ABC's "Roseanne" Spinoff Clears Key Hurdle as Negotiations Heat Up

[Ubiquitous]

Should a new take on the successful revival move forward, the WGA has
made it clear any series will retain the comedian's credit.

The proposed Roseanne spinoff is still very much alive at ABC, and
negotiations are said to have moved to a new phase thanks to
concessions from its erstwhile star.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Roseanne Barr has agreed in
principle to walk away from the characters she helped create in order
to allow Roseanne’s cast and crew to pursue a spinoff in the wake of
the show’s May cancellation due to her racist tweets.

ABC and producer Carsey-Werner are insisting that Barr not participate
financially or creatively in the proposed spinoff, which is said to
revolve around the character played by Sara Gilbert. Other Roseanne
writer-producers and castmembers, including John Goodman and Laurie
Metcalf, are said to be tentatively on board (they would receive the
same fees as previously negotiated for the second season of the
Roseanne revival, which was ABC’s top-rated program this season).

But since Barr would be entitled to substantial fees and backend on any
spinoff of Roseanne (the original series was created by Matt Williams,
but it is also credited as being "based upon a character created by
Barr”), she must waive those rights before any such show could proceed.
With Barr having tentatively agreed to do so, now the negotiation is
over what, if any, one-time payment she should receive as “go-away
money,” as one source puts it.

ABC and Carsey-Werner declined to comment, and sources caution that the
precarious nature of the negotiations and Barr’s volatile disposition
could change the situation before a deal is closed. Even if Barr signs
off on the spinoff, the network would still need to pick it up
officially, though that is highly likely given the tune-in for Roseanne
this season. ABC has yet to announce what will replace the series in
the 8 p.m. Tuesday time slot in the fall.

Barr, who saw her successful show imploded by her racist tweet directed
at former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, is said to be apologetic to
Roseanne’s cast and crew but hasn’t taken 100 percent responsibility
for the series' demise. And even though she would be cut out of
participating in the spinoff, Barr will not lose any financial stake in
the previously produced 10 seasons of the program.

As previously reported, the current plan is to revisit the show while
shifting focus to Sarah Gilbert's character Darlene. Gilbert, an
executive producer on the recent reboot, was instrumental in getting
the gang back together for the now one-off revival season. Goodman (who
plays Dan) and Metcalf (Jackie) are also expected to return, as is the
rest of the cast (save Barr). Behind the camera, much of the creative
team and writing staff are also expected to be on board — showrunner
Bruce Helford included. Executive producer Tom Werner, whose Carsey-
Werner owns the IP, has been involved in the negotiations. Werner's
longtime partner, Marcy Carsey, meanwhile, recently said that she
wouldn't try to revive the series following its cancellation.

The spinoff would give ABC its marquee premiere for the 2018-19 season
back, even if in a different iteration, and would help the network
avoid the many payouts it was on the hook for. At the very least, the
trio of Gilbert, Metcalf and Goodman expected to be paid for at least
10 episodes of the scrapped 11th season, since their options had been
exercised for a $300,000-an-episode salary. (Still unclear is what
happens to the writing staff, including Helford, if the new series
should fall through.)

Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
for new episodes is out of the question. The Disney-owned network was
surprisingly speedy in its decision to cancel Roseanne after the star's
comments, pulling the plug within 12 hours of the tweet in question and
issuing several damning responses.

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Ubiquitous

>
> Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
> talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
> clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
> the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
> for new episodes is out of the question

She’s a fool if she agrees to this.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <99GdnXarF5xPbrvG...@giganews.com>,

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>
> Should a new take on the successful revival move forward, the WGA has
> made it clear any series will retain the comedian's credit.
>
> The proposed Roseanne spinoff is still very much alive at ABC, and
> negotiations are said to have moved to a new phase thanks to
> concessions from its erstwhile star.
>
> Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that Roseanne Barr has agreed in
> principle to walk away from the characters she helped create in order
> to allow Roseanne’s cast and crew to pursue a spinoff in the wake of
> the show’s May cancellation due to her racist tweets.
>
> ABC and producer Carsey-Werner are insisting that Barr not participate
> financially or creatively in the proposed spinoff, which is said to
> revolve around the character played by Sara Gilbert. Other Roseanne
> writer-producers and castmembers, including John Goodman and Laurie
> Metcalf, are said to be tentatively on board (they would receive the
> same fees as previously negotiated for the second season of the
> Roseanne revival, which was ABC’s top-rated program this season).
>
> But since Barr would be entitled to substantial fees and backend on any
> spinoff of Roseanne (the original series was created by Matt Williams,
> but it is also credited as being "based upon a character created by
> Barr”), she must waive those rights before any such show could proceed.
> With Barr having tentatively agreed to do so, now the negotiation is
> over what, if any, one-time payment she should receive as “go-away
> money,” as one source puts it.

This is idiotic. The SJWs and Snowflakes won't allow the show to
continue if Barr profits from it, so they're going to give her millions
up front to forgo profiting from it later?

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[FPP]

Then, clearly, she'll agree.

--
"I'm all the way down now. I can see all the way to the bottom.
They said there were two fathers, one above, one below.
They lied. There was only ever the Devil.
When you look up from the bottom, it was just his reflection, laughing
back down at you." -James Delos (Westworld 5-12-18)

[FPP]

It was Roseanne who floated the idea. HER IDEA.

"A source close to the disgraced comic—who, a source says, is “hunkered
down” with her parents in Utah—tells Page Six: “Roseanne feels so bad
about her antics she is trying to figure out a way to help people harmed
by the cancellation. She’s considering giving up financial and creative
participation in a spinoff so the people she loves can have jobs. Barr
holding on is a stumbling block.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-roseanne-barr-ready-to-give-up-her-cut-of-spin-off-for-cast-and-crew

If there's an idiot here, it's STILL her.

[Neill Massello]

Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:

> She's a fool if she agrees to this.

Depends on the numbers. It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so
it might make sense to sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice
tidy 8 figure sum.

[moviePig]

Why? She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree. And, if she does,
she's "rehabilitated", needing just 2 more miracles to reach sainthood.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Roger Blake]

On 2018-06-18, anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> This is idiotic. The SJWs and Snowflakes won't allow the show to
> continue if Barr profits from it, so they're going to give her millions
> up front to forgo profiting from it later?

Liberals are idiots by definition. Roseanne's tweet was not racist,
it was just a bad joke. (It's not like she called anyone a nigger,
porch monkey, jigaboo, or anything like that.) Now she has a mob of
tolerant, compassionate, open-minded libs after her blood and even
her old show has been redacted from the airwaves. Very Soviet, very
liberal.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[anim8rfsk]

In article <1nqk1b5.kxszls16gvgn1N%nmas...@yahoo.com>,

Yep. And when the new show folds without her, she won't be missing
anything by not getting residuals from nothing.

[BTR1701]

In article <3OEVC.166033$wG5.1...@fx02.iad>,

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/17/2018 8:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> Ubiquitous
> >>
> >> Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
> >> talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
> >> clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
> >> the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
> >> for new episodes is out of the question
> >
> > She’s a fool if she agrees to this.
>
> Why? She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree.

What does she care? She'll never be allowed on screen again and at her
age her options are limited anyway. Just take the money and go live on a
beach somewhere. There are some pretty nice mangers she could buy with
that kind of dough.

[BTR1701]

In article
<super70s-14B04F...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,

super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1nqk1b5.kxszls16gvgn1N%nmas...@yahoo.com>,
> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>

> > It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make sense to
> > sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>

> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
> act, just look at Trump.

No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.

[FPP]

Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.

It's called a false equivalency... but I don't have to explain that to
you. If there is a King of False Equivalence, it's you.

It's kind of likening people paying for roads and schools that exist for
the common good to you wanting a free gun. Only an idiot would make
such a claim... and, lo and behold, one did!

[BTR1701]

In article <pg7o5s$fe6$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/18/18 2:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> > In article
> > <super70s-14B04F...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
> > super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1nqk1b5.kxszls16gvgn1N%nmas...@yahoo.com>,
> >> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
> >>
> >>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make
> >>> sense to sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy
> >>> 8 figure sum.
> >>
> >> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
> >> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
> >> act, just look at Trump.
> >
> > No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
> > 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>
> Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
> equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.

I never compared their 'offenses'. I merely observed that if Kathy
Griffin can pack an auditorium with so little talent going for her, then
anyone can.

> It's kind of likening people paying for roads and schools that exist for
> the common good to you wanting a free gun.

I never said anything about roads and schools, moron.

[trotsky]

LOL! And yet the only "conservative" comedians there are are
politicians in Washington, making you a motherfucking liar yet again.
You should leave.

[trotsky]

Then say something now, dickless wonder. Or just leave.

[FPP]

What do you think taxes pay for, moron? Just abortions?

[moviePig]

On 6/18/2018 2:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <3OEVC.166033$wG5.1...@fx02.iad>,
> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/17/2018 8:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous
>>>>
>>>> Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
>>>> talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
>>>> clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
>>>> the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
>>>> for new episodes is out of the question
>>>

>>> She’s a fool if she agrees to this.

>>
>> Why? She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree.
>
> What does she care? She'll never be allowed on screen again and at her
> age her options are limited anyway. Just take the money and go live on a
> beach somewhere. There are some pretty nice mangers she could buy with
> that kind of dough.

She cares about her image, imo, and doesn't want to be thought racist.

[Rhino]

On 2018-06-18 3:49 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 6/18/18 2:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <super70s-14B04F...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
>>   super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1nqk1b5.kxszls16gvgn1N%nmas...@yahoo.com>,
>>>   nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>>>
>>>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make sense to
>>>> sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>>>
>>> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>>> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>>> act, just look at Trump.
>>
>> No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>> 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>
> Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
> equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.
>

Valerie Jarrett is an entire race of people? Who knew....

> It's called a false equivalency... but I don't have to explain that to
> you.  If there is a King of False Equivalence, it's you.
>

Roseanne disparaged Valerie Jarrett, the person. I saw nothing that
suggested she disparaged all people of her "race". (I assume that means
black people. But in my opinion, the very word "race" is racist, at
least as used by most people. I think there is only one "race", the
Human Race.)

If you can't distinguish between an individual and a group of people,
I'd say it's YOU that is indulging in False Equivalence. You *want* the
tweet to have been about all black people so that you can get on your
high horse and bloviate about racism. That doesn't make it true though.

> It's kind of likening people paying for roads and schools that exist for
> the common good to you wanting a free gun.  Only an idiot would make
> such a claim... and, lo and behold, one did!
>


--

Rhino

[Adam H. Kerman]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On 6/18/2018 2:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/17/2018 8:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>>Ubiquitous

>>>>>Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
>>>>>talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
>>>>>clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
>>>>>the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
>>>>>for new episodes is out of the question

>>>>She's a fool if she agrees to this.

>>>Why? She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree.

>>What does she care? She'll never be allowed on screen again and at her
>>age her options are limited anyway. Just take the money and go live on a
>>beach somewhere. There are some pretty nice mangers she could buy with
>>that kind of dough.

>She cares about her image, imo, and doesn't want to be thought racist.

Of all the things Roseanne does not care about, it's her image. The
moment she got any power at all, discovered she had an audience, she
began wreaking havoc and upsetting anyone who wasn't in her audience.

[BTR1701]

In article <pg8f8t$ul4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Even that doesn't exist because 'human' is a species, not a race.

[BTR1701]

In article <JnOVC.207016$R51.1...@fx03.iad>,

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/18/2018 2:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <3OEVC.166033$wG5.1...@fx02.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/17/2018 8:43 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>> Ubiquitous
> >>>>
> >>>> Things have been surprisingly quiet on the Roseanne front since initial
> >>>> talks about the proposed spinoff during the first week of June. ABC is
> >>>> clearly incentivized to bring back any iteration of the No. 1 show of
> >>>> the year but clearly recognizes that Barr receiving any compensation
> >>>> for new episodes is out of the question
> >>>
> >>> She’s a fool if she agrees to this.
> >>
> >> Why? She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree.
> >
> > What does she care? She'll never be allowed on screen again and at her
> > age her options are limited anyway. Just take the money and go live on a
> > beach somewhere. There are some pretty nice mangers she could buy with
> > that kind of dough.
>
> She cares about her image, imo, and doesn't want to be thought racist.

All evidence to the contrary.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Neill Massello
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > She's a fool if she agrees to this.
>
> Depends on the numbers. It'll be a while before she gets a third act,
> so it might make sense to sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice
> tidy 8 figure sum.

The article only mentioned her giving up any profits from the spin-off show
but she may be better off selling all the rights to the show, as I’d guess she
won’t be getting any royalties now that the series has been memory-holed.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > She’s a fool if she agrees to this.
>
> Why?  She's a dog-in-a-manger if she doesn't agree.  And, if she does,
> she's "rehabilitated", needing just 2 more miracles to reach sainthood.

Will she though? Have any of the victims of the #MeToo movement been
rehabilitated? And Roseanne’s sin is far worse, as she’s a Trump supporter.

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > BTR1701

> >
> > No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
> > 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>
> Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
> equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.

Of course she did nothing of the sort, she was trolling an individual
and not an entire race and someone who doesn’t even look Black
and does kinda look like a character from The Planet of the Apes.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/1527620575129_0.png

[FPP]

On 6/18/18 10:23 AM, Rhino wrote:
> On 2018-06-18 3:49 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 6/18/18 2:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <super70s-14B04F...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
>>>   super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1nqk1b5.kxszls16gvgn1N%nmas...@yahoo.com>,
>>>> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make
>>>>> sense to
>>>>> sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>>>>
>>>> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>>>> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>>>> act, just look at Trump.
>>>
>>> No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>>> 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
>> equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.
>>
> Valerie Jarrett is an entire race of people? Who knew....

Barr said "muslim brotherhood".
Care to venture a guess what that means, genius.

Try hard... and don't be ashamed to ask for help.

Or how 'bout the one where she said "I hope all the jews leave UC Davis
& then it gets nuked!"

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/29/17406014/roseanne-racism-abc-trump-twitter

Keep talking... you just sound more stupid as it goes on.

[FPP]

On 6/18/18 10:23 AM, Rhino wrote:

Jesus, Rhino... pay attention. Barr has been at this for YEARS.
You're referencing just the latest hate tweet.

[FPP]

Still clinging to the idea that racism doesn't exist because "semantics"?

[FPP]

Yes. In THAT particular tweet.
So... what about all the others? Don't they count?

[FPP]

Mental illness doesn't follow any particular political ideology.

But supporting a child abuser isn't exactly anything to crow about, Ed.

[Ubiquitous]

atr...@mac.com wrote:

> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:

>>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make sense to
>>> sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>>
>> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>> act, just look at Trump.
>
>No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.

Speaking of which, I noticed Kathy Griffin jumped on the failed comedienne
Samantha Bree bandwagon and repeated her comment about Melania Trump.

Poor, poor, Kathy Griffin!

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[FPP]

On 6/18/18 8:10 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>
>>>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make sense to
>>>> sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>>>
>>> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>>> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>>> act, just look at Trump.
>>
>> No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>> 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>
> Speaking of which, I noticed Kathy Griffin jumped on the failed comedienne
> Samantha Bree bandwagon and repeated her comment about Melania Trump.
>
> Poor, poor, Kathy Griffin!
>

And, yet, it's Roseanne that's still cancelled, while "failed" Sam Bee
and "failed" Kathy Griffin are still working.
Imagine that!

Failed? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

[NoBody]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:32:52 -0400, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/18/18 8:10 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> atr...@mac.com wrote:
>>> super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>>
>>>>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make sense to
>>>>> sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy 8 figure sum.
>>>>
>>>> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>>>> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>>>> act, just look at Trump.
>>>
>>> No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>>> 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>>
>> Speaking of which, I noticed Kathy Griffin jumped on the failed comedienne
>> Samantha Bree bandwagon and repeated her comment about Melania Trump.
>>
>> Poor, poor, Kathy Griffin!
>>
>And, yet, it's Roseanne that's still cancelled, while "failed" Sam Bee
>and "failed" Kathy Griffin are still working.

Griffin is working? She seems to be obnoxious for freel.

[Ubiquitous]

I noticed she's giving someone random a pair of tickets to her next concert.
The runner-up gets four.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 08:10:42 -0400, web...@polaris.net wrote:

>atr...@mac.com wrote:
>> FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/18/18 2:31 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>> > super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> >> nmas...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
>
>>> >>> It'll be a while before she gets a third act, so it might make
>>> >>> sense to sell all of her rights in "Roseanne" for a nice tidy
>>> >>> 8 figure sum.
>>> >>
>>> >> With her notoriety she could probably easily pack an arena full of
>>> >> aggrieved conservative yahoos if she's interested in touring a standup
>>> >> act, just look at Trump.
>>> >
>>> > No doubt. If Kathy Griffin can still draw arenas full of aggrieved
>>> > 'progressive' yahoos, there's a market for anything.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I guess Kathy Griffin disparaging one asshole is roughly
>>> equivalent to Roseanne disparaging entire races of people.
>>
>>I never compared their 'offenses'. I merely observed that if Kathy
>>Griffin can pack an auditorium with so little talent going for her, then
>>anyone can.
>>
>>> It's kind of likening people paying for roads and schools that exist for
>>> the common good to you wanting a free gun.
>>
>>I never said anything about roads and schools, moron.
>

>That's just FPP's way of admitting he has lost the debate.
>
>Again.

And cowardly FPP has fled once again.