The latest con fembot, Fox News pundit Rachel Marsden, is a special kind of nutty. I will note, however, unlike the false reports that Ann Coulter is attractive - God, no - Marsden is a looker. But apparently a stalker who’s fond of false accusations of rape. Has she been hanging out with Phyllis Schafly?
About
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Read My Endorsement
National News
- Friends Of Accused Mesa Arizona Serial Killer Trent Christopher Benson In Shock
- Jordan Bratman Parades Christina Aguilera Down The Streets Of New York
- Hack Filmmaker Uwe Boll?s ?Postal? Release Scrapped
- Mary Elizabeth Winstead In Talks For ?Scott Pilgrim? Movie
- Accused Arizona Serial Killer Trent Christopher Benson Makes Court Appearance
- Christina Aguilera On Display
- Britney Spears Sex Tape With Adnan Ghalib Rumored
- Audrina Patridge in The Reef
- Flight Attendant Eder Rojas Charged With Setting Fire To Plane
- Dennis Rodman Charged With Domestic Violence For Allegedly Hitting Girlfriend Gina Peterson
That’s not a special kind of nutty, that’s just nutty. Marsden is flat-out crazy, and there’s nothing political about that.
I think it’s wrong to compare her to Coulter on that level, not because of any personal views (mine or hers) but because it diminishes a legitimate problem with her to a partisan level.
She didn’t just make a false rape claim- she fabricated evidence against the person she accused. Again, nothing to do with politics- she’s just flippin’ insane.
If only she were a leftie — then her personal life would be no one’s business.
Talk about a smear…
True or not — let’s pretend all the accusations, innuendo, assumptions, presumptions and rumors are true — it is still a smear job, pure and simple.
And the little biographical note about her father — charming.
“If only she were a leftie — then her personal life would be no one’s business.”
Her personal life becomes relevant when she attacks other people’s person lives.
Why is that so hard for conservatives to understand?
You clearly don’t get it, Frank.
The woman appeared on a nationally televised news program and commented on a pending rape case. Commentary on her documented past involvement with a similar case–in which she was the defendant, and therefore not entitled to anonymity–therefore, is not “innuendo.” I would think you’d like to know about the people who regularly advance your political and ideological philosophy.
Besides, if she were a leftie, she’d have better character
Jimmmmm - let’s not go overboard. Lefty women are just as capable of being as batshit crazy as conservative women. Lord knows, friends of mine have dated a few.
Marsden has half the wit of Coulter and twice the personal baggage. She’s a stalker and a liar, and should be receiving professional treatment instead of being propped up by Fox “News” as yet another shrill scold.
As for “looker”–if you say so, Oliver.
Jimmmm: I was referring to the parts of the story that were innuendo.
I was trying to say that piling all that unconfirmed information with the confirmed information was the smear, not the saying of things that were or were not true.
And what I want to know “about the people who regularly advance your political and ideological philosophy”, is not whether or not they’ve ever been charged with a crime.
She’s not serving on the President’s Advisory Committee on Sexual Harrassment. She’s on a goofy panel show that’s attempting to combine the Maher Show with the Stewart Show, with a righty slant.
The show is a little too self - conscious for me, but I’m not expecting Ben Wattenberg’s “Think Tank”.
Frank, it’s been a while since the media actually used terms correctly, but you really need to grasp that reporting of actual facts is not a “smear” simply because of a personal opinion, for or against something.
If “personal lives” are classified as any news whatsoever about a person that exists in the public record, then you’ve written enough time-wasting comments here about Bill Clinton’s and Ted Kennedy’s “personal lives” that Oliver should be billing you for it.
August: And you need to grasp that I understand the meanings of words like “alleged”, “accused”, and “settlement”.
A liberal mag writes a hit piece on a conservative guest (co - host?) on a goofy new panel show, and the purpose is?
To get people to thoughtfully reflect on her credentials?
No — it is to smear her.
When I write terrible true things* about Clinton and Kennedy it is to smear them with guilt from an unrelated event. Did you think I would deny that?
But I am not the editor or publisher of Salon Magazine.
* And if you think I’m “time - wasting” what do you think you’re doing — making the world safe for democracy?
“She’s on a goofy panel show that’s attempting to combine the Maher Show with the Stewart Show, with a righty slant.”
- A surefire recipe for a double-decker shit sandwich. Fuck FOX and their Wal-Mart grade journalism/infotainment swamp.
FD123Q$RT%R-whatever sez that the Salon artice is a smear piece. Ah- No.
When you are guilty of criminal harassment, leaving “vindictive and threatening” messages, working under a false name, and grossly padding a resume -well, you don’t need a smear piece.
But go ahead, start yelling ‘Chappaquiddick’ and ‘Macy Park’. Man, that never gets old..
She is pretty -on the outside, butt-fugly on the inside. I wouldn’t nail her with a stolen dick -not even Ann Coulters.
And if you think I’m “time - wasting” what do you think you’re doing — making the world safe for democracy?
I assure you, every time I respond to you I know and admit I’m just wasting my time.
“Lefty women are just as capable of being as batshit crazy as conservative women.”
Our crazies don’t tend to get their own talk shows on radio or become media darlings.
“-well, you don’t need a smear piece.”
That’s the freaky part, Frank already said that even if everything was true, it is still a smear job.
If you stand up and say, ‘Liberals are immoral.’ then your personal life becomes fair game. That’s what has happened here.
It’s no different than having Rev. Al (”Tawana Brawley”) Sharpton comment on possible police cover-ups.
She’s “a looker”?!?
Not in that picture, pal. Why is it whenever a woman wears her hair down, she’s suddenly “hot”?
Except everyone under the sun knows that about Sharpton.
“It’s no different than having Rev. Al (”Tawana Brawley”) Sharpton comment on possible police cover-ups.”
I think he lost a lot of creditbility with the left after that… incident. That’s certainly the case with me.
If you stand up and say, ‘Liberals are immoral.’, you get intimate details of your entire life exposed?
That’s some penalty!
If you stand up and say, ‘Liberals are immoral.’, you get intimate details of your entire life exposed?
If you’ve made espousing moral judgements on people your profession then yes, your own moral history should come under pretty damn heavy scrutiny. Look, if I were an auto mechanic, before giving me your business wouldnt you want to know what kind of condition I keep my own car in?
Me
“If you stand up and say, ‘Liberals are immoral.’”
Moron Frank
“you get intimate details of your entire life exposed?
That’s some penalty!”
Two points:
1.) Yeah. Being a hypocrite is a bitch.
2.) Intimate details? It’s a matter of law. If you get charged with a crime, it is a matter of public record. It’s not like the guy dug through her trash.
Why is it whenever a woman wears her hair down, she’s suddenly “hot”?
In a Lithium-Librium cocktail kinda way, I guess.
Look, if I were an auto mechanic, before giving me your business wouldnt you want to know what kind of condition I keep my own car in?
a) You’re kidding, right? How the hell would I know what shape his car is in? By hiring another mechanic to check his car? And hiring another mechanic to check that mechanic? You were ahead with the idea that a seriocomic political gabfest is actually ” espousing moral judgements on people”.
Not way ahead — but ahead.
C.S. Strowbridge: Back to the “moron” bit again? Maybe your lefty chums are impressed, but I think you’re a jerk.
Intimate doesn’t mean “private” you nitwit; it means “personal”.
Being a hypocrite may be a bitch — but it’s not punishable by you, or Salon.
You’re kidding, right? How the hell would I know what shape his car is in?
Fine then, you want a more practical example? A Dentist and His Teeth. Not only that, but a Dentist whose Teeth are in such condition as to be a matter of Public Record.
You never heard the Riddle of the Two Barbers?
C’mon, Rex! If I’m up in the middle of the night, and I’m not watching a movie (and that’s rare), then I might, just might, watch that show. Do I care if she was arrested for tipping cows, and she’s talking about the dairy industry? Or if he was convicted of kidnapping, and now he’s talking about parenting skills?
Hell, no! Most of those people — and that includes Maher and Stewart — are trying too hard too be funny while being topical, to be good at either.
It’s insulting of all three producers to inflict these yahoos on our impressionable youth.
You know, like you — just kidding, just kidding…
Step back from the keyboard — I was only kidding.
Uhm, attractive? That’s a dude. About as attractive as Mr. Coulter
“C.S. Strowbridge: Back to the “moron” bit again?”
You want me to stop calling you a moron? Then stop acting like one.
“Maybe your lefty chums are impressed, but I think you’re a jerk.”
Don’t care. I’d rather be a jerk than a moron.
“Intimate doesn’t mean “private” you nitwit; it means “personal”.”
If you are charged with a crime, it isn’t personal. It’s a matter of public record.
“Being a hypocrite may be a bitch — but it’s not punishable by you, or Salon.”
How is it punishment to reprint something that is in public record? You don’t want these details of your life discussed, then you don’t talk about other people’s lives the same way.
Don’t care. I’d rather be a jerk than a moron.
“Don’t care”?
What a juvenile response…
If you are charged with a crime, it isn’t personal. It’s a matter of public record.
Are you stupid or stubborn?
If something happens to you, that’s personal.What’s the matter with you? Personal doesn’t mean “non - public”.
I have to believe that you’re being argumentative for its own sake.
How is it punishment to reprint something that is in public record?
You can’t possibly not know the answer to that question.
If you’re running for City Councilman, and I publish a Court record that you bribed a building inspector a decade before, I am trying to hurt you, or punish you, am I not?
You don’t want these details of your life discussed, then you don’t talk about other people’s lives the same way.
You don’t really believe that those two ideas belong together, do you?
Would you be willing to say, “If you criticize another person for their particular acts, and you have ever committed those acts, then you can expect that those acts will be discovered and made public?
Why?
Why would someone choose to do that?
Do you really mean that Salon is not responsible for publishing those details, but Marsden is?
No, you don’t…
“If something happens to you, that’s personal.What’s the matter with you? Personal doesn’t mean “non - public”.”
…
Sigh.
Personal, as you are using it, means private. You are changing the meaning of the word mid-argument, (from private life to pertaining to an individual), you can’t do that. It’s called equivocation.
“I am trying to hurt you, or punish you, am I not?”
Again, you are changing the meaning of the word from, “a penalty that is imposed on somebody for wrongdoing” to, “rough treatment.”
“You don’t really believe that those two ideas belong together, do you?”
Yes. I believe you should not make moral judgements against someone, especially if you are guilty of the same ’sin.’ I think you know someone else who thinks that was as well.
For example …
If someone is running for office and is having an affair, I don’t care, it’s their personal, (i.e. private), life.
On the other hand, if someone is running for office and part of his platform is attacking Bill Clinton for the whole Lewinsky scandal, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HAVING AN AFFAIR OF HIS OWN, then it matters. It’s not the affair that matters, it’s the hypocrisy that matters.
“Would you be willing to say, …”
Yes. That’s exactly what I’m willing to say.
“Why would someone choose to do that?”
Because it is justice. If you think the private lives of others are fair game, then your private life is as well.
“Do you really mean that Salon is not responsible for publishing those details, but Marsden is?”
If I can commit of little equivocation of my own…
1.) Marsden is responsible for the actions and events described in the story. I.E. she was the agent or cause.
2.) Salon was being responsible for printing the article. I.E. worthy of trust. It is their job to point out the hypocrisies of politcal pundits.
If you thought that Britney Spears had problems,just wait until Ms.Marsden has her soon to be impending brain meltdown.
Yes,she’s savy and speaks well but there is something missing and not quite right about her.If you take a close look at her actions during the Red Eye show,you can see that she’s still got some issues that need to be taken care of.
That’s not to say that she can’t resolve any of them,yet Fox news is going much too quickly in order to give her a show of her own.
Should Marsden encounter difficulties,it will be as if Fox news never even heard of her before.
She is fair game because she so effortlessly attacks other but I don’t feel she has the confidence yet to confront her past.