Will MSNBC Suspend Ed Schultz for Calling Laura Ingraham a 'Right-wing Slut' and 'Talk Slut'?
MSNBC anchor David Shuster was suspended in 2008 for suggesting Hillary Clinton had "pimped out" her daughter Chelsea on the air. So how will MSNBC handle their host calling Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and a "talk slut"?
Will Schultz be pressed to apologize to the Catholic churchgoer and mother of two? Will the feminists at NOW and the Women's Media Center take exception? Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer found this on Schultz's May 24 national radio show -- not on MSNBC, but the female-smearing principle is the same.
Schultz was angry Ingraham would suggest it showed "tone-deafness" (both on radio and on Fox & Friends) for Obama to be hoisting a Guinness in Ireland as people dig out from under tornadoes in the American heartland. Strangely, despite all the hype the media poured on Team Bush over disasters, not a single high-level Obama administration official has visited the devastated town of Joplin, Missouri yet. Obama's slated for Sunday, but no one beneath his rank has gone except FEMA officials (according to this FEMA press release). No Biden, no Napolitano, just phone calls. Here's a transcript of Schultz's low blows:
Rain, thunderstorms, winds getting whipped into tornadoes of horrific proportions. Hot weather, all of this stuff. And what are the Republicans thinking about? They're not thinking about their next-door neighbor. They're just thinking about how much this is going to cost. President Obama is going to be visiting Joplin, Missouri, on Sunday. But you know what they're talking about? Like this right-wing slut, what's her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut. You see, she was, back in the day, praising President Reagan when he was drinking a beer overseas. But now that Obama's doing it, they're working him over.
This isn't just mean-spirited. It's remarkably obtuse. Wouldn't there be a little difference between having a beer in Ireland when America's calm versus after a natural disaster? But just start with the idea that Laura Ingraham didn't have a radio show in the 1980s. (She started in 2001.) This would be like slamming Ed Schultz as if he had a radio show in the 1980s.
# # #
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Liberals are hypocrites. Ed
Submitted by Cho Yi Fan on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:51pm.
Liberals are hypocrites. Ed Schultz is a pig....end of discussion.
Tree falls in the forest
Submitted by Dingbat on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:52pm.
Would anyone know what this guy said if it was not reported on sites such as this? Glad you did report it...just saying...we're talking about a guy with an audience of a few mouth breathers.
Unfortunately
Submitted by Chaitealover on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:10pm.
He does have listeners & viewers.
It has also been repeated on San Diego talk radio, with the host asking if NOW or any other liberal woman's group had made any statement condemning this kind of garbage. Answer: of course not.
He has tens of listeners and
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:25am.
He has tens of listeners and viewers.
N. O. W.
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:56pm.
(crickets)
Left Wing Lust Buckets
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:59pm.
Ed Schultz needs to be emptied.
No, N.A.G. (National
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:27am.
No, N.A.G. (National Association of Gals).
Courtesy: El Rushbo
So nice to see that respect
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:59pm.
So nice to see that respect for women the liberals are always touting.
Schultz is going the way of Olbermann. He is irrelevant and soon he will be unemployed.
No class, all a$$
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:18pm.
As I have said previously, Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC left a pretty big cesspool to fill.
Ed Schultz is giving it his best shot.
When a guy with no brains (and no class) is completely outmatched by a woman, his default response is to call her a slut.
One word for Eddy in Keefy's creepy cesspool.
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:49pm.
Overflowed.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Fair Enough...WH stands for the Whore House....
Submitted by gruyere cheese on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:09pm.
under this administration, and the liberal MSM media are the prostitutes. There, right back at you Eddie boy!
Another correspondent for the Al Gore Network
Submitted by goray on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:12pm.
Bye Bye Ed. You are entitled to free speech but like the rest of the liberal media, they always cross the line.
Eddy Baby-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:17pm.
you are going to get your ass kicked-once down on the ground-i would kick your head in.
all the while asking you who is the whore/slut now.
i would not stop until you were almost dead-revive you and do it again.
your are garbage.
Wow
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:55pm.
How do you really feel?
Laura Ingraham could probably
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:19pm.
Laura Ingraham could probably kick his a$$....in high heels.
Right, MB.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:38pm.
I'm betting that Ed wears high heels, too!
In fact, I saw a drag queen that looked a lot like Special Ed in the Drag Races this spring. Really ugly. Really, really ugly. I like to never got enough to drink to forget that sight!
Slut with leftovers
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:37pm.
That would be "Schultz."
Malloy, Rhodes, Schultz ... who on the right pours out the vitriol like these guys do? Add Matthews, Behar, O'Donnell, and the others who spin out their heavy-breathing scenarios about racist right-wingers killing O'Bama.
When will major politicians, policy makers, and political figures refudiate them? Refuse to go on their shows?
Dimwit
Submitted by Uncle John on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:28pm.
Long-time reader, infrequent poster, but I had to throw this out there: Could it be that Special Ed is confusing Laura Ingraham with Dr. Laura, who WAS on talk radio in the 80s? If so, that would make him even more incomprehensibly stupid. Not trying to give Sgt Schultz an out here, just piling on.
Laura, Laura, Laura
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:46pm.
Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Laura Bush, Laura Petrie ...
I think Ed "I hope my face doesn't freeze this way" Schultz was looking for this link.
http://snipurl.com/27xfpe [www_last_fm]
BTW, is that Andy Sipowicz?
Not as long as there is a "D" in the White House
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:34pm.
Besides, the people in Joplin are not Obama's people, as they reside in flyover country, are predominantly white - not black or Hispanic, and they aren't generally gender-confused.
Therefore, in the eyes of Red Ed, the White Hous, and the MSM, they are pretty much on their own.
So were these people, as were these people.
Starting to sense a pattern?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave, Don't forget about the
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:15pm.
Dave,
Don't forget about the ice storm that crippled Kentucky not to long after The Absentee President took office. Thousands and thousands left without power in the dead of winter and nary a word from the Administration.
Obama hates white people
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:15pm.
Obama hates white people
Obama hates white people
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:43pm.
Obama hates white people
Rhetorical
Submitted by MCLIJazz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:29pm.
This seems like a rhetorical question. Of course Ed won't be suspended, unfortunately.
Wrong!
Submitted by MCLIJazz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:33pm.
I'm glad to be wrong. Big Ed has been suspended for one week without pay.
The left does this because
Submitted by pwoz on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:29pm.
The left does this because they get away with it and are never threatened. Time to turn the tables, IMO.
Katie the Slut?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:50pm.
Oh yeah, that'll work. If Beck, or Rush, or Boortz, or Levin said something like that, they'd burn his face off with a blowtorch. O'Donnell (pick one) would buy the butane, Joey Rebar and the Viewgina Grrls would light it, and the head of NOW would hold the torch. And Tumescent Harry Smith would clap his hands in support.
No one to the left of Ed Rendel would get the irony.
"Oh yeah, that'll work. If
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:17pm.
"Oh yeah, that'll work. If Beck, or Rush, or Boortz, or Levin said something like that, they'd burn his face off with a blowtorch."
A proposition refuted by the fact that those fellows say things like that almost literally every day without any such reaction. It would be better if Schultz went away, but that isn't a license to indulge that sort of nonsense.
Almost literally every day??
Submitted by sentry_99 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:24pm.
I'd love to see some sources on that. There must be MANY as you claim it happens almost literally every day....whatever that means.
LOL....that was my
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:38pm.
LOL....that was my thought....what the H does "almost literally" mean?
I'm sure our liberal friend will be right back with a long list of similar comments by those guys about liberal women....
Not holding my breath.....
His sn should be classicaltroll.......
classicliberal2 is engaging in classic liberal ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:35pm.
repartee--- lying his ass off while providing, rather than anything of substance, only his own opinion.
MD
Only a few months ago (Oct.,
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:24pm.
Only a few months ago (Oct., in my notes), Rush Limbaugh called the leadership of the National Organization for Women "a bunch of whores to liberalism," which is pretty much exactly what Schultz said. One hears these sorts of sexist, racist, offensive comments constantly on right-wing talk radio and tv. It virtually never produces the sort of firestorm that was suggested earlier.
Your "notes", classicliberal2---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:31pm.
don't mean jack to me, cuz you liberals lie.
October was several months ago.
I rest my case.
MD
classicliberal doesn't understand that if Rush were ensnared in
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:21pm.
a similar controversy, the "last Republican standing" would simply suspend the network suits who foolishly attempted to discipline him. Limbaugh would then demand groveling apologies from each of the offending execs and anyone resisting would find himself or herself back in the mailroom.
Jer
To the contrary, I understand
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:43am.
To the contrary, I understand that very well. I looked at the Ed Show tonight, and Schultz appeared at the beginning of it. He was contrite, said he was flat-out wrong and totally out of line, offered no excuses for himself, apologized to Ingraham and his viewers, said he'd tried to call Ingraham to apologize, and said he was going away. You will, on a routine basis, hear comments just as offensive and far more so from Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, etc., but you'll never hear, from any of them, something like what Schultz said tonight.
classicaltwit2
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:28am.
"You will, on a routine basis, hear comments just as offensive and far more so from Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, etc., but you'll never hear, from any of them, something like what Schultz said tonight."
Find a clip of any of these conservative talking heads making a comment even remotely as denigrating, foul and viciously offensive as what this fat clown made. One freakin' clip. You lying freakin' liberal (yes, that's repetitive.)
- Unlucky In Love Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Savage, alone, is a genre
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:55am.
Savage, alone, is a genre unto himself when it comes to this sort of thing. Murder fantasies, ranting aimed at dehumanizing his "enemies," hardcore eliminationist rhetoric--these are all in a day's work for Savage. And it has consequences. In his book "The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military," Savage writes that liberals "are like termites. Case by case, these vermin are eating away at our nation's foundation."
Hold that thought.
Here's Jim David Adkisson, a big fan of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and, most especially, of Savage:
"Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them. Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather."
In 2008, Adkisson went into a "liberal" Unitarian church in Knoxville with a shotgun intent on dealing with some of those termites. He shot 9 people. Two of them died.
Oh well, that settles it.
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:07am.
Oh well, that settles it. Savage ordered that guy to kill those people.
You make perfect sense.
Guilt by association? THAT is
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:17am.
Guilt by association? THAT is your best argument? Especially considering Adkisson was severely mentally disturbed?
Seriously?
Your non sequitural argumentation invalidates your point.
Beukeboom
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:08pm.
Not even association. They are not fans of this guy but the other way around.
Man, libs just make stuff up and lie. To our faces. They have no shame. And he'll/she'll continue to post and pivot and divert and wiggle around.
No shame at all, today's liberal. Sick.
They're one notch (barely) up from Islamic radicals. They'll literally do/say anything for their cause.
- Shy Grooves
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
classical-idiot-0
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:03pm.
What, you can't read???
"Find a clip..."
Right, that's what I wrote.
Find us a clip. ONE clip. ONE bit of online/internet ***proof*** of any friggin' talking head conservative doing anything close to what this fatso did, on TV or radio. Audio or video, or we'll even look at a transcript.
That was my request. Read it again.
Not some third party person who's "a big fan of" these talking heads. What the heck do fans of popular talking heads have anything to do with the talking heads themselves?
You made the charge and named Hannity, Savage, etc., as having done -- THEMSELVES, FROM THEIR MOUTHS -- what this foul liberal fatso did, and not just once but many times, was your b.s. claim.
So.....
Find. Us. One.
Lying idiot. Liberal idiot.
I'm turning into Teh Vet these days. :p
- Shy on Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
http://video.google.com/video
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 5:44pm.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1948673167839820753#
http://mediamatters.org/research/200809090022
Links to many clips here:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911050042
And so on.
See here's the problem
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:03pm.
What MrShy meant to demand was " show us a clip from a conservative site." You see, if a liberal attempts to use as backup a link originating from a liberal trash site like mediamatters or dkos, it immediately invalidates the link on account of bias. Yes, I know. Even the unaltered video doesn't count.
~I checked them out
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:18pm.
There's nothing sexual there. Lots of jokes about Pelosi's unnatural appearance. And a thigh joke about Hillary. That's not exactly shocking, everyone knows poor Hillary has hideous gams.
Personally, I'd rather that public figures refrained from picking at something as superficial as appearance, particularly men being nasty about women, but if you want to see what real ugly is take a look at what liberal men routinely say about Palin.
That link goes to Salon, by the way. I enjoy using left-wing sources to make my points. It leaves a bigger welt. :-D
Funny
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:27pm.
I enjoy using right-wing sources to make my points. It leaves a bigger welt too. 8-)
About as funny as your predatory tactics from before.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:18am.
What right wing sources were you using when you spent so much time focusing on talking about people's children that posters were telling you to knock it off as you were coming off as some kind of predator.
"A few months ago"
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:41pm.
"One hears these sorts of sexist, racist, offensive comments constantly on right-wing talk radio and tv."
This may come as quite a surprise to you, but a single example from "a few months ago" can not be described as "constantly." Unless you have more examples, the BEST description you can reasonably use is "rarely."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I cited that one because it
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:47am.
I cited that one because it was an example of Limbaugh saying the same sort of thing Schultz had said. But I suspect you realized that. And, just as I said earlier, that remark did NOT lead to any sort of firestorm. If the larger press spent its time becoming that sort of outraged over those sorts of things being said on "conservative" programs these days, that's all the press would ever be doing. It's mostly just ignored.
I suspect that Limbaugh has
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:58am.
I suspect that Limbaugh has never used the term "slut" in describing a liberal woman. He may mock, he may criticize, he may lampoon, but I don't think he has ever descended into the blatant crudeness that Ed Schultz employed.
As I noted, Limbaugh said
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:23am.
As I noted, Limbaugh said basically the same thing of the leadership of the National Organization for Women as Schultz said of Ingraham. He's made analogies to whores, prostitutes, talked about putting a "slut tax" in the health care bill (to punish promiscuous women), and so on over the years. A lot of people just find anything of that sort totally unacceptable, but I'm not as hard on it as that. Legislators vote according to who puts up the campaign cash, for example, and that's prostitution, no other way to put it. It should, however, be said that there isn't a sexist component to that (unlike with Limbaugh's N.O.W. comment). Legislators do this, and most of them are men. Other things Limbaugh and co. say are, to me, far more offensive. The kind of murder fantasies and eliminationist rhetoric one routinely hears on "conservative" radio and tv are, to me, much worse.
Murder Fantasies Now
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:48am.
That is an Ed Schultz specialty. <----That's a link buddy. You should learn how to do it.
How about Montel Williams?
I really can't decide on just one for Mike Malloy so here are a few of his greatest "hits".
This is another list.
Most of that info can be found on this site. So, any links for what you claim to "routinely hear"?
And you will note that,
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:20am.
And you will note that, throughout this thread, I've argued Malloy and Schultz are, to various degrees, of the same ilk as those others I've mentioned. It sort of completely negates the point you thought you were making, and helps make my own.
Yet you provide no actual
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:34am.
Yet you provide no actual PROOF showing Limbaugh said what you claimed he said. I wonder why.
And you answer your own
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:11am.
And you answer your own question. Anything I post, here, that either quotes a conservative or relays info that can be seen as critical of them is immediately met, by other posters, here, by a direct accusation that I'm lying, or an indirect one, in the form of a smug demand for links, just like yours. It isn't an honest request--it's a smear. Just about everything I reference is (or, at some point, was) available online, and 10 seconds with Google will yield, for anyone, the same results it does for me. I find myself becoming increasingly resistant to posting links, because I feel as if I'm privileging this libel. Politically, I disagree with many of the people here, but I don't lie or knowingly post misinformation, and I resent that reflexive reaction to my every word--it's a perfect example of how the attitude of a large chunk of contemporary American conservatism is destroying our democracy. The problem isn't with their conservatism--it's that they've hitched their conservatism to this attitude, that is both offensive and, more to the point, fundamentally intellectually dishonest. No one can just have an informal discussion about anything anymore.
Here's your link:
http://dailyrushbo.com/limbaugh-national-organization-for-women-a-bunch-...
The page has a recording.
Now, you can apologize.
Yes, you have been proven a
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:18am.
Yes, you have been proven a liar with your Palin "Troopergate" accusations which were false.
You have refuse to post links and then give some lame concern about "priviliging this libel".
Please.
"Yes, you have been proven a
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:56am.
"Yes, you have been proven a liar with your Palin 'Troopergate' accusations which were false."
Well, no, I wasn't. Not even once. But that doesn't seem to matter much around here.
My wife said basically the
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:23pm.
My wife said basically the same thing to my doctor, regarding taking statins. His reply was classic: " Then why does he come here?" You might want to ask yourself the same question, just sayin!!
"But that doesn't seem to
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:09pm.
"But that doesn't seem to matter much around here."
Oh it does matter, except to liars like you. It's called projection and you liberals are masters of it. Look it up.
It's official
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:12pm.
Time to change your name to NB Cop.
The Irishman = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:27pm.
Do not feed the trolls.
Read what I posted again
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:27am.
Read what I posted again closely, slowly and TRY to comprehend:
"Yet you provide no actual PROOF showing Limbaugh said what you claimed he said. I wonder why."
I didn't accuse you of lying. I noted that you fail to provide PROOF.
Apparently you do not understand the principle of onus probandi. In other words, you make the assertion therefore the responsibility rests with you to prove it with sound, documented evidence. I note that you fail to do so more often than not. This is your problem, not mine. Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to blame others for your mistakes.
And I requested you provide a transcript or link to one. You have failed to do so.
This is the comment section of an internet website...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:45pm.
not a court of law. He sourced his assertion. You may claim the sound clip was doctored or that it was not Limbaugh whom was recorded or that the words in question were less egregious than those spoken by Schultz or that the incident was an aberration rather than a pattern of conduct.
But the onus is now yours.
Jer
Apparently you didn't follow
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:01pm.
Apparently you didn't follow the whole course of events. lib made the claim that Limbaugh made a quote. In his initial statement containing the claim re Limbaugh he did NOT cite any source or supply anything remotely close to proof. I then asked for a source and specifically transcripts or a link to transcripts. He did not provide transcripts nor a link to transcripts as I requested. Then he accused me of indirectly calling him a liar which I did not do. I noted that in most of his posts, he makes claims but provides no evidence. You may feel free to examine that person's comments to see if my claim here is accurate.
So my points stand and you, once again, didn't do your homework & erred or intentionally misrepresented. Only you know for sure which.
Well, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:41am.
Gotta admit, your knee jerks in defense of your fellow libs are consistent.
I agree with none of them, but they are certainly consistent.
Good thing this is a web site and not a court of law, because if any of these weirder liberals actually got by the voir dire process and onto a jury, sure as hell most of them would do some time for lying under oath.
MD
You lie! Your own link
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:22pm.
You lie! Your own link proves you lie. You libs are really dumber than a bag-o-hammers! BTW that includes you Jer!!
Hey!! That's insulting to
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:41pm.
Hey!! That's insulting to hammers, they at least are useful. Libturds, not so much.
A stupid comment, Mighty Mouth...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 8:23pm.
Very uncharacteristic of you, but very stupid nonetheless.
Jer
We noticed the moving goal posts
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 12:09pm.
That you wish to frame this to suit your ends means little. You can move the goal posts all you wish but it negates nothing but your own argument.
I see below that you decided to use a link. Good job even though you whine and bring up lame excuses why you don't want to source an accusation. Keep working and you may be able to back up all the statements you've made in this thread....in the name of "intellectual honesty" (tm classicliberal2). By the way, that phrase means nothing coming from you.
It's an example of your
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:33am.
It's an example of your hearsay evidence. I note you didn't provide any proof the comment was actually made nor provided the full quote nor kept the alleged quote in context. Too many omissions on your part to be trustworthy.
Transcript, please?
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:28am.
Transcript, please?
Re: Not trying to give Sgt
Submitted by Dingbat on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:41pm.
Re: Not trying to give Sgt Schultz an out here, just piling on.
Please do not give him the honorific of Sgt. This scumbag is the anything but a Sgt...he's never survive basic.
Hogan's Heroes reference.
Submitted by Uncle John on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:46pm.
Hogan's Heroes reference. Absolutely no disrespect intended for any of our fine men and women in the military.
Hogan's Heroes reference because...
Submitted by on-the-rocks on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:27pm.
He knows nuthing,...nu-thing.
Um... really to be accurate,
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:37pm.
Um... really to be accurate, the german rank of SGT was really the US equal rank of corporal. Which means he, like the modern Shultz is fully qualified to clean toilets. You E-4s that want to hate me for this, drop down and give me 20!
Since I have never watched the Ed Show...
Submitted by thescoots on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:44pm.
and have only heard snipets of his drivel on one channel or another for a brief comment he has made......I can surmise the good and the bad of his audience this way: The bad....the average MSNBC viewer's shoe size and IQ are the same number....And the good....the audience is so ridiculously small...the nonsense that they hear is statistically harmless.
Laura Ingraham is an intellectual...and therefore not likely to respond to the grunts of a toad like Ed Shultz. Why would she? He hasn't got the capacity to process logical thoughts. His range stops with a TV Dinner in a shiny package labeled "Progressive".....Mmm, Mmm, good!
The toad
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:49pm.
that lives under my front stoop resents your comparison.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Ed Schultz is a fat gas bag.
Submitted by marpel on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:53pm.
Ed Schultz is a fat gas bag. His 14 viewers are gas bags too. So, he's not appealing to a very large audience. I think Comcast should cut their losses on this Ahole like they did Bathtub Boy. I'm sure Al Gore's channel would welcome him w/ open arms and MSNBC could inch their way a little closer to possibly being watcheable....
"Deep within my heart lies a memory. A song of ol' San Antone..."
And the silence from the gals
Submitted by Beukeboom on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:57pm.
And the silence from the gals at N.A.G. is deafening.
Laura asks "who"?
Submitted by shayne62 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 1:57pm.
I would imagine that when it's mentioned to Ms. Ingraham, her reaction will be "Ed who?" I agree with Dingbat (above). No one would have any idea who Sgt. Schultz was if it weren't for Newsbusters (and the like) from relaying it.
But I have no doubt Special Ed's 4 viewers loved it.
i agree with all y'all - i
Submitted by TruthMonger on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:03pm.
i agree with all y'all - i listen to the guy on radio every so often
today some caller called the district 26 Republican candidate a "rich bitch"
classy bunch
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Schultz
Submitted by stan25 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:25pm.
Nothing will happen to Schultz. Laura Ingraham is not a liberal icon, like Hillary. In fact, Schultz will probably get a raise in salary.
No suspension. the
Submitted by ParalegalGoddess on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:24pm.
No suspension. the technicality here is he said it not while on MSNBC airtime. As for Gal-Queda - they will give the same response they gave when Bill Maher called Sara Palin the c word... essentially nothing.
What about Imus and his
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:31pm.
What about Imus and his "nappy headed hoes" comments? That was major news for weeks.
I guess if you're sexist or racist against conservatives it's okay.
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James Madisonis this a trick question?
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:45pm.
of course not!
Inspiration Hits!
Submitted by HockeyKid on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:51pm.
When MSDNC fires Special Ed, Olbie and Algore can pick him up for "Countdown", where he and Michael Moore will appear as Tweedledum and Tweedledownrightstupid.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Schultz
Submitted by jessieH on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:56pm.
What a load of crap! If they don't fire him, they are just as bad as he is. How can people listen to this fool? rediculous!
I thought liberals weren't
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:08pm.
I thought liberals weren't "mean-spirited" or "haters". I guess if you point a finger, three are pointed back at ya.
Someone like Ed Shultz could
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:12pm.
Someone like Ed Shultz could state that Ingrahm is a slut at the beginning of a sentence and end that sentence by stating that only conservatives label women as sluts and they'd still deny the hypocrisy. To be an MSNBC host means that you must be able to lie without batting an eye; I'd imagine it's a lot like acting where an actor must work up enough emotion to cry over the death of a non-existant CGI character. No wonder actors are able to get in front of a microphone and pronounce support for some rabidly ignorant policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
Usually Liberals 'project' when they call Conservatives...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:16pm.
'dirty' names. Is Schultz telling us he is himself a 'left-wing slut'?
MSNBC just might give this
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:16pm.
MSNBC just might give this fat ass a promotion, I'm sure they all think the same.
What's next...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:17pm.
SGT Shultz calls Michele Bachman, Michele Malkin, Ann Coulter a CS? Takes one to know one dumkopf!
I listen to Laura every morning. Since I live on the West ...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:39pm.
Coast, that means I get up every morning, Monday through Friday, at 6am. I have never watched Schultz and never will. All I know about him is what I read on Newsbusters. Still, I would bet every thing I own that Laura would whip his sorry ass in a one on one, no holds barred, debate. Laura is 'all woman'. Schultz is 'all jerk'. MESSNBC and Schultz deserve each other.
We can always count on Ed
Submitted by notinstl on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:44pm.
to elevate the discussion and help us focus as a nation on the important issues.
Don't you just love those
Submitted by thomasp on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:53pm.
Don't you just love those "tolerant" liberals?
Thanking Obama for killing Bin Laden is like going into McDonalds and thanking Ronald McDonald for making your hamburger. It's the guy cooking the burger that should get the credit .... not the clown.
Stop wasting bandwidth here,
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:05pm.
Stop wasting bandwidth here, email msnbc and demand action, talking here does nothing just like the GOP . email them now.
The Ed Show
Submitted by bknownst on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:17pm.
Anyone who hasn't seen his shows is missing a laugh riot. It's like listening to stoners who get everything ass backwards. Ed, Rachel Madcow and all the libs on PMSNBC thye live in a universe 180 degrees from the rest of us. They are hysterical. War is always bad - unless a Dumbocrat started it. Blacks are wonderful - unless the're conservative. Cheating on a spouse is nobody's business - unless it involves a Republican. One judge should be able to overturn a law voted in by millions of voters - except if it was a conservative judge. You have to see and hear these clowns to see what liberals look to for NEWS?????
Time to e-bomb MSNBC
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:30pm.
Here's the Link for viewer comments
I already sent mine:
On his Monday radio show, MSNBC personality Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" and a "talk slut."
Is this part of the new "civility" in political discourse?
Is this up to your standards?
I await Schultz's suspension without pay, and his public apology to Ms. Ingraham.
Thanks, mb
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:31pm.
I rifled off a scathing comment, thanks to your link.
Sent mine in too, Mom.
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:43pm.
Sent mine in too, Mom.
Motherbelt
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:03pm.
I commend your and others effort but sadly it will amount to nothing.
I emailed ABC a while back about Joy Behar and something she said on "The View" (reported here on NB). I received a polite form letter email in return that did not even acknowledge the issue over which I had contacted them.
And this isn't just the MSM side. I emailed "Freedom Watch" (FBN) not too long ago complaining about trotting out Charlie Rangel as some reputable spokesperson instead of not giving the crook a forum. I received a polite form letter email in return thanking me for contacting the show. The subject line of the email actually read, in part, "Out of office!"
I wonder
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:37pm.
Will there be twice as many people e-mailing to remove him as there are Ed Schultz viewers? -bidn-
Well, taking into account the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:36am.
Well, taking into account the folks on NB who said they've already sent in emails, I'd say we may have already surpassed that mark.
If Laura is a "talk slut",
Submitted by fatboy on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:11pm.
If Laura is a "talk slut", does that make Mr. Ed a bone-headed whore?
Don't be ridiculous!
Submitted by Janey on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:21pm.
It doesn't count because EVERYBODY KNOWS that only conservatives/Republicans can be sexist. If a liberal/Democrat says it, it must be okay.
Love the picture
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:41pm.
Any chance we can get ED to assert his 2nd amendment rights and actually purchase a fire arm?
If Laura is a "talk slut",
Submitted by fatboy on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 5:54pm.
If Laura is a "talk slut", does that make Mr. Ed a bone-headed whore?
Strike 3
Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:03pm.
MSNBC has famously been waiting for his Strike 3. People were aware of his "I'm going to torch this ++++ing place!!" Strike 2 (Scarborough mocked him on air) where Ed had to literally cry in the boss' office to keep from being fired then. Forgot Strike One. But here's the 3rd, fellas!
Fire him.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:53pm.
He needs to shown to the door. Let him whine about "corporate media censorship" on his radio show--not that anyone would be listening or would even care.
Laura should record my little
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:08pm.
Laura should record my little ditty... In case anyone missed it first time around, a couple of weeks ago:
THE BALLAD OF ED SCHULTZ -- aka The Obama Shillbillies
(Trad. To the tune of tha’ Beverly Hillbillies)
Come and listen to a story ‘bout a tool named Ed
A poor communicator, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin’ at some bats,
And up through the ground came a scuttlin’ rats.
MSNBC that is, fools’ gold, the big me.
Well the first thing you know ol’ Ed's a millionaire,
Kinfolk said "Ed move away from here"
Said "Noo York town's the place you ought to be"
So they loaded up the Prius and moved to NBC.
BS, that is. Cess pools, gay bars.
Well now it’s time to say goodbye to Ed and all his kin.
Madcow, O’Donut, an' all the tools thank you folks fer kindly droppin' in.
Yer all invited back again to this locality
To have an Olby sized helpin' of incivility.
Shillbilly that is. Obama style. Take yer clothes off.
Y'all go ++++ yersleves now, y'hear?
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
True, Laura Ingraham's criticism was unwarranted...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:20pm.
[she should leave the low road to the folks at weasel zippers], but Ed should not just be suspended but instead sidelined--permanently. His comments were absolutely indefensible. This blowhard is neither an asset to progressivism or liberalism nor to the network which currently employs him. And the viewing public would be far better served by his absence.
Jer
To you, it was "unwarranted"...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:20pm.
Not necessarily to others, Jer. I don't have a real problem with what she said. Given the tragedies unfolding here at home, someone of some high position in the administration should have already appeared at the sites of these awful storms. I know Obama is going on Sunday, but Laura was correct that no high ranking administration official (outside of FEMA) has been to any of the storm damaged locales as of yet.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Jer,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:24pm.
Perhaps you didn't support Democratic and media criticisms of George Bush for not being on the ground of the Katrina disaster immediately following it (or some seemed to think he should've been driving bus loads of evacuees - I exaggerate only slightly to make a point). I think Laura Ingraham's criticism of Obama was a way to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats and the media when there's a president of different party in the WH. This was also the method employed by Brent Bozell with his continued criticism of Fareed Zakaria which you didn't like either. If her criticism was unwarranted then the same standard should be applied to all presidents - no matter what party - would you agree?
The difference is
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:38pm.
Obama is in Europe on business, not on vacation.
Irishman?Business?
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:44pm.
What business is more important in Ireland and England than tending to the destruction and death of 1000s of Americans? Can you name a living person that is more capable of giving more solace to these Tornado struct people?
Obama's European Vacation
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:56pm.
Right - hoisting a brew in an Irish pub was of world-shaking importance. Please, don't even try that tact. Obama isn't in Europe to stop an imminent nuclear war - it's mostly PR and photo opportunities for the 2012 campaign.
I suppose
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:59pm.
You're now going to argue he's on a social visit with the Queen? Doing his stand-up routine for Parliament? Discussing world events with our strongest ally such as Libya, budget deficits and international bailouts that affect the world economy? Just a bunch of malarkey, right?
Yes.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:06pm.
Yes.
I agree Obama's done a great job
Submitted by 26CX on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:10pm.
of making a fool of himself.
On bidness?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:11pm.
If Bambi is "On business" then he should be able to get through a simple toast to the Queen without fluffing it totally up!
Stupidity is a biological condition. Ignorance is a lifestyle choice.
The Irishman = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:37am.
Do not feed the trolls.
The Irishman = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:37am.
Do not feed the trolls.
Agreed, but poking them with
Submitted by MightyMouth on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:11pm.
Agreed, but poking them with a stick is SOOOO much fun!
Chris...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:02pm.
My position re Bush and Katrina was and is as follows: I think it was a.) a mistake for GWB to continue his campaign/fund raising trip [stopping in Arizona to present McCain a birthday cake] once the potential for a colossal disaster in N O and along the MS/LA coast was recognized, and b.) the ineptitude of the political hack "heck of a job Brownie" and of FEMA which Brown had been placed in charge was a black eye for the administration.
Aside from those drawbacks, I think the facts as they unfolded largely exonerated Bush from the more incendiary charges of negligence and racial insensitivity which were leveled against him and resulted in his getting an undeserved bad rap.
Jer
And what role is the Governor of Louisiana responsible for?
Submitted by NL207 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:56pm.
The Federal government is NOT the first line of defence in case of a natural disaster. State governors and local officials are.
Compare Haley Barbour to Kathleen Blanco,or for that matter, Bobby Jindal in the BP oil spill. Ray Nagin, School bus Nagin, who somehow forgot he had the assets to evacuate New Orleans. It was DEMOCRATS who bungled Katrina, not the Feds. The Feds are always a day late and a dollar short.
This BS that Bush 'bungled Katrina' is just so much propaganda. The feds don't get called until a State Governor declares a disaster or asks for help.
I know I didn't cite the details, NL..
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:12am.
but that's sort of what I had in mind in my closing paragraph [although under certain exigent circumstances, the feds do in fact have the authority to intercede regardless of the governor's desires].
Jer
"The Federal government is
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:30am.
"The Federal government is NOT the first line of defence in case of a natural disaster. State governors and local officials are."
That's one of the reasons states have a National Guard. The problem, with Katrina, is that, because Bush wanted to go play "Army" in the desert, he had shipped nearly half of the Louisiana Guard (and nearly all of its quick-reaction airlift capability) to Iraq. The state had to import Guard units from out of state, which is time-consuming bureaucratic hassle.
Horsefeathers.
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:35pm.
No one has alleged there were any shortage of state resources. Moreover, if there were, Kathleen Blanco had the option AND the responsibility to ask the Feds for more. She did not.
Ray Nagin clearly had the resources to clear a huge number of people out of NO before Katrina hit. Nobody sent the school buses anywhere. Democrat Nagin let them sit in the school bus garage instead of evacuate citizens.
Before you blame Bush for the integration of the National Guard into the Army, you should review Bill Clinton's reconsolidation of US Armed forces after the fall of Communism and the end of the 1st Gulf War. Maintaining a separate Guard and Army takes money. This is something YOUR team doesn't want to invest in.
Jer
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:40pm.
I disagree with your assesment. This is music to the ears for the left wing loon watchers of his "show".
Jerry Mack...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:32pm.
See my response to Redrowan below.
Jer
"This blowhard is neither an
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:45pm.
"This blowhard is neither an asset to progressivism or liberalism nor to the network which currently employs him. And the viewing public would be far better served by his absence."
You can say that again. On the other hand, liberalism itself would be better served by his absence, so perhaps conservatives should hope he stays around for a while. He's certainly a gift that keeps on giving (I don't think outlets like the MRC give him enough hell for what he does). For years, liberals have complained about the press drawing false equivalence between vacuous, bomb-throwing morons on the right like Ann Coulter and liberals ike Michael Moore, and, for the most part, this criticism is valid--there really hasn't been anything remotely approximating a Coulter or a Hannity on the left; those comparisons are absolutely ludicrous. Not anymore. Ed Schultz fills that bill as if he'd been intentionally designed to do so. He's like a liberal mirror image of Sean Hannity, and in the larger scheme of things, it would just be better if he wasn't there.
Your statement that Ed Schultz is like a mirror image---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:46pm.
of Sean Hannity is laughable.
Hannity comes across, while obviously a conservative, as a decent human being.
Schultz manages not only to be a vicious pos, but an ignorant one, as well.
classic liberal, indeed.
MD
Hannity, like Schultz,
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:33am.
Hannity, like Schultz, crawled out of contemporary talk radio, and like nearly every creature that has risen to the top of that particular sewer in the last few decades, he deals in an endless stream of ugly, divisive vitriol and personal attacks, excreted, in Hannity's case, with such an embarrassing air of false sincerity that he, himself, can often barely keep a straight face, and if one deducted, from his commentary, the malignant lies, misinformation, and misrepresentations, there would be virtually nothing left of it. You can call a trafficker in that sort of poison a lot of things, but "a decent human being" isn't one of those things. When a genuinely decent human being encounters, in life, a substance like Hannity (or Savage, or Limbaugh, or Beck), they wipe it and flush it.
Does he do it almost literally every day?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:46am.
Here you are again making statements without proof. Link or slink. You could cite from the "endless stream of ugly, divisive vitriol and personal attacks" or the "malignant lies, misinformation and misrepresentations".
I think it's time you get flushed as we have had floaters like you around here many times and all you do is stink up the place.
classicliberal2---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 12:44am.
Hannity is a decent human being.
You are a lying piece of shit.
MD
Are you serious???
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:35pm.
"...there really hasn't been anything remotely approximating a Coulter or a Hannity on the left; those comparisons are absolutely ludicrous..."
Really? While I do not agree with everything that Coulter or Hannity say, they are not even remotely in the same category as a mental midget like Schultz.. Have you never heard of Keith Olbermann? How about Mike Malloy? Or Lawrence O'Donnell? Or Rachel Maddow? How about Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos or some of the unhinged lefty loons over at HuffPo? If you truly believe that none of these are examples of leftwing "bomb throwing morons", as you put it, then you are seriously detached from reality.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I can't speak to Moulitsas,
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:08am.
I can't speak to Moulitsas, but no one who expected to be taken remotely seriously would compare Olbermann or Maddow to the likes of Coulter, Savage, Hannity, etc. Mike Malloy, on the other hand, is a perfect example of a liberal equivalent of same. But Malloy--typical of liberal equivalents--is so obscure as to be virtually unknown. The liberals don't make rock-stars out of such creatures.
Rock Stars
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:16am.
I don't know what you consider a rock star but to say Coulter, Savage (especially Savage) and Hannity are rock stars, while Olbermann and Maddow are not, proves further your inability to accept reality or even stay consistent in your own version.
I'd certainly never dispute
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:34am.
I'd certainly never dispute that Olbermann and Maddow are rock-stars. It's just that any comparison of what they do to what Coulter, Savage, Hannity, etc. do is ludicrous.
ClassicHypocrite
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 4:16am.
They are two sides to the same coin. Your inability to admit that is what is ludicrous. You keep bringing up Savage like he has a following that merits attention while seeking to dismiss Malloy for the same and everything you say about Hannity can be said about Olbermann and Maddow. We can throw in Dylan Ratigan, Cenk Uygur and Lawrence O'Donnell just from MSNBC. In film you have the likes of Aaron Sorkin and Mikey Moore. You also have Bill Maher who would be proud of the misogyny displayed by Shultz. You going to tell us you shun and marginalize these people? Please show yourself to be a liar.
"You keep bringing up Savage
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:30am.
"You keep bringing up Savage like he has a following that merits attention while seeking to dismiss Malloy for the same"
I don't know how things currently stand, but Michael Savage, up until just recently, had the 3rd highest-rated radio talk-show in the U.S., and it was on something like 420 stations. He's written 4 or 5 best-selling books in the last few years. Mike Malloy is a guy who is self-syndicating his show out of his own basement. He probably doesn't appear on a dozen stations nationwide.
Sirius and XM Radio
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 12:22pm.
Both of which he appears on. He also contributes to the Huffington Post and a appeared on MSNBC less than a year ago. When is the last time Savage was on any major network?
Is that shunning and marginalizing Malloy?
You must be talking about Bob Olbermann, right?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:25pm.
The mail carrier?
I know it won't happen, but MSNBC should...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:02pm.
hang Schultz by his genitalia for his outrageous comments about Laura Ingraham...Like I said, I know it won't happen, but he certainly deserves it, despicable, low-life slime that he is. One would think that Schultz's comments would be a bridge too far, even for the cretins at MSNBC, but I'm really not expecting anything will be done about it.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
If they suspend Schultz for
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:11pm.
If they suspend Schultz for his totally offensive reference to Laura Ingraham, I'd be pleasantly shocked.
Ditto...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:16pm.
But I'm not holding my breath.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:36pm.
Me either. His comments show such misogynistic rankness that, in an even semi-normal world, he wouldn't be just suspended, he would be fired. This wasn't a slip of the tongue - this reveals a complete lack of even a semblance of professionalism and decency. If MSNBC and Comcast keep him on, they have revealed that they have abandoned any standards of decent discourse and after this, anything - no matter how poisonous - is perfectly fine by them
Chris...Agreed...Schultz has proved...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:50pm.
numerous times what a disgusting bottom-feeder he is, and yet, he still has his job at MSNBC. If this isn't the final nail in his coffin, then nothing ever will be. Given Schultz's internal problems with MSNBC in the past ("I'm going to torch this bleeping place..."), one would think that the MSNBC brass would be looking for a reason to dump this pos, but who knows...I'm not counting on it.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:01pm.
I'm afraid with every nasty comment on these network political talk shows and every biased report on the news, we have entered the territory of "anything goes" - as long as it's against conservatives and Republicans.
Chris...Right you are...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:20pm.
There are no rules anymore, and it is absolutely "anything goes" when it comes to Republicans/conservatives.
And as we now know, surprisingly, MSNBC actually did do something, lame as it is, about Mr. Ed's disgusting comments...Oooohh...A whole week's unpaid "leave"...Boy, that'll show Ed, won't it??
Pathetic.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Pathetic?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:25pm.
So you were just kidding when you implied you would be "pleasantly" shocked if he were suspended?
Jer
No, not all... And actually, those were not my words, Jer...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:44pm.
but Chris', although I did agree with him. Yes, I am "pleasantly" shocked that MSNBC has taken some action in this situation, as I did not expect them to do anything at all. That said, MSNBC's giving Schultz an unpaid "leave" is pathetic...He should have been fired.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Which is precisely why I said "implied", Prairie...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:07pm.
and when Chris said he would be "pleasantly shocked" and you said "ditto", I think anyone would agree you implicitly endorsed his words.
Jer
Um, yes Jer, I did, and...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:27pm.
I said so in my last post to you...I do agree with what Chris said. Are you being intentionally obtuse? If so, I don't intend to get caught up in a war of words with you, Jer. My meaning was plain...Chris said he would be "pleasantly" shocked, and I agreed with him.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Okay, Prairie...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:50pm.
To summarize:
You didn't think MSNBC would suspend Schultz at all.
However, if they did suspend him you would be pleasantly shocked.
The one-week suspension without pay was pathetic. He should have been fired.
I apologize for my obtuseness.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:55pm.
You do agree Schultz should be fired if MSNBC is to maintain their standard of fairness, don't you?
Certainly you don't think his comment is better than Imus' "nappy headed hos" comment, do you?
I don't.
Cool...I think my views posted five hours ago should answer
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:05pm.
your question:
#69 True, Laura Ingraham's criticism was unwarranted... Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:20pm.
[she should leave the low road to the folks at weasel zippers], but Ed should not just be suspended but instead sidelined--permanently. His comments were absolutely indefensible. This blowhard is neither an asset to progressivism or liberalism nor to the network which currently employs him. And the viewing public would be far better served by his absence. [My bold]
Jer
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/05/25/will-msnbc-suspen...
Jer
→ Sorry, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:15pm.
You would be the last person on the left I'd expect to defend misogyny. I, on the other hand, now hope he stays on at MSNBC as a constant reminder that morally upstanding liberals are outvoted by their liberal bretheren and sisteren(?) when it comes to misogyny.
And yes, I count you as a morally upstanding liberal.
Okay, Jer...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:19pm.
We'll try this one more time...
No, I didn't think that MSNBC would suspend Schultz...If they did suspend him (which would have been and is a totally insufficient punishment), I would be pleasantly shocked, as I did not expect them to do anything at all punitive to him. MSNBC did in fact suspend him for a week, which is pathetic, because his actions deserve that he be fired. And yes, it is you, not I, as you implied, that was being obtuse, intentionally or unintentionally. Are we all clear, now?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Got it, P S...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:27pm.
Pleasantly shocked by MSNBC's pathetic response.
All clear.
Jer
→ That's it, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:40pm.
Being a man of few words ;-) I'd say "underwhelmed".
Actually Jer...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 12:34am.
I don't think you are "all clear", but I really am not inclined to continue with this any further as I think it is futile, and it is giving me a headache...LOL! Have a nice evening. ;-)
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie...I understand
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 1:07am.
an excellent remedy for a headache is to beat yourself on your forehead with a ball-peen hammer.
Hope that helps. :-)
Sleep well.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:26am.
I would also like to - er - "clarify" - my position (I believe that's the term politicians use). I said I would be "pleasantly shocked" if MSNBC suspended Ed Schultz for his crude misogynistic characterization of Laura Ingraham. This did not mean I was advocating a mere suspension of him - only a description of my reaction if MSNBC had applied even a token punishment. I didn't expect any at all. Now, if they had actually fired Ed Schultz - which I think his vile language and his behavior leading up to it warrants - I would have pleasantly passed out in astonishment.
Right back at 'cha, Jer...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 11:23pm.
Oh and, thanks for the advice. ;-D
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 1:04pm.
Holy hammers! I'm glad your conversation with Jer ended on a light note, but I do have a pretty, pink hammer to use on Jer, if needs be. Seriously, Jer, don't you think that was a tad nit-picky? I think I will go ahead and hammer that point to you: BAM! BAM! BAM! [I would never really hurt you, Jer. The hammer is actually made of sponge, so it's more like BOP! BOP! BOP!]. ;)
In any case, Schultz is the jerk. I'm glad he apologized, but the fact that it so easily and casually came out of his mouth (and that he didn't feel the need to apologize until the backlash) speaks volumes.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Thanks, GG...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:26pm.
Needless to say, I didn't find Jer's hammer comment particularly amusing, and so decided to throw it right back at him.
I think I might just take you up on your pretty pink hammer offer sometime, as I do think that Jer could use it now and then. ;-D
As for Schultz, he is such an a$$...And you're right about him... I don't believe he would have apologized if there hadn't been such an outcry, gutless jerk that he is.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
Prairie...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 11:06pm.
The headache/hammer reference was intended as good-natured play regarding what I perceived as the inconsistency of "pleasantly" vs. "pathetic".
I'm sorry if it offended you. It certainly wasn't meant to.
Jer
GG...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 10:58pm.
Agreed, it was probably too nit-picky.
As for Schultz, I think my position should have been clear from my very first post on the subject [before the suspension was announced and his subsequent apology] in which I said his remarks were indefensible and he should be "sidelined--permanently".
Jer
All kinds of tools Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 11:24pm.
But whatever works for you
Jer
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:22pm.
I know this is gonna shock you but I somewhat disagree with your statement that "This blowhard is neither an asset to progressivism or liberalism nor to the network which currently employs him. " It depends on the perspective. I for one applaud you for seeing him as you described him but there are many on the left specifically Move On and Daily Kos who in my opinion would applaud him and see nothing wrong with what he said. I'll also bet that his colleagues at that wonderful "News" station won't say a word, specifically Rachel Maddow, Larry O'Donnell and Chris Matthews. Its all perspective and perception.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 9:19pm.
Let me put it this way: There may be a handful of imbecilic fringe libs among Mike Malloy's audience of tens who cheer his every despicable word. But that fact doesn't make Malloy an "asset" to the Left. That is the point I was trying to make about Schultz.
Jer
Excellent point, Jer
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:00pm.
I commented above to one of your posts, but now realize we want as many Ed Schultzes and Mike Malloys as the left can dig up. They paint a stark demarcation between ideologies.
Schultz and Malloy aren't
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:19am.
The liberalism of Schultz and Malloy isn't the source of their offensiveness. Conservatives should, indeed, want as many of them representing the left as possible, but that simply isn't going to happen, because, while conservatives make rock-stars of their versions of such creatures, the left shuns and marginalizes them.
That has to be, by far, one
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:44am.
That has to be, by far, one of the most out-of-touch-with-reality statement I've seen on NB's comment section in a while. Liberals actually do elevate liberal talking heads and more often than not do NOT shun and marginalize them.
Case in point, there has been no massive hue and cry from the usual gang of liberals for Schultz' job from the liberals.
The fact that there are smaller audiences for overtly liberal radio and TV talk shows is that there just isn't that many liberal listeners and viewers to support them.
Get a clue.
Suspended?
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:30pm.
Probably not, but one can always hope.
SUSPENDED 1 week w/o pay!!!!
Submitted by Deskpilot on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:50pm.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/MSNBC_suspends_Schultz_for_ca...
NB Staff, take some time off WITH PAY. You deserve it for having to monitor him.
Wow Ed must be in trouble
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:56pm.
I'm surprised.
Was suspended for 1 week w/o pay. Kudos to those who made the decision. I'm guessing Ed is calling Keith and Al right about now. Womens Media Center also chastised Shultz.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Update
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:03pm.
Update: I'm pleasantly shocked. I still maintain he should be fired. He will wear this as a twisted badge of "courage" - much like his doppelganger, The Cowardly Lion.
A week???
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:05pm.
I still maintain he is much worse than Olbermann ever was.
→ Of course he is Irishman
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:03pm.
"Michelle Malkin is just a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick" - Keith Olbermann
Looks like MSNBC has had a misogynistic undercurrent running through their programming for some time now.
Hmph
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:40am.
No more offensive than the dribble that goes on here on a daily basis.
The Irishman = TROLL
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 10:45am.
Do not feed the trolls.
Further...
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:13pm.
By the way, who is a bigger opportunistic media "sl*t" than Schultz, who once passed himself off as a conservative commentator then slid over quickly to being an uber-liberal? Well,there is Zsa Zsa Huffington, but that's for another discussion.
Schultz didn't "pass himself
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:25am.
Schultz didn't "pass himself off as a conservative commentator"--he actually was one. He was, in fact, a lifelong Republican, and was well into his 40s before he started changing his views (an evolutionary process that took a while).
Devolutionary, actually.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:28pm.
As witnessed by the current chain of events.