<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rosie O&#8217;Donnell Regresses, Makes Scrapebook, Possibly Overly Sensitive, Slightly Dramatic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/</link>
	<description>Celebrity gossip from our lips to yours</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Trinity</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8079</link>
		<dc:creator>Trinity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 04:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8079</guid>
		<description>i dont think rosie EVER said that the troops are terrorists. what she tried to do, and very poorly, i must admit, is to show that the definition of terrorism imposed on the iraqis apply to the BushCo, a result of their decision caused the 600,000 deaths in Iraq. She supports the troops, she offers a lot of funds for the troops, and has nothing but respect for the troop.

having said that, what rosie took offense to was that elizabeth, knowing rosie, and being her friend, remained silent when people were trashing her. i guess she was disappointed because she had expected elizabeth to say, no rosie did not mean that, something rosie would have done for elizabeth. 

but i suspect that rosie is mentally depressed and therefore needs a lot of external validation for who she is which is why she needs to be loud, argumentative, and project an in your face attitude to hide from her own demons. however, elizabeth benefitted out of this the most. she gets free publicity, and without rosie really, she is nobody. what is elizabeth's claim to fame really? why should we care what elizabeth thinks?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i dont think rosie EVER said that the troops are terrorists. what she tried to do, and very poorly, i must admit, is to show that the definition of terrorism imposed on the iraqis apply to the BushCo, a result of their decision caused the 600,000 deaths in Iraq. She supports the troops, she offers a lot of funds for the troops, and has nothing but respect for the troop.</p>
<p>having said that, what rosie took offense to was that elizabeth, knowing rosie, and being her friend, remained silent when people were trashing her. i guess she was disappointed because she had expected elizabeth to say, no rosie did not mean that, something rosie would have done for elizabeth. </p>
<p>but i suspect that rosie is mentally depressed and therefore needs a lot of external validation for who she is which is why she needs to be loud, argumentative, and project an in your face attitude to hide from her own demons. however, elizabeth benefitted out of this the most. she gets free publicity, and without rosie really, she is nobody. what is elizabeth&#8217;s claim to fame really? why should we care what elizabeth thinks?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Sussman</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8070</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Sussman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2007 01:12:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8070</guid>
		<description>I side with the hot one, regardless of batshitivity every time. It's a curse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I side with the hot one, regardless of batshitivity every time. It&#8217;s a curse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rikkileigh</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8054</link>
		<dc:creator>rikkileigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 18:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8054</guid>
		<description>Oh for Pete's sake!  I hate to tell you, but Rosie DID imply (whether meant or not) that our troops were terrorists.  If she didn't mean it that way, stand up and say "I said something that could have been misconstrued and I want to set the record straight."  Don't ask your co-host to do it for you.  And then, after a fight with your co-host, you and a friend deface her pictures and you trash your dressing room?  My 5 year old knows better.  Doesn't matter if you're a Hassleback fan or not with this.  This whole "I want attention" thing from Rosie is getting old and tired.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh for Pete&#8217;s sake!  I hate to tell you, but Rosie DID imply (whether meant or not) that our troops were terrorists.  If she didn&#8217;t mean it that way, stand up and say &#8220;I said something that could have been misconstrued and I want to set the record straight.&#8221;  Don&#8217;t ask your co-host to do it for you.  And then, after a fight with your co-host, you and a friend deface her pictures and you trash your dressing room?  My 5 year old knows better.  Doesn&#8217;t matter if you&#8217;re a Hassleback fan or not with this.  This whole &#8220;I want attention&#8221; thing from Rosie is getting old and tired.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arse</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8052</link>
		<dc:creator>arse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 18:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8052</guid>
		<description>hasselbeck is brainless as all get out. and its high time everyone admits that nobody ever disparages the troops who are meerly doing what they're supposed to. we are talking about an administration giving the orders. those are the dummies everyone is criticizing, the troops have nothing to do with the matter. neither does the scapegoat general they put in place to take the blame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hasselbeck is brainless as all get out. and its high time everyone admits that nobody ever disparages the troops who are meerly doing what they&#8217;re supposed to. we are talking about an administration giving the orders. those are the dummies everyone is criticizing, the troops have nothing to do with the matter. neither does the scapegoat general they put in place to take the blame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rikkileigh</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8051</link>
		<dc:creator>rikkileigh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2007 17:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/2007/05/25/rosie-odonnell-regresses-makes-scrapebook-possibly-overly-sensitive-slightly-dramatic/#comment-8051</guid>
		<description>Amen!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
