Rosie and the Boycott Conspiracy Therapy
Over at the AOL Video Blog, the wank keeps rolling in as Rosie O'Donnell continues to prove that The View is now just "The Rosie O'Donnell Show"...Part Deux.

The entry spotlights the site http://www.stoprosie.com/ and their crusade to boycott not just The View, but contact the companies whose products are advertised during the commercial breaks.

The real spotlight is on the blog comment board, as pro/anti Rosie visitors bring the funny and the stupid:

Rosie is ridiculous and so are her views and conspiracy therapy. Why would anyone waste their valuable time on such ridiculous television viewing as the view and Rosie?

I just checked out the stop Rosie site. Check out what they want money for. It is a big scam. I would buy myself a laptop before someone else. They need to get over themselfs and get a job

(I will not make a CC joke...I will not make a CC joke....I will not...)

I do not watch the View and especially since Rosie makes such hateful comments starting with Clay/Kelly episode and it's been non stop. The final straw when she criticizes our government for starting 9/11.

As for the petition site, they warned that they will be removing "fake names", which made me curious. I've just started looking over the list and I've already picked out Jack Meyoff, Michael Myers, and Right Wingnuts. Now all I need is to find Ivanna Humpalot and I'll be set.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	harrylovesron 2007-04-12 01:54 pm UTC (link)
	Bwahaha. I have to wonder, if it was supposed to be rockets hitting the buildings, how did THEY melt steel if planes couldn't? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kadath 2007-04-12 02:02 pm UTC (link)
	...A wizard did it. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	harrylovesron 2007-04-12 02:38 pm UTC (link)
	It was FIREBENDING! (Reply to this)(Parent)

silrana
2007-04-12 02:03 pm UTC (link)

I'm with you. If fire never melting steel before was actually true, why would the government go through the time and expense to create unique new rockets for 9/11 when there were already so many other ways to bring buildings down available?

And the conspiracy theory misses the whole point that the steel didn't need to melt to bring down the towers. The steel just needed to soften enough to make the buildings structurally unsound and trigger the collapse failsafes. I'm not an engineer and even I know that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kadath 2007-04-12 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	The yield strength curve as a function of temperature for structural steel decays fast. It loses something like 90% of its strength hundreds of degrees before it actually melts. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	But why is there WIND on the MOON? fevered_ego 2007-04-12 02:28 pm UTC (link)
	I believe in magic, and I'm wearing my special tinfoil hat. I even made certain to plug my ears and go "LA LA LA." Clearly, my argument has rendered your flimsy so-called 'science' floppy and useless. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: But why is there WIND on the MOON? kadath 2007-04-12 02:50 pm UTC (link)
	Lo, Science and I am defeated by your mighty rhetorical skillz. Woe! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lady7jane 2007-04-12 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	Dudes, this won't do at all. The lot of you need hours more in conspiracy therapy if we are to have any chance of cracking this thing. Repeat after me: I want to believe! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	harrylovesron 2007-04-12 02:41 pm UTC (link)
	Heck, anybody should be able to figure out that ramming a large object into a building and making it explode in a GIGANTIC FUCKING FIREBALL can bring it down. And nevermind the fact that fire is used to forge and shape steel. AUGH. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	plazmah 2007-04-13 07:50 pm UTC (link)
	I find your icon hilariously appropriate. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	harrylovesron 2007-04-13 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	I thought so. :D (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -