Roseanne Barr: Defending S.E. Cupp is more disgusting than Photoshopping a penis in her mouth

Roseanne Barr is running as a “feminist” candidate in the Green Party presidential primary.

She’s such an advocate for women that she thinks defending S.E. Cupp and the rest of the conservative gender traitors is vile. More disgusting than the sexual degradation of Cupp in retaliation for her political views.

Gosh, why not go all the way and say Cupp was asking for it?

Robin Morgan, who co-founded the Women’s Media Center with Gloria Steinem, responded politely.

Funny, when it’s a member of the feminist sisterhood like Roseanne Barr, Morgan can’t quite manage to summon any outrage.

Roseanne reiterated her belief that the virtual rape of a conservative woman should be ignored.

Morgan went on the defensive in her final reply.

Typical. The most important thing to Morgan is ensuring that no one mistake her defense of S.E. Cupp for an endorsement of pro-life views. Gasp! Can’t let anyone think you agree with any “atrocious” conservative positions. (As if that was likely to happen.)

Don’t expect Morgan and her Ms. Magazine buddies to call for condemnations of Roseanne Barr’s words anytime soon. She’s a progressive; she gets a pass.


Roseanne doubles down and finally tweets what she’s really thinking: S.E. Cupp was asking for it.

  • Pat Bateman

    Only thing to see here is Robin Morgan: “We’re not defending [SE Cupp’s] atrocious politics”

    Balanced reporting for once. Surprised Twitchy let that slip in.

    • Nobama2012


  • Marty Luther

    Thought police like Rosanne allow a woman to be degraded because they don’t like her opinions. That (flawed) logic works both ways-> If Roseanne were attacked for her LOOKS by Hustler, then she should not expect or accept defense from those that disagree with her politics. For this reason alone, she proves herself an ill-informed, close-minded liberal drone.

  • Richard Blaine

    Didn’t Roseanne once claim to have performed fellatio for pay between sets in the comedy club parking lots? Can’t get any more self-hating than that. Must be why she has no problem with Hustler’s action.

    • Nathan Ballein

      Roseanne’s just mad that Hustler didn’t want the pics.

  • Noah David Simon

    Bomb Gaza with @TheRealRoseanne

  • Robert

    I thought roseanne was a man,darn.

    • PurpAv

      Its still a scientific mystery.

  • Lauren

    Rush makes a hint about a woman who lied about her age who wants the government to pay for all of her sexual escapades, and gets his advertisers threatened and intimidated and the pres even makes a phone call, but ROSEANNE makes a heinous statement like this and all is well? This statement I find more sickening than the picture. More proof the left is NOT about ideals and is ONLY about the bitterness inside of them so blatantly eating them alive. It’s about being in a political party where you can behave however you want, and where the anger that’s been feasting inside of you can be free to reign. Really. It’s SO carnal. It’s NOT about ideals.

    • delijdewolfe

      If you believe in ideals, then why are you not even bothering to fact check Rush Limbaugh? He didn’t “make a hint”. He stated:

      “What does it say, about the college college co-ed Susan Fluke, who goes before a Congressional Committe and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”

      If that sounds like a “hint” then I have a bridge to sell you. If you watched her testimony or read the transcript, (which you didn’t) you would’ve realized that nothing Rush stated was remotely true. The fact that he doubled down on the hyperbole a day later doesn’t make it true either. He stated:

      “The woman comes forth with this, frankly, hilarious claim that she’s having so much sex – and her buddies with her – that she can’t afford it. And not one person says ‘well did you ever think about, maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'”

      Well, the reason no one asked her to back off is because she NEVER made such a claim or statement. And no, she never lied about her age, because she never even mentioned her age in the proceedings. In every single interview she has given, not once has her age been misquoted nor did she lie about it.

      Allowing people such as Rush Limbaugh to feed you twisted tales of what THEY want you to believe, is just as hypocritical as the lost ideals that you claim to condemn. Rush Limbaugh tells people what they want to hear, because he knows most of his listeners won’t bother to look it up for themselves. He’s in it for the ratings. Fact check him against his source material. Otherwise you are feasting on the same bitterness that you claim to oppose.

      And using Roseanne as proof for anything remotely political is just wierd. NO political ideology can ever lay claim to being the poster child of facts or the truth. As much as Rush would like to insult the intelligence of his audience, politics is not rooting for a football team. A world that consists of only a conservative or liberal philosophy is a barren wasteland. Life is far more complex than that.

      • Lauren

        I fact check everything. People that listen to Rush are not mindless drones. He didn’t say she WAS a slut. There is a huge difference between calling someone an outright slut and saying anybody else with this type of behavior would be deemed a prostitute– it’s called making an inference to make a point.
        Demanding someone else pay for personal b.c. is outrageous, and furthermore, lying just to make a scene about a college with certain beliefs that you oppose is wrong, period. She went to that college knowing they didn’t provide b.c. It was a staged scene from the beginning.

        • delijdewolfe

          Thank you for your reply Awaken. I sincerely apologzie for the delay in responding to your comment. I will address your 2nd paragraph first. You stated:

          “Demanding someone else pay for personal b.c. is outrageous”

          Ms. Fluke,never stated that. You did not read the transcript of her testimony or watch it. Not once in her testimony did she ever state that she is requesting that other people pay for coverage. If, as you say, you fact check everything, you missed or ignored the parts where she explained Georgetowns b.c. policy.

          “She went to that college knowing they didn’t provide b.c.”

          Both you and Rush are wrong and you didn’t fact check this. Georgetown covers b.c. so long as it is not used for contraception. Ms. Fluke stated that fact in her testimony:

          “A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance, because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.”

          and then she stated her point concerning the issue here:

          “Despite verification of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay — so clearly, polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.”

          Again, the issue and her testimony was not about sex. It was about the fact that b.c. is legislatively being treated solely as a contraceptive measure when, in fact, it is much more than that. In other words, it isn’t about contraception, it’s about covering the alternative benefits of b.c. Calling it solely contraception or b.c. is a misnomer.

          Additionally, her testimony was directed towards private insurance coverage. Funded not by taxpayers, the government nor any university/school or anyone else. It was refering to private insurance funded by the student who wish to pay for such coverage. That’s it.

          In regards to your 1st paragraph:

          An inference is derived from a logical conclusion represented by what is deemed to be a fact. He made an “inference” based on distorting the truth. And to call it “distorting” the truth is being kind. It isn’t a hint or logical inference if someone knowingly misrepresents the facts.

          Rush knew the facts of the story and instead of approaching the issue rationally or critically, he witheld that information and represented distortions as fact. In other words he made an “inference” based on lying.

          Rush is not an idiot. He knew the real story. He knew what she was there for and he knew that not once in her testimony did she even mention b.c. for contraception. If a person is honest in their criticism, they make an inference based on the facts that they have available. Rush didn’t do that. You can call that inference, if you wish. I call it intentional deceptiion.

          Additionally, in his apology, the first thing he states is:

          “For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.”

          Sure he can poke fun of the absurd. No problem there. Yet, if he intentionally misrepresent the “absurdity” to begin with, then exactly what does his absurdity represent? It surely doesn’t represent the truth. And even though he knows the truth, he, for a third time, distorts the facts again by stating:

          “I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”

          Again, her testimony had absolutely nothing to do with “sexual recreation”. That discussion point was of his own making. Not once did she make such a statement in her testimony and not once in his apology did he find it necessary to address the fact that he intentionally misrepresented Ms. Fluke.

          In regards to your comment that “People that listen to Rush are not mindless drones.”

          As far as the intelligence of his audience, that is not for me to say. Although, I do find it ironic, that you would defend the intelligence or rationale of an entire demographic without knowing what that demographic consists of; which includes listeners who do not agree with him or you. Generally speaking, you are an individual, and as such, neither one of us is in a position to speak for an entire unknown demographic. The same goes for Rush or anyone else. Unless of course, you subscribe to groupthink, which is just as slippery a slope. Personally, if anyone uses terms such as “We…” or “Americans…” or believes they are tasked with representing an entire group of unkowns, I would question their motives and/or their vanity.

          But I digress. To be clear, although I can take issue with certain aspects of Rush’s audience, my criticism is not rellegated specifically to them. I would level the same criticism to any person (audience or orator) who relies solely on the orator to provide facts without checking to see if those facts are correct. That goes for anyone. My issue is not with Rush’s audience. My issue is with Rush.

          Again I apologize for the delay. If you wish to discuss it further, I would be more than happy to respond in kind.

          Best Wishes,

  • Lefty

    I know someone out there can photoshop an image of Barr in a similar situation.

    I can’t draw a straight line with a ruler, otherwise I’d give it a go.

    • SpaceRacer423

      Why would you do that?!?!?!
      People would claw their eyes out,
      there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


    As for Barr, I knew she could talk trash, but then she is trash and I didn’t know that trash could talk. She’s always been a no-talent in the realm of reality and intelligence. An unfunny, lost vessel of foolishness.

  • beefrank

    Rosa who?

  • anjullyn

    And sometimes old hag has-beens tweet outrageously vile things to get attention.

  • SpaceRacer423

    huh, the MOST disgusting thing I can think of is Roseanne with a $%&$ in her …***puking loudly..cant finish sentence***

    • PurpAv

      She’s a 2-bagger. One for her, and one for YOU.

  • c_fo

    I’d rather read Becky, Darlene, DJ, or Aunt Jackie’s tweets.

  • BillyOsiris

    What it comes down to IS in fact, reminiscent of the Fallwell case. The difference between slander and satire is whether people can tell it’s not real. It’s obviously photoshopped. I’m not denying that it’s utterly tasteless or juvenile (it IS Larry Flint after all), but I think they were just doing whatever they could to get under her skin. Unless you threw in some religious symbolism, it would be hard to be more offensive than that. I’m not entirely sure about the misogyny part, honestly. It’s no more sexist than ANY issue of hustler. We do have this thing called the first amendment though, and it wasn’t objectifying women as a whole, it was objectifying HER. Would it be sexist if it was a picture of Justin Bieber instead? She wasn’t crying, in smeared mascara, etc . All things you might see in real porn. I believe in equality, and that means just that. I don’t believe in hypersensitivity, particularly when things like man-bashing are not only ok, but encouraged. Particularly by someone like Barr.

  • Dave Phelps

    Wonder which one of her 9000 personalities attacked S.E. and which will defend her? Roseanne is not a credible person. She’s an actress and a bad one at that.

  • Abiss

    Roseanne Barr? Wasn’t she famous way back in the 80’s or something? I can only surmise the miserably ugly scrunt was better looking – and funnier – back then. (Hey, it’s true. This misogyny thing is FUN! Who knew?)

  • torpedoman2002

    This doesn’t suppirse me. Rosanne has never had any morals. She has nothing but anger against anyone including herself. She needs help.

  • Lisa Graas

    Funny how the Left thinks you can’t support women and children in the womb at the same time.

  • PurpAv

    Sounds like a green light to produce disgusting p-shops of Barr to me. I’m just saying…

  • Mark81150

    Barr is a pig.. always was.. and who elected her to speak for all women? Barr has the IQ of a brick.

    • Harold Gideon

      Please do not compare Roseanne to pigs.

      Pigs are nice. They don’t smell. And they don’t fart as part of their act. Roseanne does.

  • Michael Ferguson

    Humm, let me list all the reasons why someone should listen to Mrs. Barr;


    In closing I would like to point out that for a comedian she is one heck of a nut farmer.

  • jeannie stanley

    where does she stand on islam with their treatment of girls and women???what about fgm? or stoning?will she speak out then or side with the one who will chop your head off??

  • Harold Gideon

    The only way that Roseanne Barr would be found in a magazine spread if it is in an edition of “Tubalards of America.”

    Roseanne would be the No. 1 tubalard. She is so fat she is working on her fourth neck. She is so fat that she has more chins than a Chinese phone directory. She is so fat that one meal of hers could feed several nations in Africa for a year.