Who the hell is "Charlie Rose" anyway?

[amicus]

I watched an interview last night on PBS (Poor Boys Socialist Society) in which Charlie Rose moved deftly from a half hour with George Soros, who has given 27.5 million dollars to left wing groups to defeat Bush and the Republicans, to a final half hour with Adrianna Huffington, (Who found God with the Liberals) I think, both immigrants who speak with an accent and both somewhat to the left of Karl Marx...and wondered....just who the hell is Charlie Rose?

Oh, I must add, also saw an interview on Fox off all places of Susan Esteridge (sp?) who has just published a book called, "Souless" mimicking the best selling book by Ann Coulter "Godless" even to the point of an identical cover layout featuring blonde women in black dresses with exposed mammaries...

Well...back to Charlie....I set forth on my trusted Toshiba and the wacky web to track down a bio and criticism on aforesaid Mr. Rose.

Their ain't nuthing there! I went all the way to the end of the internet and back and apparently no one has a critical word about good ole Charlie Rose...wassup with that?

a curious amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Answer to thread title: He's a vain, smug and santimonious liberal who thinks "conventional wisdom" is the real thing.

 

[amicus]

Ah, 'Crackerbarrel' philosophy, hmmm....but he sure gets around in low places, thanks...


amicus...

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I don't think Charlie Rose is all that hard to find. 30 seconds of searching gave me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Rose

Charlie Rose has been around a long time. To say he leans towards the liberal is a little simplistic. He seems more of a constitutionalist to me.

I've seen the CEO of EXXON, the head of the NY Stock Exchange, head of the Federal Reserve and other pillars of the conservative world on his show. He treats them all equally in the interest of journalism. He does tend to invite those people who are newest in the news to his show. Right now that happens to be the liberals since the conservatives are much too interested in damage control to appear.

 

[CharleyH]

I watched an interview last night on PBS (Poor Boys Socialist Society) in which Charlie Rose moved deftly from a half hour with George Soros, who has given 27.5 million dollars to left wing groups to defeat Bush and the Republicans, to a final half hour with Adrianna Huffington, (Who found God with the Liberals) I think, both immigrants who speak with an accent and both somewhat to the left of Karl Marx...and wondered....just who the hell is Charlie Rose?

Oh, I must add, also saw an interview on Fox off all places of Susan Esteridge (sp?) who has just published a book called, "Souless" mimicking the best selling book by Ann Coulter "Godless" even to the point of an identical cover layout featuring blonde women in black dresses with exposed mammaries...

Well...back to Charlie....I set forth on my trusted Toshiba and the wacky web to track down a bio and criticism on aforesaid Mr. Rose.

Their ain't nuthing there! I went all the way to the end of the internet and back and apparently no one has a critical word about good ole Charlie Rose...wassup with that?

a curious amicus...

I have no idea, but I think he was some sort of news correspondant. I am more up on Tokyo Rose.

I do take issue on your assessment of PBS, though. You have defined it in brackets as:

PBS (Poor Boys Socialist Society)

as with one extra S, which I think is from your own personal Rebublican fascist leanings.

 

[amicus]

Yes, Jenny, I also found hundreds of links, bio's et cetera, I was looking for some critical reviews and perhaps a statement of his philosophy or political stance, some criticism of him and found none.

Let it be said, that I often was the program for the very reason you stated, breaking or relevant news items and personalities...have watched for years...it was the two back to back interviews I mentioned and his seeming acceptance and comfort with the statements by both that prompted me to look for some definitive criticism.

thanx...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=CharleyH]I have no idea, but I think he was some sort of news correspondant. I am more up on Tokyo Rose.

I do take issue on your assessment of PBS, though. You have defined it in brackets as:



as with one extra S, which I think is from your own personal Rebublican fascist leanings. [/QUOTE]

~~~~~

Ah, Charlie...you usually come across as somewhat fair minded and rational, well some of the time...it would take someone deaf and blind to not comprehend what has always been the PBS mantra, far left of center, everyone knows it, openly admits it and even shows pride in it as the 'true believers' have faith in socialism and collectivist leanings of modern liberals.

And if you are gonna get pissy and call me a fascist, you should at least look up the word before you use it.

I am a radical of course, but for individual rights and liberies, not the grope grope that fascists and communists and liberals prefer.

amicus...

 

[3113]

Ami, have you been up late again watching PBS? We're going to have to change your medications so you get to sleep earlier. You know watching public supported liberal television isn't good for your blood pressure. You're only allowed to watch Capitalist Commercial Television with a lot of product placement for aging seniors (like those cute little chairs on wheels that will let you speed around through Wal-Mart).

Bad Ami. Turn off the television and go mulch the garden.

 

[CharleyH]

[/I][/B]

~~~~~

Ah, Charlie...you usually come across as somewhat fair minded and rational, well some of the time...it would take someone deaf and blind to not comprehend what has always been the PBS mantra, far left of center, everyone knows it, openly admits it and even shows pride in it as the 'true believers' have faith in socialism and collectivist leanings of modern liberals.

And if you are gonna get pissy and call me a fascist, you should at least look up the word before you use it.

I am a radical of course, but for individual rights and liberies, not the grope grope that fascists and communists and liberals prefer.

amicus...

Oh, I have read your Nation States mantra, Ami. Yes, it's obvious to me why you have added the extra S in the PBS or PBSS as you call it socialist, or call it like you see it from a far right capatilist, or "Schutzstaffel" perspective. Both S's make their point.

I am not ever pissy with you unless you really enjoy golden showers? Oh SORRY FAR TOO LIBERAL of a statement!

You are not really radical Ami. You are not for gay rights? That's an individual right, isn't it? Not for abortion rights and choices? Those are rights and choices, aren't they? You think a family means wife bearing your children, and that is hardly radical.

What IS ... RAD about you, Ami?

 

[gauchecritic]

~~~~~

And if you are gonna get pissy and call me a fascist, you should at least look up the word before you use it.

I don't think she needed to look it up, she has quite an extensive vocabulary. And the definition is fairly well known.

3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

Back to CR. You often watch his program for ineresting/breaking news/personalities and you only just now decided to back hand him?

(cod? herring? sturgeon? muff? Well something smells fishy)

 

[amicus]

CharleyH]Oh, I have read your Nation States mantra, Ami. Yes, it's obvious to me why you have added the extra S in the PBS or PBSS as you call it socialist, or call it like you see it from a far right capatilist, or "Schutzstaffel" perspective. Both S's make their point.

I am not ever pissy with you unless you really enjoy golden showers? Oh SORRY FAR TOO LIBERAL of a statement!

You are not really radical Ami. You are not for gay rights? That's an individual right, isn't it? Not for abortion rights and choices? Those are rights and choices, aren't they? You think a family means wife bearing your children, and that is hardly radical.

What IS ... RAD about you, Ami?

[/I]

~~~~~~

Urinating on someone is something I might do if I discovered a liberal on fire, otherwise, if it is a 'liberal' thing, I thought it was just crude, nasty and pervented, but to each his own.

And that philosophy applies to homosexuality also, to each his own, but not in the schools, where captive children can be influenced about gender and lifestyles, not in the churches when again young people can be victimizeed and sure as hell not in the law as an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage and the natural divisions between male and female...you are free to travel about the planet, just not in my front room.

And about abortion...silly girl...everyone knows the basic argument is about when 'human life' comes into being, few except Pure, perhaps, have any desire just to take the life of a child for conveniences sake.

And of course, there is no legitimate argument to challenge that fact that life begins at the moment of conception, only the fuzzy headed secular humanists to whom nothing is absolute, and nothing can be accurately defined, except their certainty of 'their' right to destroy innocent human life, that is sure as hell absolute to them...but not to the rest of the world.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

[/I]

~~~~~~

Urinating on someone is something I might do if I discovered a liberal on fire, otherwise, if it is a 'liberal' thing, I thought it was just crude, nasty and pervented, but to each his own.

And that philosophy applies to homosexuality also, to each his own, but not in the schools, where captive children can be influenced about gender and lifestyles, not in the churches when again young people can be victimizeed and sure as hell not in the law as an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage and the natural divisions between male and female...you are free to travel about the planet, just not in my front room.

And about abortion...silly girl...everyone knows the basic argument is about when 'human life' comes into being, few except Pure, perhaps, have any desire just to take the life of a child for conveniences sake.

And of course, there is no legitimate argument to challenge that fact that life begins at the moment of conception, only the fuzzy headed secular humanists to whom nothing is absolute, and nothing can be accurately defined, except their certainty of 'their' right to destroy innocent human life, that is sure as hell absolute to them...but not to the rest of the world.

amicus...

We will never see eye to eye (you are funny BTW ), but never call yourself radical, Ami. You are the 80% follower/ the common denominator type who we radicals can rarely get thru to because of your stubborn 18th century ways. But you know what? We do eventually get thru - and that's why we have always and will always affect and change the world. We could not do that without your types, though. God we are hard workers! lol

 

[amicus]

I try...now and again to add some humor...

The 'real' meaning of the word, 'radical' Charley, not the political bastardized one, I am a radical for human freedom and for a free market system as I know and can prove that only capitalism and the innate workings of the invisible hand can maintain and support human dignity through human rights.

I don't mind dreamers, such as you, who think only if you were fully provided for, never had a worry, never had to work that your life would be just ducky.

Many people feel that way (no one thinks it, contradiction in terms) that if only some system would guarantee their entire existence and remove the necessity for decision making away from them...there is such a system...it has been tried over and over again...it is called, slavery.

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

I try...now and again to add some humor...

The 'real' meaning of the word, 'radical' Charley, not the political bastardized one, I am a radical for human freedom and for a free market system as I know and can prove that only capitalism and the innate workings of the invisible hand can maintain and support human dignity through human rights.

I don't mind dreamers, such as you, who think only if you were fully provided for, never had a worry, never had to work that your life would be just ducky.

Many people feel that way (no one thinks it, contradiction in terms) that if only some system would guarantee their entire existence and remove the necessity for decision making away from them...there is such a system...it has been tried over and over again...it is called, slavery.

amicus...

I understand you are for free market, Ami, but you are not radical for human freedom, which you did put first in your post? Capatilism and freedom are linked in the consumer market - you don't seem to get that - perhaps you should look up free market and capatilism?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I have no idea, but I think he was some sort of news correspondant. I am more up on Tokyo Rose.

I do take issue on your assessment of PBS, though. You have defined it in brackets as:



as with one extra S, which I think is from your own personal Rebublican fascist leanings.

"Fascist" is an ugly term. You might want to re-think tossing it around casually here.

Tokyo Rose reportedly owned a Japanese gift store in Chicago for many years after the war. I went there with a friend back in the late 1970s, and we spent the whole time speculating which elderly Japanese woman might be her.

 

[amicus]

Charlie...the means by which we exchange the goods by which we live, food, shelter, clothing...et cetera, are inextricably bound up in human freedon and the protected rights of life, liberty and property, you can not separate the two.

All other 'rights' and so called rights are derived from the right to freely choose how one lives and with whom one associates...

One is not permitted, in a free society, to take another human life without consequence, one is not permitted in a free society to violate the individual rights of any person.

amicus...

 

[stewertjames1]

one opinion

charlie rose for my money is one of the very best interviewers out there. an interviewer who never lets his opinion get in the way of the guest. you can watch past shows on google video. hes interviewed pretty much every major figure in the world...both in artistic and political circles. he runs a classy show with virtually no commercials. if only more interviewers were like him. after him the closest you will find is probably larry king...who has said he envys charlie roses format. i would encourage you to watch more shows before passing judgement. thats just my two cents.

 

[CharleyH]

Charlie...the means by which we exchange the goods by which we live, food, shelter, clothing...et cetera, are inextricably bound up in human freedon and the protected rights of life, liberty and property, you can not separate the two.

All other 'rights' and so called rights are derived from the right to freely choose how one lives and with whom one associates....

I would beg to differ - LOL - actually I would not beg - lol. Define a 'right' in this context related to your constitutional amendments.

 

[amicus]

stewertjames1]charlie rose for my money is one of the very best interviewers out there. an interviewer who never lets his opinion get in the way of the guest. you can watch past shows on google video. hes interviewed pretty much every major figure in the world...both in artistic and political circles. he runs a classy show with virtually no commercials. if only more interviewers were like him. after him the closest you will find is probably larry king...who has said he envys charlie roses format. i would encourage you to watch more shows before passing judgement. thats just my two cents.

[/I]

~~~~~~

Hello Stewart and welcome to the forum...I can't stand Larry King, but I fully agree, Charlie Rose, for all the reasons you mentioned, is the best of the best, and I have watched dozens if not hundreds of his shows over the years.

I had comment within the past year of his interview with an oil company executive and stated that he gave a fair stage to the gentlemen when most others did not.

My only real point was...is Charlie Rose really that objective in his approach or does his selection of guests tilt the table demonstrably so, Roxanne tends to think it does and I, without deep study, tend to agree...he does seem to favor liberal causes and Public Broadcasting, both radio and television are over all very left wing oriented.

thanks again...


amicus...

 

[stewertjames1]

hmmmmmmm

well i certainly dont want to wade into a debate like that. whether hes liberal or not is no issue. if more people watched him they would be better informed i think. he did an interesting interview with robert mcnamara former defense secretary and gave him some hard time. first time i ever saw him do that. it was interesting. but in a culture that simply doesnt have god chat/ interviews/ conversation i have his show high on a pedstal.