I tend to concur with WD: In a fight, Ed Schultz would be more likely to do something like bite half of Anderson's ear off. He just seems like he has more of a rage to him.
I was using the fight language as a metaphor; the fact that there's such a wide gulf between the 2 men in terms of integrity, journalistic prowess, etc.. But, yeah, in a real match of fisticuffs, I'd probably have to go with psycho Eddie Schultz, too.
Rusty: Seeing that Schultz did beat up his ex-wife I'm sure he'd take a stab at Cooper.
Unsubstantiated slander. I've never seen any evidence that this is true. I don't believe it.
Will: I'd probably have to go with psycho Eddie Schultz...
Ed Schultz has a segment on his program called "psycho talk", where he highlights crazy things politicos say. But as for Ed himself being a psycho... I've never seen any evidence of it. I think he's just passionate about defending us in the 99 percent.
dmarks, being against the 99 percent and totally for the 1 percent... it's no wonder he interprets this as "rage".
Rusty: I think all of us except WD knew what you meant Will.
I bet when Rusty deliberately misinterprets what someone says he thinks he's being clever. When someone else does it he thinks they're stupid. I also bet Rusty has an enormous ego.
By the way, spaaking of misinterpreting a minority political interest as being the 99%, you earlier in another comment called former represenative Mark Grayson a "man of the people".
I checked the 2010 election results, and found out the fact that he was a man of just 38% of the people.
dmarks: As a strongly partisan Democrat/leftist, he's defending 33%, tops.
No, he's is defending the 99 percent. If you had said he was REPRESENTING less (I don't know about this "33 percent tops" business) then you might be right...
But, regarding who he's defending... he's defending people who vote Republican too. Because Democrats support policies that help the 99 percent while Republicans support policies that help the 1 percent (by and large).
It isn't relative (to who Ed Schultz is defending) that some people vote Republican when it isn't in their best interest to do so.
dmarks: By the way, speaking of misinterpreting a minority political interest as being the 99%, you earlier in another comment called former represenative [Alan] Grayson a "man of the people".
I "misrepresented" nothing, and I stand behind what I said about Alan Grayson. When a person is elected to Congress it is their job to represent everyone in their district (or state), not just the people who voted for them.
I think Alan Greyson did a fantastic job representing everyone. Unfortunately too many uninformed and deluded people (tea party types) voted while average folks stayed home... and Alan Grayson lost to a backward religious fanatic.
When Ed Schultz was hilariously put on GQ's list of top 25 least influential people, he claimed that Anderson Cooper and the magazine were conspiring against him. That, wd, is a textbook example of persecution delusion. Couple that with the fact that he's ALWAYS pissed off and, yeah, I'm pretty sure that the guy is bonkers.
passionate = pissed off (when it's someone Will doesn't like).
Ed Schultz = more sane then Will Hart (in my book).
btw, that blogger who thinks he's rational wrote a post for his blog that I'd call an example of "textbook persecution delusion". According to this post his son was worried that Obama's goons might come for him (because of his blogging activities).
I mention this because you seem quite friendly with him... you even post on his blog.
A person can be passionate without frothing at the mouth every frigging second. That, and true believerism can also be textbook (scan the closest mirror, wd).
WD: "I think Alan Greyson did a fantastic job representing everyone. Unfortunately too many uninformed and deluded people"
The people strongly disagreed, and said that he did not represent their interest.
But it's not news that you think that those who do not share your exact political views are fools, and you think it is fine to force something on them against their views and interest.
You'd make a good dictator. Because when 80% of the people oppose you, you could just call them idiots.
dmarks: You'd make a good dictator. Because when 80% of the people oppose you, you could just call them idiots.
I said nothing about supporting a dictatorship. I'm 100 percent for democracy. Sounds like you're against it though... because when there is an election you say those on the losing side are having something "forced" on them.
dmarks: The people strongly disagreed, and said that he did not represent their interest.
A lot of the people didn't vote. We don't know what they would have said. I think more people than not would have said that a backward religious fanatic didn't represent their interests.
I'm crazier than Ed Schultz? Really? You're really going to go with that one? I've spent my entire adult life assuming positions of responsibility, working with and assisting those very same vulnerable and disadvantaged people who you so claim to care for but don't lift a finger yourself to help. Ed Schultz - he, on the other hand, has made a career out of ranting and raving (selectively perceiving while doing so) on radio and now on a lowly rated cable television program.......Gee, thanks, wd. I owe you one.
WD said: "I'm 100 percent for democracy. Sounds like you're against it though... because when there is an election you say those on the losing side are having something forced on them."
I favor the Bill of Rights and other protections from the ravages of a supposedly "democratic" ruling elite. Rights of the people that simply can't be voted away. If that makes me anti-democratic, so be it.
As for Grayson, you said: "A lot of the people didn't vote."
Those who are too lazy to vote support the result that happens, whatever it is.
"We don't know what they would have said."
They spoke loud and clear.
"I think more people than not would have said that a backward religious fanatic didn't represent their interests"
Since there was no backwards religious fanatic in the race, you are speaking hypotheticals.
18 comments:
I tend to concur with WD: In a fight, Ed Schultz would be more likely to do something like bite half of Anderson's ear off. He just seems like he has more of a rage to him.
Seeing that Schultz did beat up his ex-wife I'm sure he'd take a stab at Cooper.
I was using the fight language as a metaphor; the fact that there's such a wide gulf between the 2 men in terms of integrity, journalistic prowess, etc.. But, yeah, in a real match of fisticuffs, I'd probably have to go with psycho Eddie Schultz, too.
I think all of us except WD knew what you ment Will.
Rusty: Seeing that Schultz did beat up his ex-wife I'm sure he'd take a stab at Cooper.
Unsubstantiated slander. I've never seen any evidence that this is true. I don't believe it.
Will: I'd probably have to go with psycho Eddie Schultz...
Ed Schultz has a segment on his program called "psycho talk", where he highlights crazy things politicos say. But as for Ed himself being a psycho... I've never seen any evidence of it. I think he's just passionate about defending us in the 99 percent.
dmarks, being against the 99 percent and totally for the 1 percent... it's no wonder he interprets this as "rage".
Rusty: I think all of us except WD knew what you meant Will.
I bet when Rusty deliberately misinterprets what someone says he thinks he's being clever. When someone else does it he thinks they're stupid. I also bet Rusty has an enormous ego.
WD,Rusty has an enormous ego....for good reason.
WD said: "I've never seen any evidence of it. I think he's just passionate about defending us in the 99 percent."
As a strongly partisan Democrat/leftist, he's defending 33%, tops.
By the way, spaaking of misinterpreting a minority political interest as being the 99%, you earlier in another comment called former represenative Mark Grayson a "man of the people".
I checked the 2010 election results, and found out the fact that he was a man of just 38% of the people.
His name is Alan Grayson dmarks.
dmarks: As a strongly partisan Democrat/leftist, he's defending 33%, tops.
No, he's is defending the 99 percent. If you had said he was REPRESENTING less (I don't know about this "33 percent tops" business) then you might be right...
But, regarding who he's defending... he's defending people who vote Republican too. Because Democrats support policies that help the 99 percent while Republicans support policies that help the 1 percent (by and large).
It isn't relative (to who Ed Schultz is defending) that some people vote Republican when it isn't in their best interest to do so.
dmarks: By the way, speaking of misinterpreting a minority political interest as being the 99%, you earlier in another comment called former represenative [Alan] Grayson a "man of the people".
I "misrepresented" nothing, and I stand behind what I said about Alan Grayson. When a person is elected to Congress it is their job to represent everyone in their district (or state), not just the people who voted for them.
I think Alan Greyson did a fantastic job representing everyone. Unfortunately too many uninformed and deluded people (tea party types) voted while average folks stayed home... and Alan Grayson lost to a backward religious fanatic.
When Ed Schultz was hilariously put on GQ's list of top 25 least influential people, he claimed that Anderson Cooper and the magazine were conspiring against him. That, wd, is a textbook example of persecution delusion. Couple that with the fact that he's ALWAYS pissed off and, yeah, I'm pretty sure that the guy is bonkers.
passionate = pissed off (when it's someone Will doesn't like).
Ed Schultz = more sane then Will Hart (in my book).
btw, that blogger who thinks he's rational wrote a post for his blog that I'd call an example of "textbook persecution delusion". According to this post his son was worried that Obama's goons might come for him (because of his blogging activities).
I mention this because you seem quite friendly with him... you even post on his blog.
A person can be passionate without frothing at the mouth every frigging second. That, and true believerism can also be textbook (scan the closest mirror, wd).
WD: "I think Alan Greyson did a fantastic job representing everyone. Unfortunately too many uninformed and deluded people"
The people strongly disagreed, and said that he did not represent their interest.
But it's not news that you think that those who do not share your exact political views are fools, and you think it is fine to force something on them against their views and interest.
You'd make a good dictator. Because when 80% of the people oppose you, you could just call them idiots.
dmarks: You'd make a good dictator. Because when 80% of the people oppose you, you could just call them idiots.
I said nothing about supporting a dictatorship. I'm 100 percent for democracy. Sounds like you're against it though... because when there is an election you say those on the losing side are having something "forced" on them.
dmarks: The people strongly disagreed, and said that he did not represent their interest.
A lot of the people didn't vote. We don't know what they would have said. I think more people than not would have said that a backward religious fanatic didn't represent their interests.
I'm crazier than Ed Schultz? Really? You're really going to go with that one? I've spent my entire adult life assuming positions of responsibility, working with and assisting those very same vulnerable and disadvantaged people who you so claim to care for but don't lift a finger yourself to help. Ed Schultz - he, on the other hand, has made a career out of ranting and raving (selectively perceiving while doing so) on radio and now on a lowly rated cable television program.......Gee, thanks, wd. I owe you one.
WD said: "I'm 100 percent for democracy. Sounds like you're against it though... because when there is an election you say those on the losing side are having something forced on them."
I favor the Bill of Rights and other protections from the ravages of a supposedly "democratic" ruling elite. Rights of the people that simply can't be voted away. If that makes me anti-democratic, so be it.
As for Grayson, you said: "A lot of the people didn't vote."
Those who are too lazy to vote support the result that happens, whatever it is.
"We don't know what they would have said."
They spoke loud and clear.
"I think more people than not would have said that a backward religious fanatic didn't represent their interests"
Since there was no backwards religious fanatic in the race, you are speaking hypotheticals.
Post a Comment