Fast Eddie Schultz Suspended, Watch Him Plead for His Job (Update: Malkinalanche! And Ingraham Accepts Schultz’s apology)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: Michelle Malkin links, writing:
Aaron Worthing reacts just right to the idea that Schultz is “sincere.”
Yes, he sincerely wants to hang on to his corporate job…
Read his whole post. Amen, amen, amen.
High praise indeed.
Update (II): And how did I forget that I saw that Laura Ingraham accepted his apology? That’s the fine and classy thing to do, but are we going to see a deeper change in personality and persona for Fast Eddie, or just a decision not to to that one thing again? I have seen no evidence of the former.
———————————
Of course that is my interpretive gloss on a video I will show you in a moment.
I think that its important to start by pointing out that Ed Schultz has been a dishonest, hateful P.O.S. for years. He’s literally the Alan Grayson of talk radio. Like here he is taking criticism with grace and humility:
Anyway, yesterday on his radio show, he allegedly overstepped a line by calling Laura Ingraham a slut. Via Radio Equalizer:
Now I say “allegedly” because… well, come on now, he has been a hateful, dishonest P.O.S. and now suddenly they are noticing? Talking about ripping Dick Cheney’s heart out…
…is okay, but calling Ingraham a slut is out of bounds suddenly? It is arguably worse, but we are talking a really fine line. I am more inclined to think this is about making the new owners at Comcast happy than MSNBC suddenly developing standards. I mean this is the same network that didn’t bat an eye when Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a “big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick.” I mean seriously he looks at this…
And that is what he sees? You have to be filled with some sort of hate to feel that way about her. Hate her beliefs, fine, but while there is no such thing as objective beauty, let’s say you have to have a very unusual concept of beauty to consider her ugly.
And needless to say that all of this is example #5,982 of the hard left’s resentment of sexy conservative women. I mean for evidence sake (and not at all any rule 5 needs), here’s proof that Ms. Ingraham fits that pattern:
And notice how often their insults and vulgar comments fit a pattern. They imagine Ann Coulter being raped. And Michelle Malkin? They call this lovely Asian-American woman a hooker, which just happens to fit with a popular stereotype of Asian women. I am sure that is a coincidence. And on and on. A few years ago Playboy ran an article listing the conservative women they would like to “hate f__k.” Yeah, Malkin was on that list, as was Laura Ingraham and a number of other frankly beautiful and sexy conservative women. Because what has happened with those on the hard left is that they have mixed up sex and politics in a way that is genuinely unhealthy. They hate their politics but they want their bodies, and that only makes them even angrier. So they imagine them being raped, or being a slut, or being a whore, because that makes it possible to imagine they might end up f__king them.
(Sorry to be that crude, but there is no other word that fits than “f__king.” It’s not making love. It’s not even having sex. It is far more animalistic than that.)
So anyway, Schultz was suspended from the network. The official release says it will be for a week. But in his announcement of his suspension, he says it is indefinite:
And really you get the sense listening to him that he is genuinely worried. He is also brazenly dishonest, pretending that he cares about truth, honesty or character. Indeed, he only promises never to use those words again, not to never use insulting language again. I suppose he won’t dare to call Ingraham a whore the following week, but do you think he will stop being a dishonest, hateful P.O.S.? Perhaps if his little speech demonstrated any broader sense of remorse I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but he didn’t do that, did he. He acted like as if he was normally a perfectly reasonable voice, who just had one outburst, which is the essential dishonesty in the speech.
And indeed, I will reiterate my theory that the entire Ed Schultz routine is an act anyway. He has decided to be exactly what the hard left imagines Rush Limbaugh to be. Not that Limbaugh is all those things, but there are enough on the hard left who believe that he is those things that they think Schultz is simply fighting fire with fire. But I cannot believe that Schultz is so deluded as to actually believe what he is shoveling. He is like Alan Grayson, a carny barker pretending to be a flamethrower.
Hat tip: Mediaite.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
vulgar comments like that are just uncalled for
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:48 pmYeah. Good thing he didn’t call her a hootchie, huh?
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:54 pmObama is to blame for instigating all the hate-in America-I am amazed he isnt fired instead of being suspended! America call MSNBC to make sure he doesnt return!
Jane Maller (c9c527) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:55 pmIncidentally, Aaron, that analysis that Schultz is being what the Left *thinks* is like Rush Limbaugh is spot on. Ask any Leftie about Rush Limbaugh, and you will hear that he is hateful, misogynistic, racist, etc. Hmmm.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:56 pmAs was this comment, Aaron:
“…they have mixed up sex and politics in a way that is genuinely unhealthy..”
Absolutely.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:57 pmhttp://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/ed_show_host_goes_bonkers_F3ro1dhul7uLClp5TJoCzI
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/25/2011 @ 8:58 pmThat ‘Women I would like to hate f*ck’ article really opened my eyes to what a lot of leftists really are… dumb frat boy mentality losers who are completely intimidated by a free thinking woman or minority, or worst of all, a minority woman.
How often is it that the left shows a complete intolerance for real disagreement? Isn’t that the real force pushing the journalism field to their primary form of bias, a refusal to select certain stories to mention?
Granted, there are many on the left who don’t have this problem at all. And most of the lefties on this site are the good ones, since, after all, they read this site.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:02 pmCharacter dignity and truth are concepts that Ed knows next to nothing about. In that regard, he is much like epwj.
JD (318f81) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:14 pmActually, Keith probably sees all women this way, left & right.
SaintGeorgeGentile (34c67f) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:22 pmI’ve always thougth Schultz was a sad parody of Limbaugh. But Limbaugh’s appeal is based on his humor and his lampooning of the left — not invective-filled spittle-spewing screaming.
Hugh Hewitt is regularly dismissive of Schultz, calling him probably the dumbest guy on TV. Based on this video, I’m guessing Hewitt is right.
shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:29 pmI’m a have a talk slut walk down Ventura Blvd tomorrow morning if anyone wants to join. I need to do laundry though cause I don’t think I have a clean thong.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:33 pmLimbaugh’s appeal is also a lot based on his audience having a high tolerance for tons of ads for products they’ve never heard of.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:35 pmI think Jester is spot on. The left, and by extension the media make the rules, except they don’t tell anyone the rules.
When someone on the right breaks he or she is ostracized. When someone on the left breaks the rules, it’s the usual speaking truth to power crap.
But sometimes, and they can’t help themselves, they go a bit too far and are astonished at the result. Then they go to Current TV.
Anyone can go on and on about Rush and his opinions. And he certainly has tread a fine line on occasion, but has never called a woman a slut on the radio.
I’m not here to defend Rush, but I am here to say that no man in the public eye can be excused for calling any woman a slut nor a bag of meat nor any other misogynist name.
And I’m getting a bit tired of the reckless use of the term “whore” to describe a woman who some posters don’t like. That word means something. Of course posters here are not public figures, but there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed.
For example, I think that Nancy Pelosi is a dishonest opportunist preying on the hopes and dreams of the poor and disenfranchised while reaping the rewards of the elite. But even she doesn’t deserve to be called a sexually charged slur.
However, I have no problem with calling her out for being a disgusting particle of political slime. So there is that.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:35 pmMr. 80 there are indeed NOT lines what shouldn’t be crossed when it comes to describing our sad little country’s disturbed and useless political class
they almost all of them all deserve all kinds of names cause they slutty slutty sluts the lot of them
you don’t get a 15 trillion dollar debt by having chaste and prudent leaders
nope not in America you don’t.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:40 pmBtw, Malkin herself retweeted it.
http://twitter.com/#!/michellemalkin/status/73596016221360128
And then the reactions poured forth.
http://twitter.com/#!/davekent005/status/73598847737282560
http://twitter.com/#!/Ekebassey/status/73600194633154560
http://twitter.com/#!/gettscene/status/73601845997731840
There were also about an equal number of positive comments, but let’s face it, that isn’t as much fun.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:40 pmugh, use cut and past rather than clicking on those addresses. sorry.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:40 pmAg
that is a good point. maybe a year from now current’s lineup will be the exactly same as msnbc’s a year ago. same people, same shows, maybe even with the same names for the shows.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:42 pmYes, Mr. Feet: it kinda stings to watch someone so awful and hateful do things that are pretty darned close to things you do.
But it’s different when you do it, of course. Naturally.
And your justification? Sounds like something a Keith Olbermann on nitrous might say.
I’m still laughing. Kharma is a great thing.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:44 pmyou’re a little obsessy I think Mr. Jester why you focus on me? You should google Palin and whore and you’ll make make many many new friends what you can nag nag nag to your heart’s content.
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:48 pmI just think it is hysterical that you are acting like Schultz. And it is even more funny when you use the word obsessive.
Why, it is funnier than cilantro.
Seriously, dude. Declare a Palin free week. But you just can’t.
But hey, that’s your thing. Weird “voice” when you type or not.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:53 pmThey hate their politics but they want their bodies, and that only makes them even angrier. So they imagine them being raped, or being a slut, or being a whore, because that makes it possible to imagine they might end up f__king them.
I think they are angry because they realize that ultimately these women have power over them. Who wants what from *whom?
So denigrate them and make themselves believe they are worth less and not of value, therefore the objectification is justified…
It’s about power.
Dana (4eca6e) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:55 pmyour thing is playing internet church lady cause of I don’t know why
I don’t get it at all
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:55 pmAnd remember: I’m not the only one who suggests you quit sounding like the misogynist you are. Nor is this the only website where it happens to you.
You may say I nag, nag, nag…but you are certainly repetitious in your word choice regarding certain female Republicans.
But hey. Have a red velvet cake evening. I’m still laughing.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:55 pmactually I am having a piña pan dulce evening with a not very expensive chard, which is value
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:56 pmOn a more serious note, Dana, that is exactly right: it’s about power and marginalizing those with whom they disagree. And that is why vulgar sexist language is so damaging to women in politics.
Simon Jester (c9ae28) — 5/25/2011 @ 9:57 pmdid you see my article about how vulgar sexist language is so damaging to women in politics Mr. Jester?
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:02 pmhere it is
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:09 pmEd Schultz is the poster boy for this statement: The right thinks that the left is wrong; the left thinks that the right is evil.
Eddie is an a-hole with a capital “A”. His entire routine/philosophy is based on HATING the opposition.
Not very nice.
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:17 pmHappy, everyone understands that calling someone a political whore is a bit different from a woman willing to have sex with all comers, if you will pardon the expression.
But calling a woman a whore without evidence is a bit beyond the pale. As is calling a woman a slut or a bag of meat.
Not choosing to say such things is called civility. Calling them useless wastes of carbon is OK, though, because you may have an argument regarding their existence in the firmament.
One is casting aspersions on their morals, the other is criticizing their opinions.
That’s the difference. If you have evidence of those oppose whoring
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:19 pmI am imagining Misogyfeets sort of like Charo right now, on cue, spouting hoochie, hoochie, slut, slut and the like, but that’s just me.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:19 pmSelf-parody, thy name is . . . well, you know who it is.
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:19 pmIcy happyfeet is so stupid when the orange juice bottle said concentrate he concentrated.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:21 pmThen I’m interested in the evidence.
Sorry about the strange posting, iPhone weirdness.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:22 pmUnfortunately, Laura Ingraham was so focused on her career her clock ran out before she could pass on those great WASP genes. The story of so many of my people. Indeed, given her brother is ‘gay’, Mr. Ingraham will have no descendants — end of the line.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:25 pmI like happyfeet. No, I don’t agree with him or his tone all the time. I’ve gotten pretty irritated by some of the cooze stuff.
He can be that way towards men too. He uses a lot of the same language against the Mccains and Grahams. Hell, he’s damning Mitch Daniels to hell now.
He’s just not very respectful or civil towards people who seek office and aren’t the Happyfeet ideal.
I don’t think his comments are offered with tremendous seriousness. And he can be very witty, though he rarely is when Palin or the like is being discussed, IMO.
Just don’t sweat it. I’d take fifty Happyfeets to be rid of half of an EPWJ.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:25 pmthank you Mr. Dustin
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:28 pmCharofeet-Palin is an opportunistic hootchie who likes to sing her siren song of death now if you mind I must go to a Boston street corner and prostitute myself.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:28 pmDustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:29 pm
A Happyfeet ideal…
AD-RtR/OS! (e46093) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:30 pmWhy do I instantly think of Groucho’s remark about not joing any club that would have him as a member?
Schultz is indeed the dumbest man on TV but its a close race between him and Matt Lauer. Certainly, Schultz is the dumbest misogynist … expecially now that Olbermann is off air.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:30 pmI like happy, too. My point is calling people horrible things can be fun, but you have to take step back every once in a while.
For example, Ed Shultz is worthless as a human, but that doesn’t mean he’s a pedophile. It simply means he is worthless and he has to live in the little corner of hell he created to be on a cable show no one watches.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:33 pmTangential,
but you do know that Alan Grayson is Jewish? Right? One of 44 Jewish folks in Congress — 41 Democrats, and as many Socialists and Republicans.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/07/01/1000795/the-chosen-jewish-members-in-the-111th-us-congress
If Republicans were smart…if conservatives were smart, they’d adopt the old James Baker attitude.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:33 pmLOL. I used to have the same impression, but I think there’s actually something to his POV, and I wish he’s articulate more directly. But as I said, he doesn’t put any seriousness into his comments (probably a healthy idea, 99% of the time).
High office, especially very high office, is something to aspire to. There is something to seeking elite leaders, though not in the ‘went to Yale and has a nobel prize and is a hit in academia’ elitism.
The US Presidency should be reserved for serious leaders who can handle anything. Governorships should be reserved for people with more than the wallets to wallpaper a state with ads.
That kind of thing.
I think Palin is probably more serious and credible than Happyfeet gives her credit for being, especially in light of the lack of faith many have in the ethics of anyone they don’t know well enough. But the idea behind this is sound.
How does this justify calling people ‘whore’? Obviously, it doesn’t. That’s just Happyfeet’s way of saying ‘I don’t hold you in the high regard, but rather disrespect you’.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:36 pmGolly, I am sorry for the typos lately. Just pretend I am a brilliant chimpanzee instead of an idiotic human.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:36 pmRobo-trolls. At least they could update the software.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:39 pm“One of 44 Jewish folks in Congress — 41 Democrats, and as many Socialists and Republicans.”
If there are 44 Jews in Congress two years ago, and 41 are Democrats, how can the remaining 3 be divided into 41 Republicans and 41 Socialists?
Is this the new White Power math?
This guy is probably Kilgore Trout.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:39 pm_________________________________________
It’s always amusing when liberals — who fancy themselves so tolerant, humane, sophisticated and non-bigoted — reveal that they’re not only no better than what they perceive is the case with their socio-political opposites, they’re actually worse. Of course, this calls for my semi-regular salute to the dark origins of liberalism in the human brain—and left-of-center sentiments generally first appear in humans when they’re young.
Mark (411533) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:43 pmSee the comma, Dustin, indicating here an independent clause.
There are 41 D’s, …..and as many R as S (i.e. one of each (Cantor, Sanders).
Lieberman, I have no idea of where to put him.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:47 pmI’am a jew and a republican so go blow the right side of your head off stari trout.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:47 pmOK, what is going on? This has to be some kind of keyword infestation.
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:48 pm“, and one-third less likely to give blood.”
To be fair, between HIV, Chlymidia (sp), Mono, etc, I lot of them are simpl DQ’ed.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:49 pmstari
well thank you for giving us the latest update of who is and isn’t jewish.
are you helping adam sandler on the new draft of the Chanukah (sp?) song?
Seriously what possible relevance does grayson’s religion have to anything? Its not the fact he is a jewish that is the problem, but the fact he is an @$$hole.
Why do you bother us with this?
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:52 pmI’m glad about your voting habits, but you’re a rarity, DohBiden.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:52 pmAlan Grayson isn’t in Congress. Is this some sort of strange joke?
Ag80 (1bc637) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:56 pmstari goebbels is becoming quite tiresome. Perhaps it is time for him to move on to his next job — as Ahmadinejad’s speech writer.
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/25/2011 @ 10:58 pmOh, and what a coincidence it is that the show where FORMER Rep. Grayson most often turns up is . . . The Ed Show. SHOCKA!!!
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:01 pmJust pointing out what I think is a huge contradiction in the neo-con-ish wing of Republican/conservatism. Continue blindly supporting Israel, ignore (or even support) our president being publicly ‘dissed’ , etc etc, and still Repubs get, at most, 24% of the Jewish vote. And Alan Grayson is not exactly a unique example of extreme unpleasantness — Boxer, Wasserman-Schultz, Al Franken…
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:02 pmYou got me there, Ag80, I’m two years behind the times. He *was* in congress, though.
I do like Feinstein, in that she is not totally horrible.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:04 pmOh, how CUTE!
KKK boy has a token Jew that he likes.
Yep, nothing patronizing and/or disingenuous about that one!
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:08 pm____________________________________________
Why do you bother us with this?
I’d recommend he spend more time scrutinizing the socio-political biases of humans. That is far more telling and revealing than whether people are Jewish or Gentile, male or female (eg, Schultz apparently is more bothered by a person’s sexuality — “slut” — than her ideology), black or white, young or old, straight or gay/bi.
However, a very large percentage of various high-visibility groups are of the left. But it’s those liberal instincts — and their origins — that are far more interesting than the general label of the group itself. IOW, when I observe someone, I immediately think “liberal,” or “rightist” or “centrist” instead of white, Jewish, black, Indian, gay, straight, American, Mexican, British, Japanese, male, female, etc.
Mark (411533) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:13 pmI can top that. I would take Hax AND imdw instead of EPWJ. Two dishonest leftists are easier to ignore than a single dishonest (ostensible) conservative.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:15 pm____________________________________________
Continue blindly supporting Israel,
Nothing is more pathetic and exasperating (and disgusting) to me than a person who generally (if not fully) is of the right, but who will favor (eg, on election day) a liberal solely because of his or her racial/ethnic/religious characteristics, and, in turn, will dismiss a conservative solely because of his or her racial/ethnic/religious/gender characteristics. For that matter, the same concept applies to people voting for a garden-variety liberal heterosexual instead of an honest-to-goodness conservative homosexual.
It’s not surprising if liberals refuse to vote for a conservative in spite of his or her race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. That’s a given. (Although I’m sure there are some liberals who won’t vote for another liberal because of his or her race/ethnicity/religion.) But how many conservatives won’t vote for a conservative because of his or her race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc?
Mark (411533) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:30 pmNot to enter Milhouse mode here, and far be it from me to correct someone else on their typos, but this isn’t what you said above.
The comma isn’t even correct here, since the second clause is not actually independent. If you simply wrote a comment saying “as many Socialists and Republicans”, no one would find that intelligible, since you have no verb.
No, you seemed to be saying there were many Socialist and Republican Jews in congress. Now I see you meant there are a lot of Democrat Jews in congress. That’s true… less than a tenth of congress, but still somewhere north of their population proportion.
Is that your argument? We should make it to where each race is represented perfectly in congress? What about Hispanics and Latinos? No, I don’t think you meant that either.
You didn’t mean anything, except to troll, and I’m the fool in this case for bothering with you.
I’m not the best example, since clearly I will respond to the dumbest crap anybody of any persuasion says. But yes, I think you’re right. imdw crossed a line, though.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:35 pm?
Netenyahu disagrees with Obama. Without disrespect, he explains that Obama is wrong about the limits of negotiation, because of Israel’s need to have dependable borders. He then went and comforted the tornado victims while Obama disrespected the Queen of England (not that I really care about respecting Queens, but it is embarrassing in a way Netenyahu’s behavior simply isn’t).
So Israeli leaders have to agree to everything the US President says, now? Why?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:39 pmIf that was an act by Schultz then he’s got an Oscar coming.
I was happily shocked by his statement which i take at face value.
I dont watch his show or pay attention to him because he is so toxic,
but this looks to me like a genuine sincere direct and personal apology.
If he was going to be insincere and half-ass it why do it live why not publish it?
I think this was light years ahead of the unrepentent non-apologies
that are now so common in media/politics/sports/life-in-general these days.
He’s still buffoonish and very often hateful on the air
but maybe Schultz can use this episode as a teachable moment:
Be more like the guy who spoke today and less like the guy who spoke yesterday.
I betcha Ingraham will very likely be just as gracious in accepting this.
mike d (83078c) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:40 pmMy first clue that Ed Schultz was a total lamebrained idiot came years ago when Bill O’Reilly had him on the Factor. The topic was the radio network Air America. Democrats at that time were raising money to keep AA afloat.
The exchange between O’Reilly and Schultz went like this (paraphrasing):
O’Reilly: But don’t you see the danger in having the Democratic party raise funds for Air America? If Air America starts depending on politicians for its livelihood, it will be less inclined to criticize those politicians should the situation arise. In order to avoid any conflict of interest, Air America needs to be independent of the Democratic party by generating its own revenue.
(And then came the clincher:)
O’Reilly: Afte all, Fox News doesn’t depend on Republican fund raisers to keep us on the air.
Schultz: Well, we don’t know that.
Right. Rupert Murdoch is so strapped for cash that the only way he can afford to keep Fox News on the air is to ask for handouts from Denny Hastert and Bill Frist.
Anybody who can make O’Reilly look like the smart one…
DubiousD (732bfc) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:42 pmDustin, they don’t disagree publicly, at a photo op, in a lecturing tone. It is just not done, especially when the country is recipient of, what, 2-3 billion per year in military aid.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:50 pmAnd no, Obama’s gaffe in the UK is simply a personal one, but having the president of the US lectured in front of the whole world by a foreign leader has ramifications far beyond personal embarrassment. You don’t think the Chinese watched that and saw how easily the US and its president could be brought to heal? You don’t think the ‘Arab street’ saw that and said to itself –well, the Muslim Brotherhood is right?
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/25/2011 @ 11:54 pm“Continue blindly supporting Israel”
stasi – What makes you think the support is blind. The support is completely rational, it’s your opposition that is blind.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:19 amRIDICULOUS. Almost all the countries we give aid to criticize us all the time! The only one who doesn’t get to just happens to be Israel. LOL. Why is it always Israel that is the exception to everything?
And sure it’s done. Obama did it to them, didn’t he? And isn’t Israel our steadfast ally in the Middle East? He completely blindsided them with a demand they absolutely can never meet, and instantly, that was used as a justification by Hamas for future war. Seriously: Obama’s commentary will be used to kill innocent Israelis until they live up to his demand, which simply cannot happen either, due to the need for Israel to have defendable borders.
But Israel can’t disagree with Obama, or this is some horrible horrible breach of protocol?
What about the way the democrats are demanding this not be an issue anymore, in Netenyahu’s presence? They are trying to oblige him to a purely political aspect that shouldn’t be reserved for Americans. It’s sad.
He asked to leave the room. He’s a classy guy who has certainly not crossed the line.
I challenge Stari to provide any quote of Netenyahu that is actually directly critical of Obama, and not merely disagreeing on this issue of Israel’s borders, which, after all, is Israel’s business.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:26 amThat’s because she’s not a Jew. Her mother was of a Russian Orthodox origin, and she was never converted to Judaism. Feinstein is the name of her second husband.
Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:30 am“this looks to me like a genuine sincere direct and personal apology. ”
Mike D, I agree. He’s actually sorry.
Good.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/26/2011 @ 12:32 amThe whole schtick of wishing sexual torture and violence and frat boy fantasies onto conservative women LEADERS is, to me, a sign of impotence of mind, heart, soul- maybe even body.
Let’s take Olbermann for example. Look at this pingo. He is as ugly as a mud fence; has not a single friend; and, he has the gall to mock professional athletes playing violent contact sports on prime time national television (which professional sport did you play, Home Boy?). It’s clear that he is incapable of getting chicks except for money on clearly defined terms of engagement. No quiet nights of conversation and mirth for Home Boy. Not a one in 30 years of post-pubescent life is a safe bet. Home Boy is angry, probably chewing his anti-depressants, and hiding his low tolerance to alcohol. That can put the droop in Mr. Happy no matter who it is.
The point? Rage projects sexual violence onto a woman who cannot be “had.” A morally impotent Home Boy is filled with rage. Such rage is so high that it implodes because Home Boy does not have an outlet for it all. He can mask it in his media schtick— “Oh you are so hilarious, Keith. Won’t you please please please do Sunday nite football with carny chimp Bob Costas over at 30 Rock?”—- and crack jokes NO ONE GETS because we don’t give a mandrills plastic patoot about anything he says.
Home Boy is like the 8th grade doofus who is a pizza faced geek who likes girls but they just ignore him because his mouth is always going. All he is left with are hours of loneliness and self-abuse. That builds into rage.
Lowly Ed has been introduced to the dustbin of history. Nary a footnote will mention his name. His 15 seconds of fame have ended ignominiously. Laura Ingraham will not feel the need to show some class and accept his apology. The appropriate response is NO RESPONSE. Ed Schultz is a toilet snake who has been flushed.
Let it go. He wont be the last.
PS: Israel is cornered. That will end President Snow Job’s chances of getting re-elected. Prediction: Israel will deliver mortal wounds to 1) Iran’s nuclear project; 2) Iran’s mullah government to impair its support of HezHam Inc.(who needs to negotiate borders when you can cripple the jackals who threaten you with instinction; 3) sinke or cripple Iranian battleships in Syrian harbors; 4) sink and allow to drown the coming Code Pink flotilla; 5) detonate significant amounts of anti-personnel devices in Gaza tunnels; 6)destroy every single trace of Syrian scud missile sites; 7)conduct psy-ops over Lebanon and Gaza giving occupants 48 hours to evacuate the most strategically attractive zones where HezHam Inc are going to place their rocket launch pads— then carpet bomb huge swaths of territory (get HezHam on video refusing to let civilians evacuate). 8)send Hillary a letter wishing her a happy primary season against President Snow Job complete with a pre-emptive “You’re Welcome!”
Israel is cornered and HezHam incorporated cannot fight a conventional war in any lasting sense.
It’s time to thin the Phillistine population and let them go be refugees somewhere else.
Bear1909 (239c22) — 5/26/2011 @ 2:37 amINSTINCTION? roflmao That’d be “extinction”. Doh!
Bear1909 (239c22) — 5/26/2011 @ 2:40 amTrue. Why even acknowledge MSNBC for yet another trashy display? They seem to thrive off being like that, so hopefully Laura will just ignore them.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/26/2011 @ 5:06 amThat’s because she’s not a Jew. Her mother was of a Russian Orthodox origin, and she was never converted to Judaism. Feinstein is the name of her second husband.
Comment by Milhouse — 5/26/2011 @ 12:30 am
— Ya know what? I was gonna let this one go because, A) Most of the time your comments are quite reasonable; and, B) The one time I dared criticize you for making a very silly comment, you got all butt-hurt about it. Too bad, though, because reading IS fundamental:
I did NOT write that stari found himself a Jew to adopt as a “they’re not ALL bad” token. What I DID write was that HE (not ME, Milhouse; HE!) is engaging in tokenism by — as YOU noted, a consequence of HIS prejudicial interpretation of her married name — choosing a congressperson whose views he can tolerate and ascribing to her the label of “one of the good ones”. I NEVER said that I think she is Jewish. I ONLY said that stari-momak has made a token of her.
Dictionaries are cheap — and helpful — ya know.
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/26/2011 @ 5:20 amThe fact that she recovered from cancer, not all that long ago. makes the Sieg Heiler and Sgt. Schultz even more vile, I first discovered her on the old ‘politically incorrect’ where she sparred
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/26/2011 @ 5:28 amwith the brainless maher mass, her retort to Jabba,
was equally dismissive and pointed, meanwhile, on another front, we see how Iran is recovering from the stuixtnet, which makes Israel’s decision, ever more urgent,
Unless, of course, you really meant to say that stari likes her BECAUSE she’s not Jewish.
Which really does NOT make much sense, since we can probably agree that he thinks she IS Jewish.
Damn! Now you’ve got ME confused. Were you actually agreeing with me that he was engaging in tokenism? This is a slippery slope. Because, if what YOU are saying is that he likes her BECAUSE her politics are different than those of the actual Jewish Democrats in Congress . . .
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/26/2011 @ 5:31 amIcy don’t try to sort it out, Milstone is never wrong. Others might not grasp the primacy of his assumptions but that doesn’t diminish his demonstrable infallibility.
ropelight (eea158) — 5/26/2011 @ 5:42 amIcy, I think that milhouse was pointing out that stasi is an ignorant bigot. That he can’t even pick his token Jooooo to like for their politics without it actually being a WASP.
See in stasi’s little world, anyone with a jewish sounding name is a Jooooo and is deserving of his bigoted hate.
peedoffamerican (eab616) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:01 amStari
> Continue blindly supporting Israel, ignore (or even support) our president being publicly ‘dissed’ , etc etc, and still Repubs get, at most, 24% of the Jewish vote.
wow, you have stumbled into the realization that republicans support isreal out of principle rather than political expediency. and?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:15 amWell one of stari’s pals, Ratko Mladic, was rousted of his rat hole.
ian cormac (72470d) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:17 amAaron, I just want to say that you are making good progress…
Some day soon, you might even type out the whole F word. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (46e187) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:30 ampeedoffamerican, that’s the point I was getting at. But now I’m wondering what’s so different about Feinstein’s views compared to those of her fellow Dems that happen to be Jewish? Does stari (or Milhouse, for that matter) perceive that she is less sympathetic towards Israel, for instance?
Icy Texan (3f01f5) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:31 amI think Eddie is worried about his job, and for very good reason.
I mean, remember the last guy to be the MSNBC darling? First it was a few days off, and then it “So long, don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you”.
I think Ed fears he is headed down that road…
Scott Jacobs (46e187) — 5/26/2011 @ 6:43 amJust another typical liberal ad hominem attack against conservatives, since liberals’ actual arguments contain very little substance. Nothing to see here – move along.
Vince (b0bef9) — 5/26/2011 @ 7:13 amScott
> Some day soon, you might even type out the whole F word.
go to my old blog, you will see i have zero reticence. its more like adhering to patrick’s very reasonable rules of style as a guest, here.
Patrick will curse now and then, but only when it is really, really called for.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/26/2011 @ 7:17 amExactly. Though by the Nuremberg rules she has enough “Jewish blood” to count as one, and she’s certainly no WASP, it’s still ironic that she’s stari’s token.
Milhouse (9ef3cc) — 5/26/2011 @ 7:20 amSeems to me that Dumbass Schultz could be operating from one of two places in this case.
Richard Aubrey (cafc94) — 5/26/2011 @ 7:46 amOne is he thought in advance that using the slut term would be a good idea, considering his schtick and his audience and was waiting for a place where it would have the desired impact.
Or he just got going and his spleen was so vile that it came out because he thinks it and doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with thinking it.
In either case, it looks really bad. Or, to be more accurate, he looks really bad.
In the first case, if he’s right about his audience, his audience looks bad. But we already knew that.
Ed (who?) Schultz should have to attend a mandatory 8-hour “Discrimination in the Workplace” seminar required of all Federal employees. With a refresher course every year. It won’t do any good but it’s certainly a boring way to spend 8 hours.
I have never watched/heard Ed Schultz and other than a couple of episodes of “To Catch a Predator”, have never watched MsNBC. Ed may try to be the liberal Rush, but I doubt that will ever happen. Ed seems to want to keep his job, whereas Rush could walk away any day and not even look back.
PatAZ (f23d3e) — 5/26/2011 @ 8:15 amRage accompanied by profane spittle is neither provocative, enlightening or entertaining. Never has been. Never will be. The pathetic stable of rageaholic loser actors on MSNBC (both past and present) are barely worth discussing.
elissa (514870) — 5/26/2011 @ 8:24 amIn shorter form; Bigot Stasi picks a Joooo who ain’t no Joooo, to show he ain’t bigoted against all Jooos.
peedoffamerican (eab616) — 5/26/2011 @ 8:42 amEven Congress is getting ready to disrespect the President for his bizarre comments on Israel, by issuing some kind of proclamation, so the least of his worries is a lecture by Netenyahu (sp?). Frankly, if Obama can’t think about the consequences of what his says before he opens his mouth, then he deserves a lecture and more. At this point, I can only hope that Obama plays more golf and throws more parties so that US foreign policy is left to people who are competent.
Rochf (f3fbb0) — 5/26/2011 @ 10:08 amI have never listened to him , I have a personal rule , never listen to idiots , morons , or anti-American a— h—-s , this to include progressives , socialists , marxists , communists , nor the leaders of this trash , the so-called mainstream media . I do not hate anyone , i feel sorry for indocrinated and misled muslims who only know how to hate . I feel pity for those with birth defects , including homosexuals , I empathize with those near the bottom of the financial ladder like myself , and I am extremely prejudiced against ALL democrats and their supporters , because they are un-admitted haters who do their best to pit everyone they hate against each other just to increase their own self-image and power .
Buck Crosby (7764cb) — 5/26/2011 @ 1:03 pmI suspect he was encouraged to apologize. Plus, he forgot “unreservedly”… it works every time.
Archie Leach (ddf499) — 5/26/2011 @ 1:39 pm“I have never watched/heard Ed Schultz and other than a couple of episodes of “To Catch a Predator””
PatAZ – Good to know. I was unaware that Ed had been caught more than once.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/26/2011 @ 4:30 pmSo basically MSNBC suspends a vile hateful piece of shit for being a vile hateful piece of shit. I’m confused.
kansas (b73648) — 5/26/2011 @ 7:09 pmGiven Special Ed’s comments and their little Hate f^%k list at Playboy, how are these leftists in the media much different in thinking than those who sexually assaulted Lara Logan?
Did some of them privately think the same of her?
Republicanvet (1dcacd) — 5/30/2011 @ 12:29 am