Schlussel claimed Media Matters is "Nazi-funded"
In a May 1 weblog post, right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel speculated that a Canton, Michigan, resident who had allegedly suffered "extensive" injuries to his hand when a homemade "cherry bomb" he and his friends created accidentally exploded might be Pakistani. Asserting that "[s]ince Muslim terrorists are generally more clandestine -- and occasionally more clever," Schlussel said that the alleged cherry bomb maker and his friends in fact "might not be Muslim." The only basis she cited for her speculation that they might be Pakistani was that, according to her, there is a "large Muslim Paki, er ... Pakistani population" in Canton. As Media Matters for America noted when Schlussel used the term in an April 16 blog post, "Paki" is a disparaging term for a person of Pakistani descent. Schlussel used the term "Paki" twice in the May 1 post, and said in her second use of the term: "I would be remiss in not pointing out the large Muslim Paki, er ... Pakistani population in Canton. After all, I wouldn't want to disappoint my friends from the deceptively-named, Nazi-funded Media Matters for America."
In describing Media Matters as "Nazi-funded," Schlussel linked to an April 18 blog post in which she falsely claimed that Media Matters was funded by philanthropist George Soros and smeared Soros as "a fake Holocaust survivor, who -- instead of 'surviving' the Holocuast [sic] -- helped the Nazis perpetrate it." The only source Schlussel provided for these claims was David Horowitz and Richard Poe's thoroughly discredited book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party (Nelson Current, 2006). As Media Matters has noted, several conservative media figures have distorted Soros' experience as a 14-year-old boy in Nazi-controlled Hungary to suggest that he collaborated with the Nazis.
On April 17, Media Matters for America noted Schlussel's April 16 weblog post (since removed) in which Schlussel "speculat[ed]" that the Virginia Tech shooter, who at that point had been identified as a man of Asian descent, might be a "Paki" Muslim and part of "a coordinated terrorist attack." The Virginia Tech shooter was later identified as Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean immigrant. Schlussel replaced the original post with a note referencing "Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins."
Schlussel's commentary extends beyond her weblog posts. The bio on her website describes her as also a columnist and a radio talk show host, and as Media Matters for America has documented, she has also appeared as a commentator on MSNBC.
You know they're getting desperate when they use the old Nazi ploy.
Against the war in Iraq? YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
You have proof that another rightwing pundit is full of BS? YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
You're exposing corrupt, criminal Republican politicians? YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
You want greedy corporations to stop polluting and contaminating our land, air and water? YOU'RE A NAZI!!!
NAZI, NAZI, NAZI!!!!
That would now be nazi comparison #89 for the right wing media.
Ich erkläre dir, was mich wütend bildet - ich spendete zu MMfA, gab 100 deutschmarks. Fällt aus, das nur ungefähr 60 Dollar ist!
Eine was für Gaunerei. Dumme Verbrauchssteuer! Dumkopfs!!!
Don't be dummy, be a smarty! Come and join the right wing party!
Snoopy: I checked the lyrics carefully, and I think you have misrepresented them:
Correct:
Don't be a demmy(dimmy) . . .
were you drinking when you listened? I've seen where it somehow changes what you hear! ;)
Only coffee - but were YOU drinking when you wrote? I've heard that can change what you see, too!
Debbie 'I shall take Ann "I want the Dali Lama's head by sundown" Coulter's place at the alter of bigotry and hate' Schlussel needs to stop doing what she's doing.... she is a bad person...
I think she's flat out wrong about Canton. Other parts of the Detroit metro area might have a significant Muslim population, but I think Canton is mostly Euro-white.
From the wikipedia entry:
As of the census of 2000 [...] The racial makeup of the township was 83.87% white, 4.54% African-American, 0.29% Native American, 8.73% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 0.64% from other races, and 1.91% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.34% of the population.
Someone had linked Debbie Does Dallas' blog after the VT shootings and I had the misfortune to read it. She guessed that the shooter was a "Paki" because police reports at the time only said the shooter was Asian. She stated that Pakistani people are considered Asian, although when I read Asian I think more of, oh, I don't know - Japanese, Chinese, KOREAN.
Tell me something- why don't we see this kind of diatribe leveled from the left against people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farakhan, when they create more hatred than anyone else?
Oh yeah, they're the darlings of the left no matter how ridiculous, erroneous, and politically incorrect they are or how many people whose careers and lives they ruin with false accusations.
your inability to either pay attention or remember more then 30 seconds in the past proves nothing except your own deficiencies. There were lots of 'diatribes' written and broadcast AT THE TIME. But please go right ahead and keep digging 20-30 years in the past and lying about their after effects. A common pattern for those who are feeling cornered by their own deceptions.
I wish I could say it is nice to "see" you again, Peg.
So because the guy 'messed up' and hurt himself, he is a terrorist, not a smart muslim, and therefore must be a dumb Pakistani.... ok, Debby.. got it- thanks!
and they were throwing ping-pong balls filled with the explosives from a pick-up truck at night... I'm going to pull a schlussel and say they OBVIOUSLY had to be red neck teenagers drinking keystone beer and wearing corny hats that say 'To hell with your mountains, just give me your Busch'...
MMFA funded by Nazis?
I would have said Communists, Socialists or Moonbats...
JUST KIDDING FOLKS ;-)
That's okay. We know not to take anything seriously from fascistic, bomb-throwing, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.
JUST KIDDING FOLKS!!!!
Be nice to J-2. He's a good un.
Aw thanks Holly Dolly :-)
I'm never quite sure what to make of Marv's posts. Being he advertises himself as being bitter & all.
Schlussel's remarks were so laughably preposterous, that I felt they didn't deserve a serious comment.
So I figured a little levity was more appropriate.
But I get the feeling Marv doesn't laugh much, so his retort wasn't unexpected.
You're welcome. Do you remember any of the various times when I was accused of being a Righty 'cause I was sweet to some Righty? There was once one guy who cyber-stalked me at MMFA. Whenever I posted, he'd post something shrill and false about my far right political position. I think it was Snoop, mah dawg, who flashed his fangs. Or maybe Solon. Anyway, it was surreal and the stalker/accuser was eventually banned or just quit.
But you deserve respect, J-2. Your ideological range often surprises me and there's nothing I admire more in a person and citizen.
Wasn't me babe. I have been a huge fan since I first saw yourposts here.
You misunderstand, Solon. I think it was Snoop or you who tried to get the cyber-"you're a neocon"-Grendel to back off. One of you was my Beowulf.
Oh, just moved to page 2. You're right, I did that!
Good job Snoop. Sorry Holly I guess I misread it.
That's why, for now and forever, you'll always be "mah dawg."
Nor I. I've never had a bad thing to say about you!
This is a perfect example of the talk radio mystery. How is it that people like this have infested talk radio nationwide, but liberal talk shows can't seem to gain a foothold in more than a handful of markets? Please don't tell me that it is determined by "free enterprise market forces", I just don't buy it. Half the country is liberal, yet their dollars don't entice sponsors to support anything but Right Wing Reactionary blowhards on talk radio stations? Please.
Mighty Zog, maybe liberals don't take their marching orders from AM blowhards.
So Nerzog, what is your theory?
Remember, the bottom line for any media enterprise is $$$. It they lose money based on low advertiser's rates due to dwindling listeners, their stockholders will shred any ideological point they want to make for the sake of their own wallet......you can be sure.
Tommy, I studied authority and leadership and from my academic perspective, I suggest that a Righty tends to trust authority more than a Lefty. The Righty is more likely to bestow informal authority on someone like Rush and once that informal authority is granted, the Righty must listen, day after day, to acquire their marching orders. A Lefty is more distrusting of authority and thus less likely to bestow it.
The Right's relationship with authority can be seen in the president that they TWICE chose, a president who has tried to accrue more and more authority and who believes his authority to be supreme:
Now, one might blame Bush for his profligate application of authority, but I blame those who voted for Bush. And they were told to vote for him by pundits to whom they had already ceded monstrous informal authority.
Holly,
I don't know about righties and lefties and who specifically you put in those brackets, so I can't speak to your assessments.
However, considering liberals generally trust government and it's authoritative wisdom much more than conservatives do, I am not sure how that squares with your study.
Tommy, I think that the construct of libs loving gov't and cons hating it is an anachronism. You know and I know that Bush is a bureaucracy addict. The gov't has burgeoned under Bush, as has the national debt. Again, the Right voted for this prez and his values twice...and I wept when W was reelected, for I'd had 4 years to ascertain his values, as had all Americans.
But back to my conception of the authority-trusting Righty.
I have heard people on the Right assert, "I trust Mr. Bush. He knows best. He knows more than I do."
I have never heard a Lefty assert such a thing about any politician. You can frame this however you wish. For example, you might assert that Lefties are cynical. Or, if you might assert that Righties have juvenile relationships with authority. I believe that believing Bush knows best is juvenile. It's akin to believing that Daddy knows best when you're 6, but far more so, for Daddy isn't being pulled every which way like an American president. Daddy is far more likely to be lucid.
Holly,
I specifically said conservatives, not Bush-loving corporatist Republicans......there is huge difference.
If you want me to demarcate simply, I suggest that if you voted for Bush, you're a Righty.
Now, if you want nuance, I suggest that if voted for Bush, but recognize that he is antithetical to many traditional conservative values, such as small gov't and prudent spending, then you're a traditional and deeply dismayed conservative. Thus, I concede that there are gradients of Rightness. However, again, any person who voted for W owns the disaster that is Bush. With citizenship comes responsibility and liability, albeit figurative. Whereas those who voted for W don't and won't own the crushing debt that W incurred and incurs, they should.
But back to the thread's thrust: it's the Right's tendency for trust in authority that makes Rush and Beck attractive. The Mighty White pundits talk and they listen. I believe that this trust is wanton.
I cannot speak to those who voted for Bush, since I was not among them.
Thank Gawd for that, but there are many Righties who are wailing about how Bush betrayed them. Bush didn't. He did what he'd always done. What he failed to do is meet their projections.
Whereas I try to be kind, any person who voted for Bush owns the war in Iraq, the national debt, the plunging dollar, the ongoing dependence on foreign oil, etc. I know that's harsh, but Bush's values were clear. His track record was public record. And it's going to get much, much worse. Go grocery shopping. Look at the prices. Electricity is going to cost more. Everything will, day after day. And America has no fat for the coming economic famine. Our national saving rate has been negative for the last few years.
tommy refuses to say who he voted for. wonder why.
Holly,
How can liberals, notably yourself, be so trusting of the government to spend your money, day care your children if you have them, dole out your health care, manage your retirement, educate your children through public schools while elminating vouchers giving people more choice.......and on and on?
Yet, you don't trust the governmentally elected officials who oversee and fund these organizations? That makes absolutely no sense.
Whoa, Slick:
"How can liberals, notably yourself, be so trusting of the government to spend your money, day care your children if you have them, dole out your health care, manage your retirement, educate your children through public schools while elminating vouchers giving people more choice.......and on and on?"
Notably me? When have I ever said that "I'm so trusting of the government to spend my money?" I think bureaucracy, to some extent, exists to exist. The larger the bureau, the less efficient. This has been well-documented in myriad sectors.
So, you're tilting at a windmill. I know you see a dragon, Pumpkin, but it's just a windmill.
At least you think of me "notably."
I meant "notably yourself" in a broader perspective........forget you then, address the anathema concerning liberals in general. That they mistrust politicians, as you claim, yet they trust implicitly the programs and dollars they fund and implement?
Seems at odds to me, but then I just may be slick.
You're right. It as at odds. It's a contradiction. Well, liberals are as contradicted as everyone else. What we distrust, we also trust. This might seem a lame concession to you, but I truly believe that it's so. Nice chatting with you. Now, I'm going to go plant some trees.
Pretty progressive of me, eh? ;-)
it's not a matter of "mistrusting" politicians. it's a matter of being realistic about them. i think in general clinton did a good job. my two big beefs, nafta and too much media consolidation. we really only have free trade in a certain sense. for years, sugar growers in florida gave to both parties and kept price supports on sugar, when we could have imported it more cheaply from haiti, a country that really could have used the money. we let factory jobs go and keep the strawberry picking jobs. but in general it's conservatives who are the kool aid drinkers. no liberal would sit there and listen to someone like limbaugh tell them not to read the papers or watch the news, just listen to him. and a majority of republicans still approve of bush. talk about out to lunch.
"How can liberals, notably yourself, be so trusting of the government to spend your money, day care your children if you have them, dole out your health care, manage your retirement, educate your children through public schools while elminating vouchers giving people more choice.......and on and on?"
Trust the government? Nonsense. We do not trust blindly, we believe in the rule of law. We are mistrustful of the private sector that is strictly a pay to play transaction and is accountable only to profits. What we trust is a form of government that costs only citizenship in which to participate and is accountable to the people.
"Yet, you don't trust the governmentally elected officials who oversee and fund these organizations? That makes absolutely no sense."
Of course you can't trust conservatives to govern, they don't even believe in government. It's ironic though, that you would take this tac given your trust of the Patriot Act and dismissive attitude of those who see its inherent liberty infringing nature.
Very elegently stated.
Uhh, eleGANtly.
A liberal believing in the rule of law is like David Brock believing there is a liberal bias in the media.
Is this Genghis or Ganges or whatever your name is on the O'Reilly posts?
What a clever little statement you made! Now go play, the adults are talking.
Hey GOPLOVESTOSEEAMERICANSDEAD
A conservative like YOU thinking they have a brain is like a plague rat thinking he is Mother Theresa
Really? Do liberals really trust the government and its authority more then righties? Thats funny since I seem to remember it was mosly LIBERALS who were protesting things like the war and globalization. I dont think your assertion can be substantiated. I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.
However, considering liberals generally trust government and it's authoritative wisdom much more than conservatives do, I am not sure how that squares with your study.
Tommy, I think the big government/small government issue is separate from the authority/anti-authority one. I don't think it's true that liberals trust the government much more than conservatives. It's true some liberals tend to think of government as Santa Claus. Generally liberals tend to have less of a problem with economic regulation and more with social regulation, while it's the other way around for conservatives.
I don't think any of this relates to the right-wing talk radio phenomenon. It's more historical, being in the right place at the right time, and enjoying the snowball effect. Specifically, taking over a large chunk of the AM bandwidth as it was being abandoned for FM. This is described in detail in The Republican Noise Machine.
Also, explaining it as nothing but free market economics does't explain why right-wing radio sells and left-wing doesn't.
That's a good point when it comes to Imus but he was a national radio figure and CBS really had not much of a choice. But Tommy I think your explanation is too simplified. There was as long as I can remember never any "left wing" radio to start with. You had Larry King on Mutual Broadcasting 25 years ago and then advice guys like Bruce Williams and alternative reality people like Bell and Nouri-otherwise all talk was local and represented the community. But when widespread syndication started, it seemed to me, an active radio listener, that virtually everything was really right wing immediately. Now, that may be the demographic that listens to the radio but I don't see the left was ever given the opportunity to build a radio audience. And if it's hate speech that sells, that's kind of sad. But I think as others have said, the left doesn't bother listening to the radio because it's for the most part ranting propagandists.
I am just saying that generally speaking, money fuels the system, not ideology. If left wing radio somehow did find it's audience and took off, you would see media corportatists lining up to sign up the next left wing Rush in a minute. There is a lot of money in syndicated radio.
I believe it is a demographic issue, some on the right have listened to Rush and his copiers for years, they lap it up and are very loyal.....I don't know why, but he has his audience and the numbers to back it up. Maybe liberals just don't want to listen to talk radio, I don't know.....it's not their thing, who knows. The only thing I am fairly certain about is the dollar angle and businessmen and women don't like to fund losing ventures, regardless of their political affiliation.
Money does fuel the system....true. But, could the system be corrupted by an artificial influx of money? We know that it happened on a small scale with a few "journalists" paid off by the White House to promote their policies. Is it possible that it has been done on a wider scale? I don't know. I really don't have an explanation, and you may be right. I just find it odd that liberal talk radio has to pretty much depend on internet streaming to get an audience, yet no-talent hate-mongers can be found in virtually every market, essentially repeating the same stuff that Rush Limbaugh says every day. I live in a Southern metropolitan market; we have a Democratic Governor and a Democratic state legislature. Yet, our two talk radio stations are wall-to-wall conservative (except for Coast-to-Coast, which sort of defies political categorization).
There may be no conspiracy here, but I do find it puzzling.
Speaking for the shadow people of the world, Coast to Coast represents the underrepresented. Is that not a politcal category? Don't answer that ;)
There is some vaugely sourced info, as in I have no idea of its source. Nor legitimousy of the following trail.
I believe F.M. radio becoming a more comon thing is a factor. The higher quality sound took more and more of the music listener audience. With them went the advertisers, and of course the money. Ways to make money for A.M. radio would be a deep concern for those in this business. I speculate (ok now he speculates?) A down home voice tying to make a connection to a potential audience and make that audience grow any way you can. The options played out in the market. Some times options grew that had help. The number that said conservative talk radio came up as steady source of jobs and political influence. In the 80's its growth has comparisons to parts of the big bang theory. I'm unsure of the vintage of my understanding here, but. Reality suddendly exsisted as a very small energetic area. though the wonders of imagination we can step outside of this in our minds.All the basic forces of nature are one. One force separates and strange things happen. the thing I think of is the explosive growth of the universe at this point. This is what seemed to happen to the engram. A phase shift changes the character of the universe at this point relates to the appearence of RushCo in this time frame.
Not necessarily. In the late 90's Jim Hightower was a very successful leftwing radio personality. He was syndicated and immediatly Disney bought the syndicate and despite GREAT ratings fired him when he said something bad about corporations in general and Disney in particular. No money isnt EVERYTHING.
Clear channel doesn't care: ideology first, audience size and advertiser support second. See Air America in Boston MA, Madison WI, Portland OR, etc.
That's certainly true in Cleveland, where they took a beautiful radio property, a 50,000 watt clear channel station at 1100 am (technically clear channel not Clear Channel Clear Channel) and destroyed it. Now they took away 4 minutes of local news (went from 7 to 3 minutes) every hour and half hour and substitued the 4 minutes with Fox News Radio. I hate them for what they did to that station. They also completely eliminated overnight local news on the 30s for Fox News. Which, by the way, ends EVERY broadcast with "Fox News-Fair and Balanced" which I always thought was funny because if they ARE, why do the feel compelled to remind everyone of that. Clear Channel Communications COMPLETELY pushes a right wing agenda.
They WILL? How do you explain MSNBC canning Donahue when he was their TOP RATED SHOW then?
Here's another theory:
Progressives use their radios to listen to music.
Or we prefer to listen to as-close-as-we-can-get-to-news rather than opinion.
My theory is we prefer to see, not hear. Hearing Howard Stern talk about a guest showing her boobies is boring. Seeing her do it is - well, you know, special!
Snoop, stay pure! Don't ever look at boobies!
Actually, it's been proven that looking at boobies is good for stress reduction. That's probably why so few women on TV are big-chested. Advertising thrives on anxiety, a mellow tv watcher is not as susceptable to mass marketing.
If gazing at big boobies reduces stress, then this explains why so many guys are anxious around me. I'm so flat that sodbusters keep trying to stake a claim on my chest. At night, the prairie wind whistles across my chest and tumbleweeds tumble under my chin.
Oh, stop! I bet you have a sweet sounding voice that charms the pants off of an ice cube!
I do, I do!
Whenever I do radio interviewers, those folks say, "You could do my job."
But it's not sweet-sounding. It's ravaged by years of performing, so it's as throaty as a Ferrari's purr.
Clear Channel (and several other Corporate Media ownerships) specifically exterminated Air America on their outlets, despite audience sizes in the top tier of respective markets - in Boston, for example, the number two rated talk show, despite being allowed broadcast strengths limiting reach to a mile from the towers all night. Same story in Madison, WI; and many other venues around the nation. Replacement programming? Why, Spanish-language talk and music, of course (HUGE audience in Boston, Madison, Portland, OR, etc.) Plus, despite the boosting of broadcast power for one of the two Boston stations, the ratings appear to be zero - immeasurably small - so the profit motive doesn't quite account for the change.
So, Air America didn't just die - this is definitely murder!
Clear Channel management doesn't answer to me, but I would certainly have protested had I been a shareholder.
Okay, maybe this is tin-foil hat stuff but what about this; if a radio station owner is a multi-millionaire, would he/she benefit more from the policies supported by a conservative talk show host, i.e. tax cuts, or from the profits which might be generated by switching to a potentially more popular liberal host? If the potential sponsor profits are about the same, why not stay with the one who matches your ideology and promotes policies that benefit your portfolio? I don't think that's too far fetched.
It may be IQ related
those were the days...blowin up stuff with m-80's ... bottle rocket fights
Debbies rants remind me more and more of the exchanges between Jane Curtin and Dan Akroyd on the old Saturday night live:
This one is from season 4:
Dan Aykroyd: Hello. I'm "Weekend Update" Station Manager Dan Aykroyd. This week, the Shah of Iran declared martial law, in an attempt to put a stop to the violent writing which has paralyzed his country. The Shah is the subject of tonight's "Point/Counterpoint". Jane will take the Anti-Shah Point, and I will take the Pro-Shah Counterpoint. Jane?Jane Curtin: Dan, I know exactly what you're going to say: "Jane, you ignorant sl%t! The Shah is our friend, he sent us oil during the 70's re-embargo. He's a fighter against Communism." Maybe so, Dan, but what happened to the human rights you scream about every time a Saranski gets sentenced to some Soviet jail? Why is it wrong to torture a dissident and freezing Siberian Goulag, but okay to wire a leftist student's genitals in a baking Tehran dungeon? I only hope that someday someone wires your genitals, Dan. Then you'll be singing a different tune!Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you poor, misguided scrag! Sure, the Shah's a jerk, but he's all we've got! Just look at the map. To the north, the Soviet Union; to the east and west, Afghanistan and Iraq. Both leftist radical states; and in the south, the Persian Gulf. Any idiot can see that Iran would be a prized stepping stone in an eventual Soviet takeover of the world. And when that happens, Jane, those Cossacks will be coming over here with their broom handle, and we'll see how you'll feel then! Of course, you'd probably love it, you ignorant sl%t! Jane Curtin: That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
So Debbie you ignorant...Oh never mind--it is pretty much hopeless to expect people like you to make any sense at all.
Too funny, if you go to her website and click on media her last "big" gig was
<!-- begin adding mt tags --><!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/movies/index.html#002327" trackback:ping="http://www.debbieschlussel.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2313" dc:title="Me on MSNBC, Tomorrow (Friday) Morning" dc:identifier="http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/movies/index.html#002327" dc:subject="Movies" dc:description="By Debbie Schlussel I will be on MSNBC, tomorrow (Friday) morning, at approximately 8:20 a.m. Eastern, to give my Friday movie reviews. Many Fridays, I'm on Philadelphia's Michael Smerconish Show on WPHT-AM 1210, "The Big Talker." Since Michael is now..." dc:creator="Debbie" dc:date="2007-04-26T15:42:26-05:00"> </rdf:RDF> -->April 26, 2007Me on MSNBC, Tomorrow (Friday) MorningBy Debbie Schlussel
I will be on MSNBC, tomorrow (Friday) morning, at approximately 8:20 a.m. Eastern, to give my Friday movie reviews.
If you click on Movie Review "Dirty Dancing": Yet Another Silly Celebration of a Meaningless "Anniversary"I think I agree with the other folks that keep saying that Debbie should be ignored. She is a D list neo-con blow up doll.
Blow up doll? Someone puncture her, maybe she'll fart and fly away, never to return.
So, Schlussel, the Catholic Church is Nazi-led? And since W's family consorted with Nazis, then W, by proxy, is a Nazi sympathizer? Or is he a Nazi collaborator? Should we shave his head and parade him through the streets?
I try to have good humor and good will towards all, but Schlussel is a sick, sick, sick woman. Her morality is diseased. Her desire for infamy is a pathology. Sepis has seeped into her soul. Stand downwind of her and you'll smell the stench of a rotting soul.
Holly, don't be so hard on the blow hard. Her show is funded by red light ethics - if you don't wear protection, you get what you pay for.
That's beautiful prose Holly-how do you really feel? :-)
Imagine Schlussel and me in an elevator. A stuck elevator.
Like ThunderDome, it would be, "Two women enter. One woman leaves."
But just like in the movie, I would probably realize that Schlussel, like Master Blaster, is cognitively challenged and thus spare her
Yet another righty bobblehead invoking Hitler. I guess it never gets old with them.
Aah, another right-wing Freeper Nazi comparing left-wingers and liberals to Nazis. What is up with all the Freepers using the N word when they're the ones suggesting giving the Muslims what Hitler gave the Jews?
What I do not understand, is why Schlussel cannot be held legally responsible for her comments of Nazi funding of Media Matters. How is it that she can make such an outrageous and slanderous comment without being able to show evidence of such involvement? Why is Media Matters simply publicizing her accusations and NOT taking legal action?
I'm going to make the ONLY apt Nazi analogy.
Question: Wanna know who's like Hitler?
Answer: Hitler
the sad part of this is that she will go one a fox or chris mathews and never be asked about this and the mm is not funded by soros
or asked to present proof of her accusations.these people can say anything and get away with it.
Ok, this one must be right wing humour, Schlussel is so vapid, and brags about appearing on the Howard Stern show etc. that she can't possibly be taken seriously. She is Coulter without the originality. Go to her web blog and laugh your self silly. Then go to her fan club (9 members!!) and you will pass out from belly laughs. She actually responds to a commentor and says " next you will ask me to prove unfrozen water is liquid" apparently not aware that steam is unliquid water also. I'll bet I could really get her unhinged with an explanation of phase changes. Gazooks, that sublimation must be a climate change fear monger trick!
What is with the Nazi comparison lately by these MSM types?
I guess comparisons to Al Qaeda members are too outrageous even for them. :-)
Not at all: it's just that since the "radical left" and all of us commie-pinko doubters are the object, there must be another invoked as the comparator. Thus, we search memory for someone whom we can agree was "bad", and - abra ca dabra - those nasty NAZIs appear, satisfying the formula perfectly!
Why is it that MMFA is so reluctant to file lawsuits against those people like Schlussel? An accusation of ties to Nazi elements is serious. Several factors make it imperative to sue Schlussel:
1-MMFA will receive a nice financial reward upon winning the lawsuit.
2-Schlussel will lose the bit of credibility she may have.
3-Other people and associations will be kept from being smeared by these sleazeballs.
Sue Schlussel now.
Try to say, "Sue, Schlussel, soon," five times fast.
Dare ya.
There is apparently fuzzy ground in what a nobody can communicate about a semi-prominent entity and get away with it without it being slander, or libel.
I wonder how you people at MMFA do not vomit while reading that kind of rethoric...
I think, on the descending scale, it's:
Rush
Savage
Schlussel
Fred Phelps
Can I lower the bar and just say she's ugly and her mother dresses her funny ?
Schlussel is parroting other nutsack Righties as it's clear by her vacant, albeit doe eyed, expression that she's not writing her own lines
Who is this idiot?
Seriously, there are many right-wing posters on MMFA that make more cohesive arguments than Ms. Schlussel. Her blog just sounds like some idiot stuff John Rocker might say.
I guess it should be enlightening to see who right-wingers are looking up to, but this is ridiculous. MMFA would be much better served to ignore pseudo-journalists like Schlussel rather than give her any appearance of credibility.
naw playa, we gotta drag these beasties out into the light
all of em kicking and screaming and cursing the sun
I believe that the Schlussies of the world are running out of names to call Media Matters...Gays, vermin, loonies, nazis...can we compile a list and forward it to them. They alwats run dry after the Nazi-card.
Did anyone realize that Schlussel in verminese means No Class? It speaks for itself.
OK, someone's got to say it: for the love of Pete, why is this b*tch still talking? Don't we have laws somewhere that would compel institutionalization of clearly unhinged individuals as Schlussel? With apologies to our German friends, we should lock her up and throw away der Schlussel!
Tommie / Nerzog
If I may be so bold as to join your confab and offer my $.02. . . .
The reason (I think) right wing radio has done well, is because there are millions of people who were looking for some sort of reinforcement of their prejudices. By prejudices I refer to racial, class, political, religious, environmental, etc.
Rush came along and in essence said; Greed is good; the poor and welfare recipients are lazy; anyone can have the American dream; this is the greatest country on earth; we don't need to recycle; species aren't endangered; there are more trees now than when Columbus set foot in America. And the list goes on and on and on.
Some of this is true and believed by right and left. The problem lies in falsehoods and misinformation. Many people already believed the "prejudices," yet had no "reliable" source of reinforcement. Then along came Rushbo followed by many copycats. Suddenly, they found "credibility."
The Liberal / Progressive school of belief (in general) doesn't have much problem backing up their beliefs with actual FACTS, and therefore doesn't need draft dodging, drug addicted, womanizing, chicken hawk, college drop outs to lend them a sense of false credibility.
Then there is the school of thought that Liberal radio's audience is lacking because they're too busy figuring out ways to get out of work (with pay) so they can hug a few trees after plotting ways to destroy America. Later, they will burn their Bibles, talk a few pregnant women into getting abortions, and work on ways to lose the Iraq war and keep support from the troops.
THERICK, I think you covered a lot of it. I often post a quick "over 1 billion served" in response to defenders of the righty media whose rebuttals to the debunking of their heroes is to point out that they're popular.
McDonalds makes a fortune with mass produced, inoffensive predictability, while many fine independent restaurants go nipples-up. Righty am radio has a very easily satisfied, homogeneous audience, while their liberal counterparts are faced with trying to capture a group that is generally more diverse, independent, and otherwise occupied.
I actually listen to quite a bit of GOP radio when I'm on the road.One thing I find interesting is the myth of the hard-working, self-sufficient conservative vs. the lazy free-loading liberal.
I may just tune it at the wrong time, or hear selectively, but by my count, there seems to be a disproportionate number of callers to the right wing shows who are unemployed or just not very busy.
They've got a good chunk of the retirees (at least the ones who start to become scared of everything, or more religious, as they get closer to dealing with their own mortality), and from what I've heard, a good number of the disability/ worker's comp crowd (Because "I can't work" sounds a lot better than "I don't want to work" or "Nobody wants to hire me")
I'd guess these are all factors,along with your explanations.I think liberals probably listen to conservative radio much more than vice versa. I do for the laughs, and the fun of pointing out the propaganda, as well as making sure that I've heard all sides of an issue.
The best conservative posters who come here do so to get some insight, and to argue their points or note problems with MMFA's items.The worst, the target demographic of righty am radio, come here to ignore the item, ignore all other comments, and repeat the buzzwords of the day.The latter are the ones who make Rush popular.
Media Matters is not founded by nazis, I think we can all agree on that. As far as the rest of the accusations go however, Media Matters is certianly a far-left propogada organization that recieves its money from looney far-left individuals who have been recently exposed in the media. The goal of Media Matters, however they may spin it on their site, is to take orders from the loons who fund it, and smear all of the politicians, journalists, and reporters who may differ from their point of view, whether they be republicans or even moderate democrats who don't support open border chaos or the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. It does not take much intelligence to see that nearly every individual who is smeared by Media Matters falls into one of these catagories, thus making Media Matters just as vile and radical left ideology-ridden as people like Bill O'reilly claim.
But while we're on the topic of nazis, Keith Olbermann, who is certainly in bed with Media Matters, has been known for his famous nazi salutes. Just ask the Holocaust survivors whom he offended by giving the nazi salute on air on several different occasions. Of course, MSNBC had to stop that little slip from ever happening again. But if this is the kind of person that Media Matters respects, then it would be nearly impossible for anyone to attempt to rescue this organization from accusations.
Injector, I really enjoyed your post.It makes me feel all warm inside to think that you will be voting at the same time as the humans.
Here's a tip; some zombie posters here load up their comments with copy and paste BS and links to tabloids. Nobody reads them, and it makes you look like you at least tried.
Yeah, but where is the fun in that? I would much rather just use facts and reason to expose MMFA and some of it's looney-tune activisits as the liars and dirty propagandists that they truly are. By the way, I hope we get neighboring voting boths so I can look at you and smile while I think about how my vote is cancelling out a warped liberal activist who gets their political views from a mound of garbage like MMFA.
Interesting posts, Injector.
The problem is that you haven't cited a single fact in that little snit that you hurled at us. All you did was angrily string together a bunch of pissy verbiage & unsubstantiated conclusions about the motivations of MMFA supporters. You do know, don't you, that facts are not quite the same as raging prejudices & desperately held opinions.
You say that MMFA simply smears all who disagree with its views. You neglected, however, to name a single case, nor have you explained how providing video, audio, full transcripts, & actual context to the statements of wingnut media figures constitutes smearing. Simply insisting that its so does not actually make it so.
A cursory examination of your words show them to be empty though passionate rhetoric substituting for any sort of reasoned discourse... all form but completely lacking in substance.
In other words, you got nothin'.
Don't be too discouraged, though. Try us again when you have something that might actually challenge us. This snarling, foaming, howling-at-the-moon regurgitation of right wing talking points, however, gets real old real fast.
And besides... its been done better.
mescal, I don't think it got that the first time. Nice of you to go over it again in more detail.
I wouldn't bet on it sinking in, though.
You're right, of course, HBL
My guess is that Injector has already gone back to the O'Lielly Factor, & is awaiting further orders to be delivered unto him through his television screen. Once reloaded with wingnut talking points he will reappear & once again dole them woefully out, to the annoyance of many & the sport of others.
Of course, he might always be an O'Lielly intern. Those guys usually hang around for WEEKS before fading back into wingnut obscurity.
The true definition of smearing is false accusations and insinuations about another person.
The rightwinger definition of smearing is telling others, with links and documentation, of our stupid comments and irresponsible attitudes!
It's the rightwingers who stain their own name by their own behaviors. We advocate for a fair airing of behaviors, and if it doesn't not survive the smell test, we advocate that it be called odiforous. Calling something that stinks to high heaven stinky is not a smear. Calling Bill O'Reilly or others on their behavior, and documenting that behavior, is not smearing.
They keep calling us loons, partly for the sake of alliteration, as if Dr. Seuss were the arbiter of the argument.
However, I think loons are lovely birds. What's better than being alone on a wilderness lake and having the loons trill? And loons are astonishingly fast swimmers. Plus, they can fly and walk. How cool is that? And their markings are breathtaking.
So, with pride, I declare that I'm a looney liberal!
Now, since the irrational, spittle-spraying neocons (not to be confused with lucid conservatives like Tommy and J-2) are fond of bird comparisons, to what shall I featherily compare them?
Hey, is albatross taken?
Gee, Holly! I'm surprised that you would want to hang them around an albatross' neck. We could refer to them as SLIME.
Sophomoric * Ludicrous * Ignorant * Meanspirited * Eggheads
But no. That would sound as though we were name calling, and I just can't lower myself to their level.
Although I did provide a few facts in my statement, allow me to elaborate further, and remove some of the shroud surrounding your beloved MMFA.
First of all, the MMFA admits on its own site that one of its main puposes is to rectify reporting fallices committed by right-wing media organizations. I stated previously that Media Matters primarily focuses its smears on either right wing or moderate democratic indivduals. To see this, all one needs to do is log onto this site for one week and observe folks like Bill Oreilly and Hannity being attacked on the front page almost every other day. It is interesting that the person we don't see attacked on MMFA is a Bill Moyers who just recently produced a vile PBS narrative that instead of providing viewers with an honest account of the media's role in 9/11, proceeded to attack right wing journalists and Bush administration by cherry-picking clips and mashing them together to shed a dishonest light upon everyone involved.
Now let us take a look at the donation accusations that have been recently levyed against MMFA. We know for a fact, by looking through public financial documents, that the Open Society Insitute, which donates money to the Tides Foundation and to the MMFA is a Soros funding reciepient. We also know that the Open Institute Society has more than 175 million dollars worth of assets per their financial records. A political organization does not accumulate 175 million dollars worth of assets by accepting paypal donations on their website. Thus, Soros indirectly funnels money to MMFA, and directly feeds them with his almost socialist propoganda which is subsequenlty spewed onto the Internet regardless of its truth value.
Altough these facts should be self evident, there is still more that can be said about MMFA. However, I will allow some of this a chance to sink in and possibly challenge the skewed sense of reality that most of you have developed by being partial to the filth that MMFA and other left wing propoganda groups have been feeding you for years.
I live near Canton, Mi. My sister lives in Canton. Schlussel is full of Bologna! Canton is Mostly caucasian. Yea, white. There are several enclaves of Japanese, african-americans and Chaldeans. But to say this is just ignorant. She is just dispicable....
I would like to see effective action taken against some of these hate mongers, the Schlussel article having broken the camel's back. I do not believe that name-calling in -these- comments does much to impact her, however. Being naive in the matters, I have done some quick research on the fbi.gov site and the Anti-Defamation League site to determine their recommendations... they recommend going after Ms Schlussel's ISP rather than her. Am I missing something here... like impossibility of getting ISP to act against her?
Everyone that is honest knows that Soros helped the Nazis in the War Against the Jews. That is why Elie Wiesel will not speak to him. The man is virulent anti-Semite and y'all should stop pretending he is not. He fits your Jew bashing site anyways and I guess that is why he pays for it
I guess the nonsense you just spewed fits your ignorant fantasies. Clearly you have lost all touch with reality. Seek the help of a mental health professional immediatly
As usual you can only respond with ad hominem because you hate the facts. You Jew haters on this site have spoken too long without opposition.
Wh-wh-what, gagalbert7330? You think Solon is an ad hommer and you think this after catapaulting "Nazi" and "anti-Semite" and "Jew-bashing"?
You don't get to use "ad hom" as long as you're Mr. Ad Hom Ad Naus.
As far as Wiesel, he publicly fights with various folks and whereas he is a famous Holocaust survivor, he isn't the quintessential Holocaust survivor. He isn't the ultimate authority. He speaks for himself.
Right, now you want to say the Elie Wiesel is not credible. Well, I am sure that fits with your world view about the Shoah never happening and that Islamic fascists really just want to be friends. Wow, no wonder people like Pelosi and Reid and KKK Robert Byrd get elected. They have your vote.
And no wonder Bush got elected he has the moron/hatemonger vote like yours all locked up.
You don't seem lucid to me, but I'll think the best and maybe you'll surprise me. Mr. Weisel is just one person. His story is just his story. Don't make the mistake of sinking too much authority into one person. In the end, you'll end up with the "commander guy."
I'm writing a Holocaust story and its subject is also fighting with Mr. Weisel. But she is pragmatic about her tussle, for she recognizes that Mr. Weisel, who is an amazing writer and whose storytelling has served millions by illuminating the horrors of his section of the Holocaust, is also a fighter who publicly tussles with many folks. His pugnacity probably saved him from Auschwitz. However, his pugnacity can also be problematic. He is a self-confessed cynic. His cynicism is understandable, but cynicism functions as blinders.
But since you assume that I'm a Holocaust-denier, in the end, I have to assume that you're not well. Still, I wish you well.
YOU are a moron. One that is quick with the ad hominem yourself. I am married to a Jew. You need help. Your ignorance is appalling. How would you know how I deal with the facts you havent supplied one. Just snivelled and made baseless accusations. I dont hate the facts just ignorance. Yours is vintage
She called NPR "National Palestine Radio"
That is because NPR engages in the vile and unabashed Jew hating existing today. NPR never lets the facts get in the way of giving airtime to anti-Semistes and terrorists so long as they can learn to speak the hushed tones used by the network in it propaganda for Hamas and the PLO. Joan Kroc specifically gave hundreds of millions of dollars to NPR specifically to fund it anti-Jewish adgenda and they continue with the proud tradition.
Wow, your paranoid delusions are amazing in their scope. Since we are just engaged in baseless assertions stated as fact YOU are not ONLY a moron but also a bigot and a hatemonger. You are ignorant and molest small furry animals. You have extremely poor taste in soup and hate opera, rock-and-roll, and applepie. I urge you to join us on Planet Earth your sojourn on Planet Wingnut has seriously effected your sanity.
Hey, Solon, I molest small furry animals too! Is there something wrong with that? But afterwards, we all enjoy a slice of apple pie, so I'm not utterly like gagalbert.
Gagalbert is an interesting moniker. Here's my guess as to its etymology. His name is likely Albert. He's probably posted at various websites and attacked, attacked, attacked. Since other posters at those websites were probably trying to chat, his incessant attacking probably produced a banning. So, he believes that he's been gagged. He's the victim, again and again. "Gagalbert" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. He came here to behave in ways that will get him banned. Then, he gets to be the beloved victim again.
Not if you share your pie with them afterwards
"That is because NPR engages in the vile and unabashed Jew hating existing today."
That must be why I just finished listening to them highlight a book written by a Jew about how Jewish culture may have ended up had history ended up differently and they'd been sent to Alaska instead of into modern-day Israel. They persecute the Jews by giving them time on the air! How vicious!
This woman, though, she makes Coulter sound logical, no?
And not so easy to look at besides.
I imagine she's not unattractive if you can catch her sleeping. Her waking moments, however, give me the feeling that she can't live a moment without making catty, horrid comments, and spends her waking life looking for opportunities to hate, and flies to pull the wings off of.
I wish MMFA would find different pictures for her. Every time I see them I feel the need to bathe.
Nazi funded, huh? Paki, huh?
I'm sure she's reaching her target audience somewhere under some slimy rock somewhere in a toxic dump somewhere near the core of the earth & she's happy.
Yeah, just the sort of comment I'd expect on a Jew-hating site like this.
Did anybody else lfind out only now that MMFA is a Jew-hating site? The stuff I learn from crazy people.
Not just a Jew-hating site, but it's staffed by people who are exactly the same as 92,000 Hitlers...
...in springtime.
Folks, We are watching a power play. Coulter has taken a low profile and Schlussel is cranking up her profile with more outrageouse hate speech hoping to take over Coulters spot. Can't bear to think there are 2 main stream nuts out there.
As a con, who is called a nazi, pretty much any time you speak your views, I think it's hillarious for a website who's spearheading the attempt to silence members of the media to be appalled that their being compared to facists. You libs really don't like it when the shoes on the other fott do you?
Signed,
Keith Olbermann's nazi salute.
BTW, I already noticed my "fott" typo. I know it's spelled "foot" so just note that I know I suck at typing.
You may know how to type,
But do you know how to think? We're not trying to silence anybody. Just keep talkin'.
Soooo, this site didn't post a list of commentators who they found objectionable after Imus got fired? Oh wait....yes they did, my bad I thought maybe you were being truthful there for a second. I realize that the site itself doesn't officialy call for any firings but it served as a catalyst for Imus' firing. BTW, note to Imus, GET YOUR MONEY! I guess if he wins his lawsuit cbs is going to feel a little worse about bowing down to folks like sharpton.
Good picture by Media Matters...
She's got that dumb-ass conservative smirk on her face. ... Like a two-year-old who just knocked her bottle onto the floor.
Is she like a poormans' Ann Coulter? Boy there's sure a lot of people attacking media matters these days. You must be doing something right. Keep up the good work. Right wingers just can't stand someone documenting their hate speech for the rest of the country to hear can they? They lie about everything and they're mad at you for simply recording the idiots' words and playing them back for people. Maybe if they're so embarrassed when their own words are played back they should be a little more careful with what spews out of their mouths in the first place.