it behind a curtain. The "violent psychopath" comment is pretty ridiculous. Didn't Roseanne blow up her husband's house in a film once?

Ken, you're just speculating. You can assume that Brad and Angie are just trying to drum up publicity, but they don't really need extra publicity, do they? I say they're doing more good than bad, even if their charitable proclivities are feigned.

[KenSPT]

I feel a closed thread coming on soon.

Remember the rules folks...

I don't want this to turn into an egg throwing contest, thus I'm walking away from this thread before it turns into an insult wielding extravaganza.

[MoovEDude]

C'mon....for fucks sake, its not like they're even their real kids.

I'm not saying she's not a bitch, because she is, but she still has a point.

What fuck tard planet did you drop from?

Not their "real" kids? WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? Adopted children arent REAL to those who adopt them? As opposed to some biological prick who cums in some whores cunt and they both abandon or put up their "real" kid for adoption? THOSE ARE "REAL" parents? Get fucking real..

If tithing is around 10% than their 3 mil is close PLUS the work she does as ambasador - wheres the video of the fat pig on the other side of the world or even HERE spending her time in the dust and dirt with starving kids? I know where Jolies is..can you point to Rosannes? no, really? Didnt think so...Brad Pitt is also donating his time to rebuilding Katrina...wheres the fat pigs video doing the same? Cant find it? really? DIDNT THINK SO.

This PIG should keep her mouth and get back on her meds. And anyone supporting her and thinking she has a point better seek meds.

[Lawgick]

LMAO@ All these ppl insulting her weight and accusing her of jealousy based on nothing but assumptions. Your basically saying that if anyone criticizes someone richer then them their opinion is invalid due to that fact. Classicism.

This is not surprising when you consider the level of celebrity worship in this society.

Shallow arguments are Shallooooooow.:rolleyes:

[DRbeauty]

... and they do it because, in the end, it's good for their reputation and career.

If it didn't give them so much positive PR, it would never be done.



Do you know more about these people than everyone else does?

[AshleysDad]

Do you know more about these people than everyone else does?

Ken is a modest fellow. He is a tax accountant to the stars.

Ken said he wants to stop posting on this thread, so help the guy out and stop egging him on.

[Tweek]

I'm pretty sure Jolie is doing to because she genuinly wants to help. I remember reading that it all started when she was shooting the movie Beyond Borders in Cambodia. It had a profound impact I believe and it's also where she adopted her first child, Maddox.



Ugh! That movie makes me cry. :( So I don't agree with Roseanne about all of Jolie's movies.



That reminds me of this classic moment when Tom Arnold was on Conan: -

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/157034/david_cross_on_conan_obrien/

:D



Ewwwww... NO!:D:D

[ilovemovies]

Jolie has done some shitty movies but I like that she goes back and fourth from big studio efforts like the Tomb Raider movies and Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith but she also does smaller movies like A Mighty Heart. Now I haven't seen A Mighty Heart but I want to and it got really good reviews.

So it's not like she only does movies where she has guns or what not.

[Smiert Spionam]

What fuck tard planet did you drop from?

Not their "real" kids? WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? Adopted children arent REAL to those who adopt them? As opposed to some biological prick who cums in some whores cunt and they both abandon or put up their "real" kid for adoption? THOSE ARE "REAL" parents? Get fucking real.

Why don't you read the entire thread first including my other posts before you come in talking shit, eh? :rolleyes:

[< a c e >]

I feel sorry for Roseanne.

Brad and Angelina are living their life the way they want to. They aren't hurting anyone around them, and they try to do their bit for the world in whatever little or big way they can. Them and Papparazzi, it's a symbiotic relationship and we all know how it works. Little things are bound to get sensationalized.

Acting is their profession. Sometimes it might be action sometimes drama sometimes comedy, nobody in the world has any f*king right to talk about the kind of movies they should be a part of. Review the movie, but not their decision to act in it. As actors in a free country, they have the right to choose whatever the f*k they want to do as long as it is legal.

If Roseanne was any better looking and she had a chance to star in an action film and get paid millions, you think she'll step back saying, "Oh! I don't believe in this! Sorry!"? BULLSHIT! She'd do everything that our man Dante would have done for the flying car (http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=IsFfBB2W7IA).

And attacking against kids below the age of 10, what the f*k fat bitch? No further explanation required.

Besides, there are much bigger problems that the world is facing.

[Robot]

I don't recall any time where Brad or Angelina have had press releases about their charitable contributions. I have seen paparazzi follow their every single move for the last several years, so we know all these wonderful (sarcasm) things about them that anyone who doesn't know them personally should give a shit about.

Even if they give money to charity and also use their fame to raise awareness to the cause, why is this a bad thing? Look at the popularity of the ONE campaign. That is a celebrity advertised campaign that has been a huge success. I guess we should bash all those involved with that because they used their movie/music fame to get donations and spread awareness to those who may have not otherwise been aware of the direness of the situation in Africa.

I also don't see how Roseanne is helping the situation by calling Angelina out for not vocally supporting a presidential candidate. If she were active for McCain or Obama, I'm sure someone would have a problem with her for using her celebrity to promote their liberal/conservative views. It's a no-win situation.

Plus, bringing up the children is tacky. If you are going to attack the adults, fine, but it's never appropriate to bring in the children into an argument they have no part of.

[bigred760]

I think her comments are uncalled for. I don't have the slightest clue why she would say the demeaning things she did about them their children, and their charitable contributions. $3 million is almost ten percent of what they made and that percentage is more that what I give (something tells me it's more than what Roseanne gives too). Whether Brangelina's charitable contributions are PR ploys or not (it's so hard to tell considering that EVERYTHING they do is put on magazine covers and tabloid gossip), I think it generous either way. I know that they did use their celebrity to help out New Orleans after Katrina. They're good people in my eyes, and the fact that they're two superstars in a relationship draws them out.

Anyway, I doubt they give a damn of what she had to say.

[MoovEDude]

Why don't you read the entire thread first including my other posts before you come in talking shit, eh? :rolleyes:

Naw, I think I know enough to stand by what I said. :cool:

[echo_bravo]

Jeez where do I even begin?

First off, just cause Jolie is "undecided" doesnt make her some hate-filled neo-con that Barr is makin her out to be.

And Pitt and Jolie donate WAY more than 3 million a year. They reportedly donated ALL their tens of millions from their baby photos to charity just this year.

I would love for Jolie to come face to face with Roseanne and just go all Tomb Raider on that bitch and beat the fuck out of her!:D

[Smiert Spionam]

Naw, I think I know enough to stand by what I said. :cool:

Well, I actually admitted that I was a little hasty in my comment regarding the kids, and had you actually continued to read the first page before you had your little hissy fit and insulted me, you would have known that.

As opposed to some biological prick who cums in some whores cunt and they both abandon or put up their "real" kid for adoption? THOSE ARE "REAL" parents? Get fucking real..

You speaking from personal experience?

[Lindsey]

You speaking from personal experience?

Aw, come on man! You're just feeding the fire!

Stay on topic guys, or this thread is going to hell.

[Shockwave]

Is this a surpise to ANYONE?

The queen-of-all-bitches goes on ANOTHER hate filled rant about how everyone in the world sucks and is evil, and she want another five minutes of fame.

Shit, even little kids are now hell-spawns unworthy of life in her eyes.

PS-

...as for the Pitts giving to charity, WHO THE FUCK CARES??? They dont have to give SHIT. No one is making them, and whether its for PR ot not, it doesnt matter. What they do give is ALOT and its more then they have to, which is nothing. Everyone tries to act all hollier then thou about celebs giving to charity and its just bullshit. Like its some kind of law that they have to. They dont have to give anything.


Roseanne hates fucking everything. Thats how she can get attention and she knows it. Like people slowing down to look at a traffic accident.

[The Postmaster General]

Roseanne failed when she started being mean spirited. Her show in its early days was very sentimental and championed the lower class. She got rich and suddenly started with the attacks. The woman has smarts, but she needs to put it towards champion something instead of trying to tear everything else down. What she says her has validity, but it is veiled in too much hate to be taken rationally.

[deppjolieperabo]

Jon Voight responds:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/08/19/jon-voight-roseanne-barr-blog/

Roseanne apologizes, sort of:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26297435/
http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/08/i_do_not_know_brangelina.php

she also responded to someone's letter:

http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2008/08/letter_from_an_upset_woman.php

[thedudeman69]

Wow. Voight loves to bring up his man love for Mccain, in a article that doesn't even have anything to do with it.doesn't he?

[ElderPredator]

GO JON! KICK HER ASS!

[bigred760]

I like how Roseanne is now blasting the media and bloggers, yet she is a blogger herself.

[ElderPredator]

She's actually surprised by the response? Now she's saying she was attacking the media and their representation as they make Angelina and Brad look vile? This woman is obviously off her medication. I'm glad that Angelina, Brad and Jon Voight have taken this course against Roseanne as she's a complete mental case. No one deserves to have their children insulted by anyone, let alone this hack.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Well, i sincerely hope her kid's song CD is kicking off well, because after what i saw on Regis and Kelly a while back, i don't even how kids would even tolerate that!:confused:

[Preston_79]

Rosanne is a nitwit and it's obvious she doesn't have an original thought in her head. Anyone who understands politics wouldn't blame Republicans for every problem that occurs in the world. Democrats are cut from the same cloth, but if she wants to believe one side is good and the other evil, that's childish and ignorant. I can't believe that a person can be as old as her and not understand this, but be bold enough to blog about it for everyone to see. It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for her.

And why she set her sights on these two other celebrities is beyond me. She's fighting the wrong battle here. None of what she said helps anyone. This isn't constructive criticism, it's an attack from a person with a fading career who more than likely wouldn't want to be challenged on this nonsense she spews and that's why it's on a blog.

I actually like Rosanne most of the time, so I hope this is just a case of being on or off of drugs.

[hasselbrad]

Show me some facts about what Angelina Jolie did for charity before she became "Angelina Jolie" and had to worry about public image.

In the event she was always philanthropic, I will say I was wrong about her motivations, but if not it further proves my point.

The same can be said about Brad Pitt, Oprah Winfrey, Tyra Banks, etc, etc ...

Fair enough... but then show me what Barr did for anyone else before she was "Roseanne". I'm no Jolie fan, but I've seen what she's done for charity and I respect her for it.
As for Barr, she is, and has always been, a talentless hack who happened into wild success because of the 1980s comedy boom. She would have never made it past open mic night at any other point in history. She was, by far, the least funny person on the sit-com that bore her name. It would never have made it past pilot status were it not for John Goodman. Her stage act was a one note, dumbed down grab for laughs from the LCD. It makes me sad that better/funnier/smarter female comics (Rudner, Poundstone, Liebman, etc.) were forced to wallow in relative anonymity while this piece of garbage was busy making an ass of herself in the spotlight.

[MoovEDude]

Well, I actually admitted that I was a little hasty in my comment regarding the kids, and had you actually continued to read the first page before you had your little hissy fit and insulted me, you would have known that.



You speaking from personal experience?

oooh..wow..you got me good..*wounded..seeks retreat....

:rolleyes:

[Lindsey]

Why start the third page with an off-topic argument? Lets move on!!! :cool:

[Potter82]

on a related note, I present to you the article; "Roseanne Barr: Literally the Craziest Person on the Internet"

http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/08/22/dan-obrien-reviews-roseanne-blog/

ta da!

oh I love this gem "“Denver has built concentration camps to hold protesters during the [Democratic National] convention.”

[Crimson_Regret]

on a related note, I present to you the article; "Roseanne Barr: Literally the Craziest Person on the Internet"

http://www.cracked.com/blog/2008/08/22/dan-obrien-reviews-roseanne-blog/

ta da!

oh I love this gem "“Denver has built concentration camps to hold protesters during the [Democratic National] convention.”

Hilarious! Thanks for posting

[rocknblues81]

Tom Arnold is a stronger man than I, since at one time he had to get up and maintain an erection over her...:D

HAHAHA!!

[rocknblues81]

Comments from the bitch that sunk the Titanic.

I guess she got her second 5 minutes of fame.