It's too bad that this will now be the legacy of Roseanne as a TV show because I used to kind of like it back in the late '80s and early '90s when the first Roseanne show aired. It was more progressive back then and all about a low-income family not terribly unlike mine in some respects, which was something that simply didn't exist on the airwaves outside of that program at the time. Only my mom would let me watch it, so controversial was it considered to be, and she turned against it too after the first sign of lesbianism (which secretly I found validating). The new Roseanne is controversial too, but for the opposite reasons.

Essentially the show is about showing just how wrong Hillary Clinton supposedly was when she labeled a significant minority of Trump supporters "deplorables" who are racist, misogynist, and just all-around xenophobic. The new show portrays Roseanne as a Trump supporter (which Roseanne Barr is in real life too) and a kind of nice, broad-minded libertarian who unreservedly welcomes black kids into the family, totally supports lesbianism and gender-nonconformity and all that and only supports Trump because she wants a balanced federal budget and stuff like that. In reality though, what we are reminded of more indisputably than ever before here with this latest tweet is that the real Roseanne Barr is actually a very wealthy person who supports Trump because...surprise surprise, she's a racist! Kind of undermines the whole narrative of the new show, doesn't it? THAT is the real reason ABC had to cancel it.

People didn't vote for Trump because they wanted a balanced federal budget. They voted for him because they wanted the wall, the Muslim ban (the original version, not the one that actually got implemented), and a national Blue Lives Matter campaign led by the White House. That's the truth and there's no romanticizing it.

Those are my thoughts.

I honestly think she didn't think the woman was black. Obviously, she wouldn't have said that if she had known beforehand although it shouldn't have been said to begin with. I'm more upset there are way worse tweets by celebrities out there demonizing white people or conservatives completely and we are just okay with it.

No no no, in fact any rational person on the right or who is right leaning (such as myself) would tell you Roseanne got her just desserts. I hated the Kneeling in the NFL. Why? Because they are in a work environment and are protesting on the clock. If I went to my workplace and told them I wasn't going to work for the 1st hour so I could show separation between me and big corporation, my boss would fire me, and I'd deserve it. No one is saying Kaepernick didn't have the 'right' to protest, everyone sought issue because he was getting paid at work to do it. If Kaepernick actually wanted to send a message, donate to charity with that overpriced contract he had and make a difference to actually improve lives. Purposely kneeling to cause a reaction will never solve anything, actual charity work will.

Roseanne deserved to be fired. I'd suggest quit lumping all people who consider themselves right wing into a general populous. No one thinks the same, and an overwhelming majority said Roseanne had it coming.

To bad. Didnt think the show had to be cancelled.

I am suggesting that most everyone else assumed that what she said meant that she was racist. Just because that would be your first assumption, wouldn't make you racist. That would be like saying people who feel hungry immediately when they get bored must be fat themselves, or must hate fat people, which obviously isn't necessarily the case, even though it could be.

It also seems odd that the ape part of the joke is being heavily focused on, yet the Muslim part not so much. Why? Both should be equally racist, so why focus more on one than the other? That could imply that being Muslim isn't as bad as being Black, which goes against seeing everyone as equal.

The fact that the franchise Planet of the Apes encompasses a tonne of different stuff, and not just apes, is why what she said shouldn't have been taken as racist so quickly. The apes in the movies try to live in their own little section of the world peacefully, yet the humans come after them and literally terrorize them, so why couldn't her tweet be about terrorism? What about the fact that there are horses in the films? Maybe she was referring to the horses like when somebody says that you have a "horse face"? Sure, she would be insulting their looks, which isn't a nice thing to do either, but truthfully, in terms of the SJW hierarchy of insults, making fun of someone's looks is way less of an issue than making fun of their race.

Do I think she could have said it differently if she meant something else? Sure, but hindsight is 20/20. Why did she apologize then? Well maybe she really meant it as most imagined she did, or maybe she knew darn well that no matter how she tried to explain what she really meant, that the damage was done and the media and SJW's were not going to let this one go until she gave in.

As I said earlier, my first impression of what was said, was what most others thought as well, so I'm not looking to defend her, I'm simply keeping an open mind to what the possibilities could be, since an indirect comment like that could mean something other than what first comes to mind. That doesn't mean she shouldn't try and be more precise and clear about what she means going forward, if she meant something else, but it also means people shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly in certain cases. If a person standing in front of you pulls a gun out for what seems to be no reason, that's a time to make a split second decision and react immediately. When someone tweets something that seems offensive, a period of logical questions and civil discussion should come first before jumping to conclusions and possibly ruining someone's career/life. It is highly uncommon for the police to instantly shoot someone with a gun until they have used as much time is safely possible to assess the situation and make an informed as possible decision.

People aren't perfect, and while social media can be used to fuel things like racism if that's what is intended, it can also be used to completely destroy a person or group regardless of what they really meant. We do so much to try and help criminals to become useful members of society, yet when a productive useful member makes a minor mistake, we basically crucify them. This is another reason why there are so many less free thinkers today, because if you slightly screw up, your not going to just pay an equivalent price, your more likely to pay the ultimate, so why bother?

If she truly meant it as a racist remark, then she should face the natural consequences, but cancelling the show so the cast and fans pay for it as well? The way this should have been handled, is more like how the NFL kneeling situation has been. Initially let the people/fans decide, then if necessary, make it clear that certain things will not be tolerated, and offer options that allow employee's to continue making their own decisions, knowing full well the harsh consequences ahead if they choose to break the rules.

This is the kind of thing that leads to people like Trump becoming President. If the people themselves won't act civilized, what's to think their President would either?

I know who's opinion we need on this subject: Trump's! The voice of decency!

"Bob Iger of ABC called Valerie Jarrett to let her know that “ABC does not tolerate comments like those” made by Roseanne Barr. Gee, he never called President Donald J. Trump to apologize for the HORRIBLE statements made and said about me on ABC. Maybe I just didn’t get the call?", the U.S. president tweets.

Asked to clarify what "horrible statements" he referred to, his fall woman explained: "Look, as you know, the president has been extremely focused, as I just walked through the things going on with the upcoming summit. And the president is focused on North Korea. He's focused on trade deals. And he's focused on rebuilding our military, the economy. And that's what he's spending his time on; not responding to other things." Yeah, clearly he's too focused on the real issues to address the Roseanne Barr controversy (as we've already seen) or substantiate his claims.

So now you have the authoritative view of the matter.

(Do you ever feel like the news is actually secretly one giant comedy program anymore and everyone but you is in on it? I think it's a plausible theory.)

Another covfefe moment by the orange in chief.  Love him or hate him everyone can agree that he is comedy gold.

Yea, I think most on the right would agree that Disney has the right to fire her.  The problem most see is the hypocrisy.  If Roseanne was an Obama/Clinton supporter and called Trump all types of names under the sun, she would have, at most, been forced to apologize and would have been suspended for a week or so.  They already set that precedent with the one lady from ESPN (don't recall her name at the moment.)  But, since she is on the right, they are not going to come to her defense, instead firing her immediately.  The same thing happened to Tim Allen, and his comments were much less brash.  Fox should pick Roseanne up, too, and have a power hour.

That's a BIG stretch.  Did she actually say she believed Clinton was married to Soros' nephew somewhere?  Cause all I see there is mocking someone's policies or maybe the fact that her family is funded by Soros by inserting his name into theirs.

Nice generalization of the internal thoughts of millions of people.  You are quite talented.  If I had no choice but to vote and couldn't have voted third party then I would have voted Trump. In your opinion that makes me "racist, misogynist, and just all-around xenophobic"?  It would have nothing to do with me finding Hilary scary as hell and a poor candidate would it?  I really thought this last cycle would have been the one where a third party candidate might have found some traction (I didn't say Win)  with the main parties putting up such horrible candidates.