UnNews talk:Hugo Chavez shuts down TV station that criticized him replaces it with new one staffed by Rosie O'Donnell

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Humor needs to be based on truth. The fact is that RCTV was involved in the coup, lied to the public about Chavez supporters, and instituted a news blackout of Chavez's return to power. Their actions were subversive and partially successful in overthrowing one of the precious few truly democratically-elected governments in South America.

Ref: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=742&Itemid=0

Reality Check: Fox News wishes they had the kind of power that RCTV had. - BadAssNewsMF 18:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, which is why I wrote: "Hugo Chavez claims that George W. Bush and the USA's CIA were behind the RCTV being critical of him, and that it was all a plot to try and overthrow him from power." did you miss that line? Kind of funny is that ABC and Rosie O'Donnell have the sort of power to lie to the public about Bush supporters, lie about 911 saying that fire does not melt steel when used with fuel, fire can burn hotter and melt steel steel they use fuel, like airplanes use to heat up a fire to make steel in the first place and a whole tank of fuel combined with fire can melt steel. Yet they get to keep their license. Oh yeah nice website you quoted, it seems to be a good source for conspiracy theories, and they don't seem to verify the sources or check any facts. RCTV is accused of supporting the coup by Chavez, but no proof was offered, and the courts hadn't found this to be the case. In other words it was not proven in court that RCTV supported the coup. Check your facts next time. Anyway I equate Chavez closing down RCTV to Bush closing down ABC. Yet there seems to be no system of checks and balances in Venezuela to prevent Chavez from abusing his power to shut down the station, despite no court evidence that they supported the coup. If it is a real true Democracy, it would be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but the trial was skipped and the station had its license not renewed. Welcome to Uncyclopedia, sometimes we exaggerate or make stuff up to be funny here. Like saying that Rosie is the new station manager of ROTV, it was made up, her being a minster of propaganda for left-wingers is an exaggeration. Oh yeah, a TV station does not have that sort of power, it is the people of Venezuela who are fed up with Chavez and tried to overthrow him, Chavez does a good job of making himself unpopular to the citizens enough to throw riots. They are throwing a riot right now because Chavez abused his power to shut down the RCTV station. Ask yourself if a majority of people overthrew Chavez, how could he be re-elected in a fair election despite having a popularity rating lower than even Bush has? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is crap, i don't see why it's in unnews at all. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

HATE HATE HAT? Read How to be funny next time you have a problem with humor. Just because you don't agree with the article and think that Chavez can violate the rights and freedoms of his people and that makes Venezuela a true Democracy doesn't mean that the article is crap. Note the public protests and riots in Venezuela. This UnNews article is close to the truth, without being the truth. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, because this artically is totally about Hugo, and nothing to do with your personal hatred of Rosie. It is all just a big coincidence. And obviously anyone who criticises this article must be a freedom hater and terrorist supporter - like you insinuate directly above this message. I dare not suggest that this article is merely more of your unfunny hatred driven drivel, because that would surely make me a hater of democracy. I wouldn't want that, because I'm passionately against hatred - it is, after all, the sort of thinking that terrorists have. MaxMangel 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, if I make fun of left-wingers it is because I hate them, but if I make fun of right-wingers nobody complains at all? Double standard! I make fun of Bush abusing his powers to shut down ABC, but because I mention Rosie gets her own TV station using quotes that she said on "The View" I must hate her? Your bias is showing, no matter how many "friends" you get to comment on this article. If I hated Rosie I would have called her a big fat lesbian pig or something, instead I avoided wording like that and didn't use hateful words, and instead made it more like a news story. I cannot help it if Rosie makes comments that get her into trouble even with other people on "The View" and the public in general that gives her a 65% disapproval rating. I didn't even mention that in the article. All I did was say that Chavez gave her a job in the new TV station with her own show, using words she has used on her blog and on "The View". If anything, Rosie mocks herself and doesn't need me to do it. That is not hateful. You can disagree with the article, you can even write your own articles, nobody stops you from doing so. Yet the article is not automatically unfunny because it makes fun of Chavez and O'Donnell who are left-wingers and thus unable to be made fun of because UnNews and Uncyclopedia should only make fun of right-wingers, and if anyone dares make fun of left-wingers, they will get the wrath of your and your "friends" talking down the article as "crap"! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you don't understand this so I shall explain it to you: the more you claim that I am part of some group of people all acting against you in some kind of conspiracy, the more you expose your own paranoia and make yourself look slightly crazy.
Second point, you were trying to claim that you didn't hate Rosie, and then you listed, what, half a dozen things you hate about her. Just because you didn't call her a fat lesbos in the article, doesn't mean that the article wasn't entirely structured as an attack against her.
Third point, the fact that you mention Bush in a negative manner is irrelevant to whether or not this is actually an attack article against Rosie. And, let's face it, there's other articles you've worked on that have mentioned Rosie before in a negative manner, so let's not pretend that this is all some weird coicidence. Let's not deny what we both know to be true - why else would you spend half your paragraph above cricising her?
Fourth point, don't recycle that garbage that left wing articles get a free ride, but right wing ones don't. I've spent plenty of time junking attack statements against ring wing people here. That's simply more of your unfactual paranoia, and is just a weak defense for you to claim 'unfair' when your article gets the criticism it deserves.
Here's a suggestion, if don't want criticism - Stop abusing people in your attempts at being funny. It isn't actually that hard if you tried. It is easy to hate people, and that causes a lot of harm in the world.
Finally, articles that make fun of left wingers can of course be funny, it is simply that your articles never are. MaxMangel 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the first UnNews article that I wrote that mentions Rosie. IHBT! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess you don't like the Rosie O'Donnell article that I didn't write that calls her a lot of bad names, uses a Ghostbusters Marshmallow Man reference, etc? How about these UnNews articles that I did not write? UnNews:Rosie O'Donnell adopts mentally retarded Danny DeVito UnNews:Rosie O'Donnell to play Wonder Woman UnNews:Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell publically profess love for one another, plan to marry UnNews:Rosie O'Donnell enters rehab Are you accusing me of writing them? Because I did not. I only used Rosie because she was in the news and out of a job being that she quit "The View". Which is a small part of this article anyway and not the main subject. I could have written a lot worse, but I did not. I gave examples in this talk page of things I could have used, but didn't in the UnNews article. You still haven't convinced me that this article is unfunny. How would you have wrote the Rosie part of this article? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never been to the Rosie O'Donnel article, or any of the others you mentioned. Obviously, I was referring to articles that *you* worked on. Is that so hard to understand? Where we last argued, is the phrase "Excuse me, my big fat lesbian ass is on fire now!" That's a five second example. I suppose that's just a wild coincidence. Hahaha, it is so easy to prove you wrong.
Don't act like I should be grateful that you didn't get even more abusive. Should a soldier be grateful to not get tortured? Should I be thankful for every bad thing that you haven't yet done?
And, you have the balls to claim Rosie is some kind of small part of this article, when she is in the freaking title! The title. Who are you trying to fool? Perhaps just yourself.
You don't like Hugo or Rosie and thought you'd stone them together - an article based on hate. Perhaps you want to put a burning cross up outside her house?
But, to answer your question, when the central point of the article is to ridicule Rosie by associating her with a ruthless dictator, how would I write Rosie's part? I wouldn't. I wouldn't write the article on a subject like this. But...I will try editing the article. MaxMangel 15:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, articles I worked on, but did not write the whole article myself? So that way I get blamed for things other people write, guilt by association. Maybe I wrote that, I don't recall it. Fact is I didn't write it in this UnNews article. Other articles are more offensive to Rosie, but somehow you decided to pick on me. You've yet to even write your user page, and I doubt you will write an article. Who are you trying to fool? You cannot even spell O'Donnell and I doubt you know anything about her to write something funny. You don't even know that she made statements supporting Chavez previously. I don't hate Rosie by the way, I just don't agree with some of the things she says, I like her comedy and film career. If anyone is burning crosses it is you on me. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

edit MaxAngel Rewrite

It is funny in some parts, but in others the humor has been lost. I admit some things you wrote are funny. You have a potential. I don't see it as being anything different from what I wrote on Rosie, except that you replaced some of the things she said with "Bush is the devil" "Is George Bush Satan?" etc which seems to be repetitive and thus unfunny. Yet it is oddly what Chavez tried to say at the UN, so I guess it is funny in a way. I mean it seems like the only thing you had issues with are quotes that Rosie said or that were paraphrased down to shorter words of what she has said on "The View". If the quotes are offensive, it is because Rosie said them. I didn't invent those quotes, but I did find them funny because she actually said them. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you really are trying to claim that it is just a coincidence that in the previous article Rose was called a fat lesbian? Wow - that's funny. This isn't guilt by association, this is guilt by action - your actions. You wrote this article didn't you? There's no association needed.
I have already written articles from scratch, so chalk up another factual error to your tally.
The joke was the repitition of subject titles(as if they were different topics - I know, it's complicated humour). My only issue is not with the quotes - you mistake my edit for somehow granting a seal of approval on the latest version of the article.
Something else for you to think about - the fact that other people may have written more hate-filled articles doesn't mean that it is okay for you to do this one. If someone, somewhere, is being tortured, that doesn't mean that it is okay for you to do it. Stop using other people's articles as an excuse for your own. The reason I haven't been picking on them is because in my casual browsing of the site I haven't run across them, and I don't actively seek out anti-Rosie articles. MaxMangel 04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok so basically if I write articles like this one that you say are attack articles, then it is not ok for someone else to write articles like UnNews:Republicans give entire world to Satan and Team Evil that are attack articles? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have answered this type of question many times already, but you keep returning to it because I guess you can't think of anything else. I don't know how I can phrase this any clearer than I have before, but I'll try: 'The worth/value of this article is not dependant on the worth/value of any other article, be they better or worse, more of an attack article or less, be they written, by me, you, or a third party.'
No, it is not an excuse that there are other anti-Rosie articles, or whatever else is on this website. This strategy you are employing is called 'misdirection' where you attempt to divert attention away from the problem by introducing other irrelevant things.
FYI, UnNews:Republicans give entire world to Satan was a parody of the two bullsh*t articles it gives reference to and Team Evil does not name or attack any real living person - thus I am quite comfortable with both, thankyou.
Let me list your arguments in turn:
  1. If you hate this article, you don't understand humour, and hate freedom.
  2. People don't make enough fun of left wingers, so I'm allowed.
  3. This article isn't really attacking Rosie.
  4. I could have attacked her a lot more, but didn't.
  5. There are worse articles about Rosie.
  6. I don't really hate Rosie.
  7. You're just picking on me.
  8. You've written your own attack articles.
Each of these are either contradictory, untrue or irrelavent. MaxMangel 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Once again you justify your attack articles, but censor others and attack those who wrote them. Hypocrite! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Riiiiiight. I guess if you ignored everything I said, then that would make sense. MaxMangel 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools