Ed Schultz and MSNBC's Sewer of Hate

[Ubiquitous]

By Jeffrey Lord

Defining media deviancy downward: Are Brokaw, Williams, Lauer, Roberts
really proud?

Ed Schultz, Phil Griffin, and MSNBC.

A revealing relationship, yes?

With NBC, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Matt Lauer, and the parent company
of Brian Roberts' Comcast all in the mix, a very revealing relationship.

You have to wonder, are these guys really proud of what's going on here?
Really?

And how many cats are holding the usually voluble tongue of
"conservative" Joe Scarborough?

But first, here's another NBC story. A telling one. Particularly
considering the presumed standards of Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Matt
Lauer, and Brian Roberts. Standards that have now apparently been
abandoned faster than some celebrity wannabes ditch husbands.

The story?

The President of NBC was in trouble.

Rumors had surfaced of drinking binges at the Beverly Hills Hotel. When
his boss showed up at NBC's Burbank studios, the NBC president looked
disheveled, unsteady, the pits.

The straw that broke the camel's back was Mexico.

At an NBC affiliate gathering, the network president's condition, evident
throughout, became the talk of the meeting. Things got worse when the man
returned to NBC's New York headquarters in Rockefeller Center. The
drinking continued -- and suddenly, the string had run out.

Summoned to his boss's office in a moment of sobriety, the meeting was
both brief and brusque.

The President of NBC -- a popular and well-respected man in the
television industry -- was fired. Out. Done.

A press release was issued, stunning his industry peers, and making no
mention whatsoever of the real reason for the NBC executive's abrupt
departure beyond the usual bromide of his desire to pursue other
interests.

The firing caused an internal uproar at NBC. When the parent company
board of directors meeting took place there was a furious battle. The
fired president's supporters were enraged at the callous way such a
distinguished career had been terminated. There were threats of
resignation from prominent and powerful board members.

Finally, with reluctance, the man who had done the firing took the floor.
Taking a breath, he related what had happened and why -- in quiet detail.
The disruptive effect the drinking had on relations with NBC affiliates.
The repeated waves of uncertainty in the network's decision-making
process caused by severe drinking bouts. At one point, another NBC senior
executive, a friend and ally of the fired president, reluctantly spoke up
to confirm the stories. They were, he said, all perfectly, sadly, quite
true.

Flaring tempers calmed as the reality of it all sank in. A generous
severance settlement with the departed president was agreed to. There
would be no public discussion of what had happened. The disagreement that
day would not go beyond the board meeting. And the official minutes of
the board meeting would, it was agreed, contain no reference to the
incident whatsoever.

And the fired NBC president? What happened to him?

He went to the White House -- where his next job was working as a senior
aide to the president of the United States.

THIS STORY EMERGES in a little known book called The General: David
Sarnoff and the Rise of the Communications Industry by Kenneth Bilby. Mr.
Bilby was a close associate of David Sarnoff's. The ultimate Sarnoff
insider who was a two decades-long member of Sarnoff's management team.

The book, a combined biography and insider's account of the legendary
Sarnoff -- the man who was known in his day as the creator of the modern
NBC and "the father of television" (not to mention color television) --
tells quite a tale.

And in reading it, one is left speechless at just how far the network's
mindless obsession with all things fashionably left -- otherwise known as
MSNBC -- has now managed to steer the entire NBC network's reputation
into a veritable sewer of hatred.

Let's start with the beginning -- and the emergence of David Sarnoff.

For those who came in late David Sarnoff's story is wonderfully American.
Sarnoff was born in 1891in a small Russian village in an area where,
Bilby says, "the czars had sequestered their Jewish subjects since the
rule of Catherine the Great." Father Abraham, desperate to get his family
out from a world of pogroms, poverty, and years of enforced service in
the Czar's army, resolved to get his wife and children to America.
Abraham Sarnoff went first, immigrating to New York's Lower East Side
where he earned money working as a painter and paperhanger for five years
before he could afford to get his wife and children to America at the
price of $36 dollars a person. In 1900 David Sarnoff, at age nine,
finally began the long journey to what Ronald Reagan would eventually
call the "shining city on a hill."

On arrival, things were tough. The Sarnoff family lived in a $10 a month
flat on the fourth floor of a tenement repeatedly vibrating to the rumble
of elevated trains. A single befouled toilet was at the end of the hall
used -- by all the tenants. The young boy Sarnoff, says Bilby, despaired.
Eventually, the light went on as he played stickball with other kids. "We
had no Cossacks to fear."

In the course of his new life as an American, David Sarnoff's energy and
ambition blossomed. He learned English, became a newsboy, then had his
own newsstand. He got an education, and resolved to become a journalist.
His first job? The job he was offered? As a messenger delivering
telegraphs. The young Sarnoff became enamored with electronic
communications, and mixed with his desire to be a journalist, he never
looked back.

In short order he had a job working for the man he would later call the
first true hero of his life: Guglielmo Marconi. The man known today as
the father of long distance radio transmission. The "wireless."

With that, Sarnoff's young career was off and running. Eventually,
Sarnoff was at hand when the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company morphed,
with others, into what became the Radio Corporation of America -- RCA. In
1926, David Sarnoff had organized the National Broadcast Company. With
NBC making use of the young Sarnoff's passionate belief -- already a hit
-- that radio could be used not simply for point-to-point transmission
but broadcast to mass audiences, all of whom would be able to afford a
radio.

In 1924, Sarnoff, filled with a desire to serve in the military despite
being a rising star in the communications industry, was commissioned a
lieutenant colonel in the Signal Corps reserve. Eagerly, he filled the
two weeks a year duty required, his professional star now rising even
more rapidly. By the spring of 1944, now a full Colonel in the reserves,
he was asked to join Dwight D. Eisenhower in London -- to prepare the
wireless communications that would be needed for D-Day and the fierce
battle beyond.

Writes Bilby of Sarnoff:

His title would be special assistant for communications to
the supreme commander, and his first job would be the
construction of a broadcasting station powerful enough to
reach all the Allied Forces under Ike's command in the
European and Mediterranean theaters. It had to be ready by
D-Day.

The job was a nightmare. Sarnoff had to deal with the same Allied
jealousies on communications issues that Eisenhower was dealing with on
military issues. The BBC balked -- American David Sarnoff in this job
meant more coverage of Americans on the beaches. And so on. And on.
Sarnoff, like his boss Ike, dealt with the multiplicity of egos and
national loyalties with aplomb, personally winning the case with Winston
Churchill.

When it was all over? Sarnoff was promoted to Brigadier General for his
service, earning him the designation ever after as "General Sarnoff."
Returning home, ever after he was associated with everything that was
NBC.

It was his son Robert Sarnoff, who, after stints for and with various
others at NBC (notably Pat Weaver, the creator of the Today Show and
better known to movie fans as the father of actress Sigourney Weaver),
wound up as first the president of NBC, then president of RCA. By the
1960s he was the chairman of RCA, his powerful father still very much a
presence.

It was with the Sarnoffs that Robert Kintner, then himself the president
of NBC, ran into trouble because of a considerable drinking problem.

AND THIS IS WHERE it helps to have a history of NBC when looking at Ed
Schultz, Al Sharpton, MSNBC president Phil Griffin and those NBC News
personalities that appear on camera at MSNBC, lending legitimacy to the
whole charade. Names like Brian Williams or Tom Brokaw or Andrea
Mitchell.

What do you think David Sarnoff, who pushed to fire an NBC president
because the guy was embarrassing NBC with his sad case of alcoholism,
would have to say about hiring MSNBC television hosts captured on tape
shrieking about a "punk faggot" or spewing the "n-word"?

What do you think, to be specific, David Sarnoff would say if he saw this
partial list -- say again, partial list -- compiled on Ed Schultz by the
perceptive Brent Bozell team over at the Media Research Center?

• Ed Schultz Paid Nearly $200,000 By Unions in 2011, according to Labor
Dept.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/03/09/ed-schultz-paid-near
ly-200000-unions-2011-according-labor-dept

• Ed Schultz Producer Apologizes for Comparing Va. Republicans to Nazi
Death Camp Doctors
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/02/22/ed-schultz-producer-
apologizes-comparing-va-republicans-nazi-death-cam

Note on the above: Remember why Abraham Sarnoff left Russia? Because,
among other things, of pogroms. Pogroms: defined by Websters, for the
unknowing, as an "organized massacre, esp. of Jews." Can you imagine what
David Sarnoff, who worked on Eisenhower's military staff -- the
Eisenhower who made a point of filming the death camps after the victory
over Nazis -- would think of that from one of his stars?

• Ed Schultz Claims Gingrich Wants Poor Kids Working as 'Slave Labor' in
Schools
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/12/07/ed-schultz-claims-gi
ngrich-wants-poor-kids-working-slave-labor-schools

• Schultz to Dem Senators Who Voted Against Obama: "It's Gonad-Cuttin'
Time"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/10/18/ed-schultz-wants-dem
s-purge-party-starting-below-waist

• MSNBC's Schultz Slams 'Damn Political Phony' Marco Rubio as 'Not a True
American'
(Note: This of Senator Rubio, the child of Cuban exiles and immigrants.)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/09/02/msnbcs-schultz-slam
s-damn-political-phony-marco-rubio-not-true-americ

• Ed Schultz: 'Pretty Boy' Rubio Will Be 'Ugly' to Senior Citizens
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/08/26/ed-schultz-dont-
be-fooled-pretty-boy-rubio-hell-be-ugly-senior-cit

• Ed Schultz Edits Rick Perry to Falsely Accuse Him of Making Racist
Remark About Obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/16/ed-schultz-edits-ri
ck-perry-falsely-accuse-him-making-racist-remark-a
[Hmmm, didn't "Barb May" claim 'she' would denounce these actions]

• Schultz Admits Editing Perry, Doesn't Apologize for Falsely Accusing
Him of Making Racist Remark About Obama
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/08/16/schultz-admits-edit
ing-perry-comment-without-apologizing-falsely-accu

• Ed Schultz's MSNBC Apology to Ingraham Preceded by Churlish Non-Apology
on Radio Show
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2011/05/27/ed-schultzs-genuine-
contrition-msnbc-preceded-churlish-non-apology-rad

• Ed Schultz: 'The Republican Party Stands For Racism'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/04/27/ed-schultz-republic
an-party-stands-racism

(Note: as well documented here and here, progressives and racism go
together like peanut butter and jelly. Without the second, the first
would get nowhere. They have been paired in support of slavery,
segregation, lynching, the Ku Klux Klan, racial quotas, illegal
immigration -- and now voter ID. All Mr. Schultz has to do to see how the
racism game is played by progressives is look next door on the MSNBC
program schedule to Al Sharpton. Who, as you will recall, was captured
here spewing -- spewing -- the ultimate in racial slurs. Any word from Ed
Schultz on that? Naahhhhhhh. That's just the good ole' Reverend Al. Heck,
if spewing the "n-word" is OK with Phil Griffin, Brian Williams, Tom
Brokaw, Andrea Mitchell and Brian Roberts, why should Ed Schultz care?

• Ed Schultz: Republicans are 'Bastards Who Want to Destroy the American
Dream'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/05/ed-schultz-republic
ans-are-bastards-wanting-destroy-american-dream

• Schultz's Class-Warfare 'Lean Forward': Why Are We Letting Top 2% Win
Over Other 98? (Note: this on a television network that wouldn't exist
unless a poor immigrant Jewish kid from Russia hadn't worked his chops
off to create a -- yes -- corporation. A corporation that now proudly
employs…. Ed Schultz. Who quite happily takes the corporation's money.)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/10/18/schultzs-class-w
arfare-lean-forward-why-are-we-letting-top-2-win-o

• Ed Schultz Attacks Joe Lieberman's Lobbyist Wife: 'Does the Word Whore
Apply?'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/31/ed-schultz-attacks-joe
-liebermans-lobbyist-wife-does-word-whore-apply

(Note: as an older man, General David Sarnoff had earned his way into the
company of presidents and polite society. Can you imagine what he would
have thought had he learned from his celebrated friends that one of his
network's hosts said of the wife of the U.S. Senator from Connecticut
that she was a "whore"? Not to mention that the Senator's wife in
question -- Hadassah Lieberman -- was Jewish?)

• Ed Schultz: Conservative Broadcasters Want Obama Shot
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/13/ed-schultz-conserva
tive-broadcasters-want-obama-shot


There's more. A whole sewage system more of this kind of thing.

Believing as I do in free speech, if this is what has now come to
represent the network created by David Sarnoff -- the network of Huntley
and Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Matt Lauer,
and the rest -- so be it. For all I know, maybe the latter three, plus
Comcast's Brian Roberts, really are proud of all this. They're not
neutrals, they're left-wing journalists and after all this time are happy
to rip the mask of studied neutrality off and flush it straight to
the...sewer.

God bless America and their unassailable right to free speech. Everybody
watching now knows what's up.

BUT HERE'S THE THING. Remember the President of NBC who was fired by the
Sarnoff's because of his alcoholism.? This was the mid-1960s, and today
that man might be treated differently in terms of having treatment
sought. But the firing? What that represented clearly to the Sarnoffs was
that they had standards.

High standards. It was unacceptable to be representing NBC while
repeatedly, seriously, drunk. And when enough was enough, the man was
out. In fact, in a remarkable display of fairness, the Sarnoffs already
knew Robert Kintner was rumored to have this very same problem -- while
serving in his previous job as the president of the new, upstart ABC
network. Robert Sarnoff thought he could help Kintner, recognized his
talents -- which were considerable -- and hired him anyway. Sarnoff
guessed wrong. And his father's standards -- NBC's standards -- were
going to be upheld.

Obviously, the Sarnoff standards have changed at NBC. Make that lowered.

Now, as Tucker Carlson's the Daily Caller has illustrated with chapter
and verse, a media version of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation about
the problem of "defining deviancy downward" is defining NBC's integrity
downward. As seen here and here, David Sarnoff's legacy is now actively
and eagerly being prostituted to the far-left Media Matters.

As the DC noted of how this particular tale of defining media deviancy
downward worked with MSNBC:

High profile though these victories against conservatives
were, Media Matters has perhaps achieved more influence
simply by putting its talking points into the willing hands
of liberal journalists. "In '08 it became pretty apparent
MSNBC was going left," says one source. "They were using
our research to write their stories. They were eager to use
our stuff." Media Matters staff had the direct line of MSNBC
president Phil Griffin, and used it. Griffin took their calls.

Stories about Fox News were especially well received by MSNBC
anchors and executives: "If we published something about Fox
in the morning, they'd have it on the air that night verbatim."

Just so everyone understands the food chain.

The leftist gazillionaires fund the leftist dirt diggers who write the
leftist scripts for the cable sibling of David Sarnoff's old network now
given over to fulltime leftist journalists -- who in turn make headlines
out of leftist phonies seeking to intimidate Rush Limbaugh's sponsors or
whomever's sponsors.

Can you imagine the thoughts that would have gone through David Sarnoff's
head if, realizing this, he had received letters like this one from the
Media Research Center's Mr. Bozell? Anger? Perhaps. Ruffled feathers at
being confronted? Maybe.

The real point, of course, is that what is being done now to NBC would
never -- ever -- have occurred on General Sarnoff's watch to begin with.

It simply wasn't in Sarnoff's character.

David Sarnoff's mission, concludes his biographer, was to "innovate, to
inspire." No one will ever confuse David Sarnoff with Ed Schultz -- or Al
Sharpton.

Ed Schultz's apparent mission, and quite obviously MSNBC's, is to be a
troubadour of an extremist philosophy perpetually linked to the politics
of envy, class warfare, and judging others by skin color -- when not
dipping into misogyny by degrading Laura Ingraham as a "slut" or Hadassah
Lieberman as a "whore." Not to mention trying to stir fear of that
dreaded "other" -- in this case going after Latino Marco Rubio as "not a
true American."

The legacy of the Russian Jewish boy, brought to America by a desperate
father seeking to give his family a better life in the city on a shining
hill, a boy who grew up to be "the father of television" and create a
golden era of television -- color television -- in both news and
entertainment -- that legacy is now in totally other hands. In hands
intent on not only dragging NBC through a sewer of hate, but living in
the sewage. Hands that belong to people who appear to have, as The
American Spectator's own R. Emmett Tyrrell observed, "sewers for brains."

NBC has traded the standards of David Sarnoff for those of Ed Schultz, Al
Sharpton, Phil Griffin and Media Matters.

What a pity.

Someone who wakes up in the conservative Morning, Joe, should be ashamed
of himself.


---
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."

[trotsky]

On 3/22/12 11:16 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:


Has Ed Schultz officially replaced Olbermann as the left wing boogeyman,
then?

[Mack A. Damia]

Ubie's trick - a favorite Republican ploy - is to mix fact with
fiction; therefore, it's all fact to him, and he expects us to accept
his rubbish.

References, please, for all the garbage you posted. And don't cite
some right-wing conservative rag that has been cut up into squares and
is hanging in the trailer park's outhouse.
--

[Barb May]

Ubiquitous wrote:
> By Jeffrey Lord

> the perceptive Brent Bozell team over at the Media
> Research Center?

FAIL

> Now, as Tucker Carlson's the Daily Caller has illustrated

FAIL


--
Barb

[Mason Barge]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:16:34 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>By Jeffrey Lord
>
>Defining media deviancy downward: Are Brokaw, Williams, Lauer, Roberts
>really proud?
>
>Ed Schultz, Phil Griffin, and MSNBC.

Ed Schultz is the guy who called some woman a "slut" on the air, right?
Laura Ingraham?

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:cjqrm718mfs3r8et5...@4ax.com...

==========================================

And what happened AFTER that? Then compare how Rush handled his NUMEROUS
instances where he said far, far worse. Repeatedly and famously.

People make mistakes. Rush's were NOT mistakes. The disgusting things he
and the other hate mongers of the right are not saying these things and
apologizing until forced.

[Thanatos]

In article <jkkqip$84i$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Oh, please. Schultz wouldn't have apologized either if his masters
hadn't forced him to. It's not like he said it, then stopped and
realized he'd slipped and immediately said he was sorry. He was quite
pleased with himself and his remark at the time. It was only after it
blew up that he-- just like Limbaugh-- came back on the air at a later
date and apologized. And he didn't mean it any more than Limbaugh did.

[Barb May]

Thanatos wrote:
> In article <jkkqip$84i$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"
> <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mason Barge" wrote in message
>> news:cjqrm718mfs3r8et5...@4ax.com...
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:16:34 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> By Jeffrey Lord
>>>
>>> Defining media deviancy downward: Are Brokaw, Williams, Lauer,
>>> Roberts really proud?
>>>
>>> Ed Schultz, Phil Griffin, and MSNBC.
>>
>> Ed Schultz is the guy who called some woman a "slut" on the air,
>> right? Laura Ingraham?
>>
>> ==========================================
>>
>> And what happened AFTER that? Then compare how Rush handled his
>> NUMEROUS instances where he said far, far worse. Repeatedly and
>> famously.
>>
>> People make mistakes. Rush's were NOT mistakes. The disgusting
>> things he and the other hate mongers of the right are not saying
>> these things and apologizing until forced.
>
> Oh, please. Schultz wouldn't have apologized either if his masters
> hadn't forced him to.

And you know this how?

Unlike Limbaugh, Schultz actually suspended himself. He probably would
have been suspended anyway, but it's still more than Limbaugh's
self-serving apology.

--
Barb

[bobo fizmarkian]

Limbaugh also expresses anti-progressive ideas every day, that in a
proper system would put him in political prison.

I also know that the things Schultz said are reasonable, because I feel
it. Others I talk to also feel it... This really is our feeling, I am
not lying!

Yet I *hate* Limbaugh. He should be arrested. These are also clear
feelings, and I have validated them by checking with friends. They feel
the same!




--
Bobo -

[Dano]

"Barb May" wrote in message news:4f6e2142$1...@news.x-privat.org...

=========================================

See this level of stupidity is exactly WHY Thanny resides deep within my KF.

I'm certain Schultz' apology was sincere because he made that original
remark on his radio show...yet he pulled himself off his own shows on both
TV AND radio. Makes no sense to think he didn't do that himself. But then
we should know better than to expect sense from Thannie. Other than
NONsense that is.

Of course those on the right see this tendency...to admit when one is
wrong...is a weakness of those of us over here on the left. They literally
can't fathom such a thing.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <4f6e2142$1...@news.x-privat.org>, Barb May

Ever since Limbaugh screwed the pooch on this, the right has been
looking for "moral equivalency" by pointing out various statements by
Maher, Schultz and others. This kind of thing often works because
people insist on answering it instead of dismissing this diversionary
tactic outright with the contempt it deserves. If there's going to be
an insistence on equivalency, then Limbaugh's defenders are going to
have to take into account his days-long campaign against Fluke, his
insincere apology, and any lack of penalty (except for whatever hits,
if any, he's taking from sponsor drops).

Limbaugh's defenders are not going to take any of that into account, so
there's really no point in playing their game.

[Dano]

"bobo fizmarkian" wrote in message
news:Ltudnfka-6azvvPS...@giganews.com...

Limbaugh also expresses anti-progressive ideas every day, that in a
proper system would put him in political prison.

=============================================

Certainly doesn't sound very "progressive" to me. I detest Limbaugh and you
equally.

[David Johnston]

Well, Limbaugh got a lot of extra heat because he didn't just attack
Fluke. He accused every woman who uses contraception of being a slut
and every woman who wants it covered by medical insurance of being
prostitutes.

[Robert Fitzgerald]

There probably are some progressives/liberals out there who think what
Limbaugh said about Fluke was bad/etc. That whatever left-oriented/Dem
commentators said about Laura Ingraham/etc. was bad...

However, both should be able to express their political views on things,
but preferably do it without going over the line in terms of attacks on
individuals, etc. that are too personal... (cunt, slut, etc.)

I think Limbaugh doesn't use things like "SLUT! SLUT!" too often...
Pretty rare. Also pretty rare for Bill Maher, although a little more
common for him maybe... maybe more permissible to a degree sine not on
public broadcast airwaves... (if still in bad taste..)

Mostly what the left doesn't like about LImbaugh is that they just don't
like his opinions in general and would like to shut him up. I personally
would guess they'd really want the same from pretty much any conservative/
free-market etc. source of ideas...

Of course, many would openly admit it... say these are bad ideas and
shouldn't be allowed...

Others, would support free speech.

Others, just want to suppress LImbaugh, Fox News, etc. prior to the Nov
elections, probably an organized campaign, some who aren't quite part of
officially, pick up on...

However, traditional American ideas, as per the Constitution and American
Revolution/etc. and that whole time is that ideas shouldn't be
suppressed, whether one thinks them good or bad...

Much of the public would feel this way... Maybe not react so positively,
even if not Rush fans? Plus, might energize those are are Fox, Rush
viewers/listeners....

Maybe smarter would be to sacrifice Bill Maher and Ed Schultz, so as to
not be hypocritical in trying to silence Rush, Fox, etc.... (proably not
a big loss for the left..)




--
Bobby

[Boo]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:15:28 -0500, Robert Fitzgerald wrote:

<snip>

>
> Maybe smarter would be to sacrifice Bill Maher and Ed Schultz, so as to
> not be hypocritical in trying to silence Rush, Fox, etc.... (proably not
> a big loss for the left..)

I think that's what worries Bill Maher....



--
Boo Fetus Radley, II

[bobo fizmarkian]

I had hoped you would love me, but now I see this is not to be...




--
Bobo -

[Boo]

If there's not BFF, there's always frenemies... Still some hope...

[Thanatos]

In article <4f6e2142$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
"Barb May" <bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <jkkqip$84i$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano"
> > <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Mason Barge" wrote in message
> >> news:cjqrm718mfs3r8et5...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:16:34 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> By Jeffrey Lord
> >>>
> >>> Defining media deviancy downward: Are Brokaw, Williams, Lauer,
> >>> Roberts really proud?
> >>>
> >>> Ed Schultz, Phil Griffin, and MSNBC.
> >>
> >> Ed Schultz is the guy who called some woman a "slut" on the air,
> >> right? Laura Ingraham?
> >>
> >> ==========================================
> >>
> >> And what happened AFTER that? Then compare how Rush handled his
> >> NUMEROUS instances where he said far, far worse. Repeatedly and
> >> famously.
> >>
> >> People make mistakes. Rush's were NOT mistakes. The disgusting
> >> things he and the other hate mongers of the right are not saying
> >> these things and apologizing until forced.
> >
> > Oh, please. Schultz wouldn't have apologized either if his masters
> > hadn't forced him to.
>
> And you know this how?

Same way you know how voluntary and sincere Limbaugh's apology was.

>
> Unlike Limbaugh, Schultz actually suspended himself.

Wow. He gave himself a paid vacation. What a guy!

[Thanatos]

In article <jkl80r$mls$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

LOL! Like there's levels to a killfile.

You're an idiot.

[Thanatos]

In article <Ltudnfka-6azvvPS...@giganews.com>,

Absolutely, comrade!

[David Johnston]

You know he's a troll, right?

[bobo fizmarkian]

That's bad?

Some of the finest mythological creatures in history were trolls...

There were particularly many distinguished bridge trolls. Although, some
of the best guarded simple natural (and occasionally elven or human-made)
rock crossings over streams and ponds. During a time when large bridges
were few and far between.

Today, we have many fine bridges, but very few trolls properly guarding
them.. I guess maybe those booths where you throw the tokens count for
something like that... Although the denizens of those huts hardly seem
proper trolls to me. Scrawny, no proper shillelaghs. Much less in
showing so-called "Neander Valley" genes than a proper troll should have,
typically.

Still, they have excellent homes and at least live on bridges.

I myself would love to own the Brooklyn Bridge as my own, if I were able
to wrest it from the trolls who own it now... I wouldn't sell it to
anyone then, for anything..





--
Bobo -

[trotsky]

You're telling Thanny that somebody is a troll? WTF is wrong with you?

[Mason Barge]

I'm not a defender of Limbaugh. Really can't stand him.

But I do see some reasonableness in looking for equivalency in this
regard: The suggestions from a number of notable feminists that the FCC
should ban him from the airwaves.

Not that it's a serious threat. But it is serious hypocrisy.

[David Johnston]

On 3/25/2012 1:40 PM, Mason Barge wrote:

> I'm not a defender of Limbaugh. Really can't stand him.
>
> But I do see some reasonableness in looking for equivalency in this
> regard: The suggestions from a number of notable feminists that the FCC
> should ban him from the airwaves.
>
> Not that it's a serious threat. But it is serious hypocrisy.

Now hold on. It's not like feminists DIDN'T denounce Maher. But the
fact is, Maher called one woman a "cunt". Limbaugh called every woman
who uses birth control a "slut".

[Robert Fitzgerald]

He also called all of us (himself included) either pimps or johns.

I never heard his comments beyond the first day, but on that day, he
immediately took back calling Fluke a "slut" and said she was "round-
heeled."

I myself can't recall quite how it was he called every woman a slut or
how that worked out.. He kind of bounced around in his analogies...

I personally had the impression Bill Maher's use of "cunt" for Sarah Palin
was a bit more personal.. A kind of more directed hate, hostility
towards her as a person...

However, for all I know, he really thinks she's great.. He's appealing to
a particular liberal audience.. for his own bucks.. he might be totally
different in person..

Personally, I kind of like the idea of being a pimp, in a way.. OTOH, if
we're all pimps, perhaps loses some panache. Nice clothing styles
anyway..

I think street pimps are a dying breed probably.. The documentary
"American Pimp" is one I saw once that was pretty good, capturing some of
that history of the pimps, as well as their "bitches".. Interviews with
both, many...

Probably a bit polluting to the mind in some ways, but does give a
different perspective on how some feel women should be treated and how
some women seem to seek that out...




--
Bobby

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message

news:80tum71je3tf2r9af...@4ax.com...

=====================================

At least on this much we agree. Much as I despise this guy and his
message...I would never call for government censorship. It's a matter of
principle...something far too many on both sides often conveniently forget
or ignore. Now applying pressure through his advertisers or his bosses is
certainly fair.

[David Johnston]

On 3/25/2012 2:18 PM, Robert Fitzgerald wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:47:54 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/2012 1:40 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a defender of Limbaugh. Really can't stand him.
>>>
>>> But I do see some reasonableness in looking for equivalency in this
>>> regard: The suggestions from a number of notable feminists that the
>>> FCC should ban him from the airwaves.
>>>
>>> Not that it's a serious threat. But it is serious hypocrisy.
>>
>> Now hold on. It's not like feminists DIDN'T denounce Maher. But the
>> fact is, Maher called one woman a "cunt". Limbaugh called every woman
>> who uses birth control a "slut".
>
> He also called all of us (himself included) either pimps or johns.
>
> I never heard his comments beyond the first day, but on that day, he
> immediately took back calling Fluke a "slut" and said she was "round-
> heeled."

Round-heeled is a synonym for slut.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:47:54 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

I don't have a horse in that race. My line is drawn when critics demand
the abrogation of basic First Amendment rights on grounds that they don't
like what someone said.

[bobo fizmarkian]

I have suggested that liberals should burn bill Maher at the stake to
compensate, and gain some semblance of balance and fairness...

I would love to hear his squeals as the flames engulfed him...


--
Bobo -

[Boo]

I hate to pop your balloon, but the people who man toll-booths are NOT
trolls, and do NOT live in those little huts all the time... They go home
to a MUCH more luxurious apartment or home after X hours, and another
skinny-troll takes over for them...

These are strictly modern humans, who know nothing of troll-culture.. and
could care less that they work on bridges.. It's just a job to them.

[Boo]

Don't know, but a lot of male spouses or thralls/boyfriends might benefit
from seeing "american pimp".... or, be hurt thereby? I don't know...
(the bitches can be tough nowadays...) Rent, buy, or watch at your own
risk.... if male.. (for all I know, migth be available online for free
somewhere.. A lot of documentaries are, legally..)

[Professor Bubba]

In article <jko1hh$o3l$1...@dont-email.me>, Dano <janea...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> "Mason Barge" wrote in message

I want to add a comment about demands that the FCC ban Limbaugh from
the airwaves. I don't think anybody should ban anybody, and the FCC
shouldn't be in the business of doing such a thing in the first place.

What I'm talking about is the idea that, somehow, what Limbaugh said is
negated by something Maher or Schultz said earlier. Each statement
should stand on its own, and each one should catch whatever flavor of
merry hell it has coming to it. Maher doesn't make up for Limbaugh,
and Limbaugh doesn't make up for Schultz. I also have to say that I'd
never paid any attention to what Maher or Schultz had to say until the
Limbaugh supporters began bringing it up again and again.

[Thanatos]

In article <250320122337163428%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,

More to the point, the FCC doesn't even have the power or authority to
ban Limbaugh.

> I also have to say that I'd never paid any attention to what Maher
> or Schultz had to say until the Limbaugh supporters began bringing
> it up again and again.

Probably because the media didn't jump all over their comments with both
barrels the way they did with Limbaugh.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:37:16 -0400, Professor Bubba

It's not what Limbaugh said, it's the hypocrisy of the reaction to it that
has people aggravated and pointing to similar statements from the left.

I was amused that Bill Maher should introduce himself into the debate by
stating that the outraged feminists should accept Limbaugh's apology.
Maher was sweating bullets!

[Barb May]

Yet another lie from you.
--
Barb

[Barb May]

And what about when people like you misstate the facts in order to fit
their agenda? Where's your line for that?

The argument FOR "banning" Limbaugh is based on more than people not
liking what he said. There are legitimate arguments about the extent of
FCC authority in deciding what constitutes 'in the public interest' when
broadcasting on the public airwaves.

Also, there is no equivalency with Maher because he is not using the
broadcast spectrum.

Certainly in the view of many, the argument that the daily spew of
hatred from right-wing radio hosts is NOT in the public interest has
some merit and is worth at least having an honest discussion about it.
This is also nothing new, because there has been hateful spew on the
radio since it was invented, but that's not a very good argument for
letting it continue. Now that there are so many other avenues of
communication, no one's free speech rights are going to be inhibited by
not letting them spew hatred on the radio.

And no, I'm not a hypocrite because I'd apply the same standards for
"decency" to everyone.

--
Barb

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message

news:06f1n71avboabnvc8...@4ax.com...

======================================

I thought he was being remarkably consistent and principled in defending the
turd Limbaugh's right to speak in spite of his message. I didn't see any
beads of sweat. He SHOULD be the last person to call for another's speech
to be curtailed.

[David Johnston]

Really? You don't think that someone who actually called his show
"Politically Incorrect" might not just be generally in favour of people
being allowed to be as offensive as they want?

[Dano]

"Barb May" wrote in message news:4f70c2d0$1...@news.x-privat.org...

===========================================

We part ways on this. No matter how reprehensible this drug addled
hypocrite's words are, is no excuse for the government to become involved.
If a future administration were lead by someone like a Santorum who would be
disgusted by the words of some liberal atheist like Maher or anyone
else...like Rachel Maddow for example and used that same precedent you would
rightly be outraged and horrified. The distinction between broadcast and
cable or satellite is a specious argument. Technologies change...the next
censorship may well extend to places like this if we aren't careful and
steadfast in protecting EVERYONE'S freedom of speech...whether we agree with
them or not.

And please...spare me your notion of decency. Define THAT one. That's a
very nebulous notion to be basing a right to free speech on.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:22:20 -0800, "Barb May"
<bar...@nonofyourbusinessx.tv> wrote:

>Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:47:54 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/25/2012 1:40 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not a defender of Limbaugh. Really can't stand him.
>>>>
>>>> But I do see some reasonableness in looking for equivalency in this
>>>> regard: The suggestions from a number of notable feminists that
>>>> the FCC should ban him from the airwaves.
>>>>
>>>> Not that it's a serious threat. But it is serious hypocrisy.
>>>
>>> Now hold on. It's not like feminists DIDN'T denounce Maher. But the
>>> fact is, Maher called one woman a "cunt". Limbaugh called every
>>> woman who uses birth control a "slut".
>>
>> I don't have a horse in that race. My line is drawn when critics
>> demand the abrogation of basic First Amendment rights on grounds that
>> they don't like what someone said.
>
>And what about when people like you misstate the facts in order to fit
>their agenda? Where's your line for that?
>
>The argument FOR "banning" Limbaugh is based on more than people not
>liking what he said. There are legitimate arguments about the extent of
>FCC authority in deciding what constitutes 'in the public interest' when
>broadcasting on the public airwaves.

No, there is no "legitimate argument" about the government monitoring the
airwaves and banning speech they don't like, and the rule goes double
here, where the impetus is that people don't like Limbaugh's political
statement.

>Also, there is no equivalency with Maher because he is not using the
>broadcast spectrum.
>
>Certainly in the view of many, the argument that the daily spew of
>hatred from right-wing radio hosts is NOT in the public interest has
>some merit and is worth at least having an honest discussion about it.

I'll have an honest discussion about it. I think the idea of banning
political speech on the radio because there are people who don't like it
is the worst idea I've ever heard.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:33:07 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Yeah, I think that's part of what I'm saying. He's afraid his usual
allies will get so caught up with the "abusive" excuse for what is really
a polticially-motivated argument, that he'll be collateral damage.

[Mason Barge]

And did it because he felt so bad about what he said!

[David Johnston]

Uh-hunh. Why?

He's afraid his usual
> allies will get so caught up with the "abusive" excuse for what is really
> a polticially-motivated argument, that he'll be collateral damage.

Why would he be afraid of that? Everyone knows that they're just
blowing smoke.

[Barb May]

All I suggested was that the issue is worthy of discussion. Perhaps
reasonable representatives from both sides could come to an agreement.

As to your concerns:
The FCC controls broadcast licenses and not the President. The
President's views do not control the FCC's actions.

Your claim that making distinctions between broadcast and other media is
a specious argument is wrong. Broadcast radio and television are
different than any other media because the broadcast spectrum belongs to
the public and is supposed to be used for the public interest. License
holders have to justify that they are broadcasting in the public
interest. This is why (for example) TV stations on average air 200
public service announcements per week.

--
Barb

[Dano]

"Barb May" wrote in message news:4f720bcb$1...@news.x-privat.org...

===========================================

All of which I still find of utmost unimportance. Government censorship is
wrong in ANY case IMHO. You may put as fine a point on it as you wish.
That goes for ANY medium.