And anyone who does not agree that both are equally "Stark Raving Mad, Foaming at the Mouth, Partisan, Underhanded/Dunderheaded, and Dastardly Lunatics" is probably one themself.
Anyone who agrees that both are equally "Stark Raving Mad, Foaming at the Mouth, Partisan, Underhanded/Dunderheaded, and Dastardly Lunatics" is probably one themself.
I tried to find a picture of Hannity in which he looked just as dufussy as Schultz but couldn't find one. If anybody out there has one and wants to share it, please do. I'd be more than happy to post it for you.
Yes, I was going to say something about that. A bad picture of Schultz and a good picture of Hannity... obviously it is because your bias against Schultz is greater.
Schultz looks like his father was Rush Limbaugh and his mother was an Easter Island statue.... and there's a Prussian general or two back up the family tree as well.
Well, regardless, it is clear that Schultz inherited his accuracy and blind partisanship from his father. They are the spitting image in that regard.
I call you out on your disgusting lie, dmarks. Produce even one quote where I defend or support "Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children". You won't be able to.
Also, Rusty has leveled these charges against Ed Schultz before. I asked him for evidence that didn't come from a Rightwing site and he couldn't do it.
Unlike with Scott Ritter. He was caught in a sting. The info is available on reputable news sites.
BTW, Scott Ritter never molested any kids, but he did show up at a meeting with what he thought was a young girl. The police were waiting for him. He was arrested and convicted. I've never denied, defended or supported what Scott Ritter did in any way.
I only point out that YEARS earlier, when Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector, he accurately reported that Iraq had dismantled it's WMD progam. Others have confired this to be true.
David Kay: "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them".
Hans Blix: "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction". Blix also said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue... there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions 'have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere'". According to Blix Iraq was cooperating with the inspections.
Mohamed ElBaradei (regarding bush's claim that Iraq had WMD): "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (from his book "Age of Deception").
In fact, it was the determination of the IAEA as a whole that Iraq had disarmed. They issued a report on 3/2/2004 that stated, "...there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994".
This whole Scott Ritter can't be trusted because he's a molester of kids and was bribed by Saddam is a smokescreen to hide the truth. No weapons inspector who actually went to Iraq and looked for WMD found any. NONE. In fact, we have statements from many inspectors to the contrary. I've never heard even one statement from a weapons inspector that said otherwise.
And, btw, your first fact about Scott Ritter is irrelative and your second "fact" is a lie... it never happened. And what about the other inspectors? How do you explain their statements? Were they also bribed?
Rusty: Last year he saw nothing wrong with Anthony Weiner sending lewd photo's to young, possibly under-aged girl.
Another liar like dmarks. I never said this. It was not appropriate and I strongly disapproved.
Rusty: He tries his best to whitewash Scott Ritter's proclivity for underage teen girls.
I've never defended the Republican Ritter on this. You lie.
Rusty: He knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife,but tries to sweep the facts under the rug.
I do not know this. Point me to one reputable mainstream news organization that has reported this. Then, and only then, will I know if your charges are true or false. Until then it is quite impossible for me to sweep the facts under the rug, as there currently are no "facts", only unsubstantiated accusations.
dmarks: If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions.
It appears as though this person is guilty. If convicted I expect he'll go to prison where he belongs. I wouldn't defend him under any circumstance.
Rusty: Based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior.
I reject this kind of behavior. I've never engaged in it because [1] I have absolutely no desire to engage in any behavior of this type [2] it's wrong, [3] I respect women [4] I believe children should be protected.
However, based on Rusty's belief that [1] workers should be subservient to the owners, shut up and do what they're told, and [2] his disrespect for women's rights (which one can deduce he has due to his implicit approval of the Republican war on women)... one can logically conclude that Rusty may very well be one of these deviants he rails against.
After all, it is usually a good indication of that a person is guilty of something the louder they speak against it. For example: the homophobic preachers who speak against gays and then are caught with their gay lovers.
"If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions" not likely ..as if political preference has anything to do with personal peccadillo...
I beg to differ WD....your constant defense of deviant liberals is most telling.
Either you're blind to their behavior due to their politics or you find that behavior most acceptable....your defense of these deviants and their proclivities negate your little (4) point confessional.
You're a bit creepy WD....Rusty would'nt be surprised to know WD is on some towns register.
WD said: "which one can deduce he has due to his implicit approval of the Republican war on women)"
Well, WD earlier was moaning about how campaigns can influence voters. And here clearly he himself has been fooled by the Democrats' mention of a Republican "war on women", which in reality only exists in the imagination of Democrats.
I guess he knows of what he speaks. The rest of us tend to view campaign material with a more critical mind.
Rusty: I beg to differ WD... your constant defense of deviant liberals is most telling.
I haven't constantly defended "deviant liberals". Scott Ritter is a Republican. And I didn't defend him, except against the BS charges of accepting bribes from Saddam.
You've failed to produce any real evidence that Ed Schultz is guilty of domestic violence. I've neither defended nor condemned him.
As for Anthony Weiner... I only defended him when the truth wasn't known. And if you recall, Will also defended him. Will said his constituents should decide if he should stay.
You only "beg to differ" because you're an asshole.
Rusty: Rusty would'nt be surprised to know WD is on some towns register.
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? That is a little weird. Anyway, I think it's more likely that my theory regarding you being the deviant is true.
dmarks: By lying about it, denying, and downplaying, WD is nothing more than an apologist and supporter of domestic violence.
I'm not lying, denying or downplaying... I'm only asking what the proof is? Rusty's word may be enough for dmarks, but I don't automatically believe proven liars absent any proof.
And I'm 100 percent opposed to domestic violence.
dmarks: And here clearly he himself has been fooled by the Democrats' mention of a Republican "war on women", which in reality only exists in the imagination of Democrats.
The war on women is real. Evidence of it is all the bills Republicans in the House and in state legislatures have been passing to restrict a woman's right to choose.
dmarks has been fooled by the Republican's denial of their very real war on women.
The latest assult is their denial of abortions to women in the military who have been raped. It's thoroughly disgusting.
I say that by lying about the real war on women, dmarks and Rusty are nothing more than apologists for, and supporters of rape and keeping women subservient.
WD,you poor soul...your acceptance of absolute diviant behavior by people who's political view's line up with yours is indeed creepy....now,not personally knowing you I could'nt actually label you as creepy....but you do seem a bit greasy.Not someone I would want working for me or within close proximity ot teenaged girls.
I'd guess its difficult for your ilk to "accept it." But,WD your words are very telling....diviant behavior by some is something you can over look....its interesting you have no problem calling people racist,homophobes or misogynists,yet when your repeated words shine a spotlight of possible acceptance of diviant behavior on you its something you feel you can just brush off....does'nt work that way WD...as I said,your words are very telling and just by your words its evident you are greasy.
But at least I am not an extremist on it. That description fits you, as you strongly favor abortionists being given the power of judge, jury, and executioner... by killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust.
I think Rusty's and dmarks' words are very telling. They enthustically lie about those who dare disagree with them by making vile accusations they know aren't true. Who does that? Clearly there is something very wrong with these two individuals.
And dmarks, you oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest? If yes, I suspect keeping women subjugated might be a factor. I support a woman's right to chose. I don't know these women or their lives, therefore I don't have the arrogance to think I can make this difficult decision for them.
There we have it. WD thinks that the people can't be trusted to decide whether or not to buy a Hyundai automobile, and this decision must be left to the rulers....but this is not true at all if someone "Chooses" to kill another human being. Only these decision are private matters.
They enthustically lie about those who dare disagree with them by making vile accusations they know aren't true
And there we have WD AGAIN lying about and defending Schultz' domestic violence... all because Schultz tells lies that WD likes on a cable "news" network. Talk about a war on women.
Please prove to us that Ed Shultz's exwife did'nt accuse him of domestic violence.Prove that she did'nt have a restraining order issued against him because of his liquor filled rages.
I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife....I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages.
Rusty: As long as the domestic violence is committed by a mouthpiece of the hardline pro-fascistic Left, WD thinks it is great. He has already defended and supported it many times.
The individual making the accusation is the one that needs to present the proof. Also, I never said Rusty lied about this particular issue. I said I looked for confirmation on the internet and only found these accusations on Rightwing sites.
Present proof of your accusations or STFU Rusty. Forget it... I know you have no intention of providing any proof. If you could have you would have.
dmarks: ...this is not true at all if someone "Chooses" to kill another human being. Only these decision are private matters.
[1] A zygote/fetus isn't a human being. [2] The Supreme Court decided it's a matter of privacy.
dmarks: As long as the domestic violence is committed by a mouthpiece of the hardline pro-fascistic Left, WD thinks it is great. He has already defended and supported it many times.
You're a sick pathetic liar. I've defended it zero times. I've supported it zero times. How can I do either when I don't even know if it happened or not? Your lies don't even make any sense.
Also, fascism is Rightwing. by definition Leftwingers can't be fascists.
WD: "The individual making the accusation is the one that needs to present the proof."
Funny... this contradicts directly your slandering of Bush as a "war criminal". Again and again you use the dead silence of the UN (lack of resolutions, proclamations, etc) as evidence for Bush's guilt, and again and again you say that one must assume Bush is a (haha) "war criminal", and offer proof otherwise to make him innocent.
"[1] A zygote/fetus isn't a human being."
It is. You have no idea what you are talking about, and from this it is clear that you know nothing of human biology and development.
Either that, or you are so blinded with hatred, you are like the illogical racists who said Black people were not human beings.
Your hatred and illogic is known on this subject, from when you argued that born US citizen, free of the womb, can be killed at a whim if the killer declares it to be an 'abortion'.
"You're a sick pathetic liar. I've defended it zero times"
You have lied about and defended the wife-beater Schultz so many times here. It is far more than zero, but probably less than a dozen. I am sure you are going to lie about and justify Schultz's actions many more times here.
"Also, fascism is Rightwing. by definition Leftwingers can't be fascists"
Many leftwingers are fascists, including Hugo Chavez and Pol Pot. Your definition is self-serving and imaginary.
Here is the real definition:
"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
.... one that fits left-wing tyrants no less than right-wing ones.
And you so strongly embrace parts of it. Why, in recent messages you advocated "forcible suppression of opposition" by advocating censorship of people who criticize those in power if they belong to organizations, or have more money than you like. A perfect example of your views on the First Amendment (in opposition to it) being perfectly fascist.
"I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife....I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages."
But because Schultz lies on the teevee in favor of causes WD likes, he will probably many more times deny the obvious.
If it were Limbaugh that did what Schultz did, we'd get several messages from WD about Limbaugh's war on women.
Thanks for proving, Rusty, that to WD, it doesn't matter if someone rapes children, beats his wife, or wants to see the Israelis (specifically Jewish ones) wiped out.... it's all fine if the person has a "D" after his name. Especially if he believes insane stuff about George W. Bush.
Like I said, wd, send me a dufussy picture of Insanity and I will be more than happy to post it for you. But until then, stuff it with the bias comments.
dmarks: Funny... this contradicts directly your slandering of Bush as a "war criminal". Again and again you use the dead silence of the UN... as evidence for Bush's guilt, and... you say that one must assume Bush is a... war criminal, and offer proof otherwise to make him innocent.
I've never said this. NEVER. I said the UN not decrying bush's actions wasn't proof of his innocence... as you've falsely asserted. I've never said it proves him guilty. And I've pointed out this distinction to you MANY times, so we know you're lying.
And I've never said you needed to provide evidence that proved him innocent or else assume he's guilty... that's what you're doing with Ed Schultz!
dmarks: Either that, or you are so blinded with hatred, you are like the illogical racists who said Black people were not human beings.
More vile lies from dmarks. I'm not "blinded by hatred" for anyone. I've never said a Black person wasn't a human being.
dmarks: You have lied about and defended the wife-beater Schultz so many times here.
I defended him in political matters dick. And if you think asking for proof that something happened is the same as defending it and supporting it then you're dumber than a box of rocks.
dmarks: Your definition is self-serving and imaginary.
My definition is the real one. Straight from the individual who invented the term, Giovanni Gentile. YOUR definition is self-serving.
WD,one more time...please answer the following two questions either yes or no.
1) Did Ed Schultz's ex-wife accuse him of domestic violence?
2) Did Ed Schultz's ex-wife seek a restraining order against him due to her fear of his alcohol filled rages?
Now WD,Rusty is going to make a wild guess and say you wont answer those two simple questions and you will demand proof of Schultz's actions....and your response will attempt to deflect the truth about Sgt.Schultz.If you do just that,you'll prove just how greasy you really are....just as we all suspected.
[1] I have no idea. You claim she did, but REFUSE to provide any evidence from a reputable news source that backs up your accusations.
[2] I have no idea. You claim she did, but REFUSE to provide any evidence from a reputable news source that backs up your accusations.
Questions answered. And how does asking for proof prove how "greasy" I really am? I think it proves how greasy Rusty is. He thinks he can throw out accusations sans proof and it says something bad about someone if they object and ask for proof.
I'm going to make a wild guess and Rusty will respond by thanking me for confirming "what we all knew".
Typo Correction (so dmarks doesn't flame me for it, as he has a habit of doing)... I'm going to make a wild guess that Rusty will respond by thanking me for confirming "what we all knew".
WD said: "Typo Correction (so dmarks doesn't flame me for it, as he has a habit of doing).."
Actually, spelling flames are your sole dominion. You did one against me in the last week or so.
Rusty: Thanks for sticking to the facts. And true to my prediction. WD is defending domestic violence again. And again. And again.
You and I know the only thing that would stop WD from supporting Schultz' wife beating. That would be if Schultz became a Republican. Then WD would sing a different tune.
dmarks: And true to my prediction. WD is defending domestic violence again. And again. And again.
I said in another thread that you are dumber than a box of rocks. And you keeping proving it over and over again. I've never defended domestic violence.
Also, Schultz WAS a Republican. This shows that you know absolutely nothing about him.
You have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not. You just eagerly believe Rusty's unproven claims because Schultz is a Democrat. If he were a Republican you'd be singing a different tune.
It seems Maureen Zimmerman (Sgt.Schultz's ex-wife)has a pretty good read on what domestic violence really is....in fact,fat Ed showed her up close and personal just what spousal abuse is.
Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard,"supports wife beating.Maybe WD is a muslim who abides by a strict interpretation of the koran....that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior.Creepy guy,that WD....oops,I mean Greasy Bastard.
WD said: "You have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not."
I know he did. But since he is on your side, you again, in your most recent comment, deny-and-defend.
"If he were a Republican you'd be singing a different tune."
No, I would condemn him just as equally. There is no evidence that I give someone a free pass on anything like this because they are on "my side". I defy you to come up with one example. But you won't.
But there is plenty of evidence that you do this, yourself.
--------
Rusty said: "Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard,"supports wife beating"
You state the obvious. You know, sometimes such things don't need to be said. But maybe just maybe this will sink in with WD sometime. After the hundredth time of stating the facts to him.
Now watch for yet another "deny and defend" comment from WD.
"that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior.Creepy guy,that WD....oops,I mean Greasy Bastard."
Well, previously, he did lie about and defend Scott Ritter's "Sanduskyish" behavior.
By the way, as for Sandusky, apparently he was a Republican. However, I strongly condemn him. Very strongly. No, I won't lie about him and excuses his behavior because he is supposedly on "my side" politically.
"However, based on Rusty's belief that [1] workers should be subservient to the owners,"
Duh. Workers in an owner's place are paid to do a job. That is the reason they are there. If there is an "subservience", it is that they take orders from managers who know what is to be done.
How can you object to this?
In your world, someone would walk into McDonalds, become a fry cook, and then immediately decide he was going to cook stuff twice as long as give the customers free Fillet-Mignon. Why? In your world, someone paid to do a certain job knows everything, and should be able to do anything he wants.
HOW do you know this? Just because Rusty told you? Or is it just because you feel it in your gut? Probably the same way you "know" Scott Ritter accepted bribes from Saddam... you read it on some website you're too embarrassed to post a link to.
dmarks lied: But since he is on your side, you again, in your most recent comment, deny-and-defend.
I asked what the proof is. That isn't "denying" or "defending".
No, I would condemn him just as equally.
Without evidence? So if I told you George bush beat Laura you'd condemn him? I heard he did, and I'm not offering any proof... so I expect your next comment to be a condemnation of the wife beater George bush. Unless you're a hypocrite and approve of wife beating.
dmarks: There is no evidence that I give someone a free pass on anything like this because they are on "my side". I defy you to come up with one example. But you won't.
The example will be your next response (unless you ignore this comment). You'll deny that George bush beat his wife Laura.
dmarks: But there is plenty of evidence that you do this, yourself.
There is none except in your imagination.
dmarks lied: Rusty said: "Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard, "supports wife beating".
I'm strongly opposed and think the legal penalites for those who do it should be harsh.
dmarks: But maybe just maybe this will sink in with WD sometime. After the hundredth time of stating the facts to him.
You can state your lies a million times... they will never "sink in".
dmarks: Now watch for yet another "deny and defend" comment from WD.
Impossible, since there has yet to be ONE.
dmarks: "that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior. Creepy guy, that WD... oops,I mean Greasy Bastard."
You accept something that is false.
dmarks: Well, previously, he did lie about and defend Scott Ritter's "Sanduskyish" behavior.
Nope. I never did defend Scott Ritter on this matter.
dmarks: No, I won't lie about him and excuses his behavior because he is supposedly on "my side" politically.
I'm not on your side politically and you're lying about me. So dmarks is guilty of what he's accusing me of. Except instead of defending he's lying and attacking.
dmarks: Duh. Workers in an owner's place are paid to do a job.
Of course. That does not mean both parties shouldn't treat each other fairly and with respect. You and Rusty believe the workers are there to be exploited.
dmarks: In your world, someone would walk into McDonalds, become a fry cook... blah, blah, blah, more DUMB lies...
Not at all. The worker should do his job, listen to his boss, but also be treated with respect and be paid fairly. Neither you or Rusty believe in that last part.
I'm still waiting for Rusty or dmarks to fill me in as to how they know Ed Schultz beat his wife when the "evidence" they've presented isn't at all clear as to what happened.
49 comments:
Forgot the "redux".
And anyone who does not agree that both are equally "Stark Raving Mad, Foaming at the Mouth, Partisan, Underhanded/Dunderheaded, and Dastardly Lunatics" is probably one themself.
Anyone who agrees that both are equally "Stark Raving Mad, Foaming at the Mouth, Partisan, Underhanded/Dunderheaded, and Dastardly Lunatics" is probably one themself.
Hannity is and Schultz is not.
I tried to find a picture of Hannity in which he looked just as dufussy as Schultz but couldn't find one. If anybody out there has one and wants to share it, please do. I'd be more than happy to post it for you.
Yes, I was going to say something about that. A bad picture of Schultz and a good picture of Hannity... obviously it is because your bias against Schultz is greater.
Schultz looks like his father was Rush Limbaugh and his mother was an Easter Island statue.... and there's a Prussian general or two back up the family tree as well.
Well, regardless, it is clear that Schultz inherited his accuracy and blind partisanship from his father. They are the spitting image in that regard.
One positive for Hannity...he's never been charged with domestic violence.....Sgt.Schultz has.
Partisans...they are only interesting when they have an epiphany or volte-face ...
Rusty: Domestic violence? In light of how WD defends and supports Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children, no wonder he defends Schultz so much.
I call you out on your disgusting lie, dmarks. Produce even one quote where I defend or support "Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children". You won't be able to.
Also, Rusty has leveled these charges against Ed Schultz before. I asked him for evidence that didn't come from a Rightwing site and he couldn't do it.
Unlike with Scott Ritter. He was caught in a sting. The info is available on reputable news sites.
BTW, Scott Ritter never molested any kids, but he did show up at a meeting with what he thought was a young girl. The police were waiting for him. He was arrested and convicted. I've never denied, defended or supported what Scott Ritter did in any way.
I only point out that YEARS earlier, when Scott Ritter was a UN weapons inspector, he accurately reported that Iraq had dismantled it's WMD progam. Others have confired this to be true.
David Kay: "I think there were stockpiles at the end of the first Gulf War and a combination of U.N. inspectors and unilateral Iraqi action got rid of them".
Hans Blix: "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction". Blix also said that if "the inspections been allowed to continue... there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions 'have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere'". According to Blix Iraq was cooperating with the inspections.
Mohamed ElBaradei (regarding bush's claim that Iraq had WMD): "deliberate deception [isn't] limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators" (from his book "Age of Deception").
In fact, it was the determination of the IAEA as a whole that Iraq had disarmed. They issued a report on 3/2/2004 that stated, "...there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994".
This whole Scott Ritter can't be trusted because he's a molester of kids and was bribed by Saddam is a smokescreen to hide the truth. No weapons inspector who actually went to Iraq and looked for WMD found any. NONE. In fact, we have statements from many inspectors to the contrary. I've never heard even one statement from a weapons inspector that said otherwise.
And, btw, your first fact about Scott Ritter is irrelative and your second "fact" is a lie... it never happened. And what about the other inspectors? How do you explain their statements? Were they also bribed?
WD seems to condone the oddest of things,some boardering on creepy.
Last year he saw nothing wrong with Anthony Weiner sending lewd photo's to young,possibly under aged girl.
He tries his best to whitewash Scott Ritter's proclivity for underage teen girls.
He knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife,but tries to sweep the facts under the rug.
If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions
Based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior.
WD seems to condone the oddest of things,some boardering on creepy.
Last year he saw nothing wrong with Anthony Weiner sending lewd photo's to young,possibly under aged girl.
He tries his best to whitewash Scott Ritter's proclivity for underage teen girls.
He knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife,but tries to sweep the facts under the rug.
If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions
Based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior.
So nice.....I sent it twice.
Rusty: Last year he saw nothing wrong with Anthony Weiner sending lewd photo's to young, possibly under-aged girl.
Another liar like dmarks. I never said this. It was not appropriate and I strongly disapproved.
Rusty: He tries his best to whitewash Scott Ritter's proclivity for underage teen girls.
I've never defended the Republican Ritter on this. You lie.
Rusty: He knows that Ed Schultz was indeed charged with domestic battery by his former wife,but tries to sweep the facts under the rug.
I do not know this. Point me to one reputable mainstream news organization that has reported this. Then, and only then, will I know if your charges are true or false. Until then it is quite impossible for me to sweep the facts under the rug, as there currently are no "facts", only unsubstantiated accusations.
dmarks: If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions.
It appears as though this person is guilty. If convicted I expect he'll go to prison where he belongs. I wouldn't defend him under any circumstance.
Rusty: Based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior.
I reject this kind of behavior. I've never engaged in it because [1] I have absolutely no desire to engage in any behavior of this type [2] it's wrong, [3] I respect women [4] I believe children should be protected.
However, based on Rusty's belief that [1] workers should be subservient to the owners, shut up and do what they're told, and [2] his disrespect for women's rights (which one can deduce he has due to his implicit approval of the Republican war on women)... one can logically conclude that Rusty may very well be one of these deviants he rails against.
After all, it is usually a good indication of that a person is guilty of something the louder they speak against it. For example: the homophobic preachers who speak against gays and then are caught with their gay lovers.
"If WD were to find out Jerry Sandusky was a liberal dem he would seek a way to forgive his actions" not likely ..as if political preference has anything to do with
personal peccadillo...
Preview
I beg to differ WD....your constant defense of deviant liberals is most telling.
Either you're blind to their behavior due to their politics or you find that behavior most acceptable....your defense of these deviants and their proclivities negate your little (4) point confessional.
You're a bit creepy WD....Rusty would'nt be surprised to know WD is on some towns register.
WD said: "which one can deduce he has due to his implicit approval of the Republican war on women)"
Well, WD earlier was moaning about how campaigns can influence voters. And here clearly he himself has been fooled by the Democrats' mention of a Republican "war on women", which in reality only exists in the imagination of Democrats.
I guess he knows of what he speaks. The rest of us tend to view campaign material with a more critical mind.
Rusty: The overwhelming facts are known about Schultz own "war on women": well, at least one woman.
By lying about it, denying, and downplaying, WD is nothing more than an apologist and supporter of domestic violence.
Rusty: I beg to differ WD... your constant defense of deviant liberals is most telling.
I haven't constantly defended "deviant liberals". Scott Ritter is a Republican. And I didn't defend him, except against the BS charges of accepting bribes from Saddam.
You've failed to produce any real evidence that Ed Schultz is guilty of domestic violence. I've neither defended nor condemned him.
As for Anthony Weiner... I only defended him when the truth wasn't known. And if you recall, Will also defended him. Will said his constituents should decide if he should stay.
You only "beg to differ" because you're an asshole.
Rusty: Rusty would'nt be surprised to know WD is on some towns register.
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? That is a little weird. Anyway, I think it's more likely that my theory regarding you being the deviant is true.
dmarks: By lying about it, denying, and downplaying, WD is nothing more than an apologist and supporter of domestic violence.
I'm not lying, denying or downplaying... I'm only asking what the proof is? Rusty's word may be enough for dmarks, but I don't automatically believe proven liars absent any proof.
And I'm 100 percent opposed to domestic violence.
dmarks: And here clearly he himself has been fooled by the Democrats' mention of a Republican "war on women", which in reality only exists in the imagination of Democrats.
The war on women is real. Evidence of it is all the bills Republicans in the House and in state legislatures have been passing to restrict a woman's right to choose.
dmarks has been fooled by the Republican's denial of their very real war on women.
The latest assult is their denial of abortions to women in the military who have been raped. It's thoroughly disgusting.
I say that by lying about the real war on women, dmarks and Rusty are nothing more than apologists for, and supporters of rape and keeping women subservient.
WD,you poor soul...your acceptance of absolute diviant behavior by people who's political view's line up with yours is indeed creepy....now,not personally knowing you I could'nt actually label you as creepy....but you do seem a bit greasy.Not someone I would want working for me or within close proximity ot teenaged girls.
Rusty: your acceptance of absolute diviant behavior by people who's political view's line up with yours is indeed creepy.
I don't accept it. You're lying.
I'd guess its difficult for your ilk to "accept it." But,WD your words are very telling....diviant behavior by some is something you can over look....its interesting you have no problem calling people racist,homophobes or misogynists,yet when your repeated words shine a spotlight of possible acceptance of diviant behavior on you its something you feel you can just brush off....does'nt work that way WD...as I said,your words are very telling and just by your words its evident you are greasy.
WD: I oppose abortion... as do most women.
But at least I am not an extremist on it. That description fits you, as you strongly favor abortionists being given the power of judge, jury, and executioner... by killing children after they are born out of nothing more than a sick thrill of bloodlust.
Rusty; WD claims to oppose domestic violence, but when one of his heroes was caught engaging in it, he defended the action.
If it had been Hannity instead of Schultz who had engaged in domestic violence, WD would be singing a different tune.
I think Rusty's and dmarks' words are very telling. They enthustically lie about those who dare disagree with them by making vile accusations they know aren't true. Who does that? Clearly there is something very wrong with these two individuals.
And dmarks, you oppose abortion even in the case of rape or incest? If yes, I suspect keeping women subjugated might be a factor. I support a woman's right to chose. I don't know these women or their lives, therefore I don't have the arrogance to think I can make this difficult decision for them.
There we have it. WD thinks that the people can't be trusted to decide whether or not to buy a Hyundai automobile, and this decision must be left to the rulers....but this is not true at all if someone "Chooses" to kill another human being. Only these decision are private matters.
There we have it.
They enthustically lie about those who dare disagree with them by making vile accusations they know aren't true
And there we have WD AGAIN lying about and defending Schultz' domestic violence... all because Schultz tells lies that WD likes on a cable "news" network. Talk about a war on women.
WD,you call me and dmarks liars.
Please prove to us that Ed Shultz's exwife did'nt accuse him of domestic violence.Prove that she did'nt have a restraining order issued against him because of his liquor filled rages.
I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife....I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages.
Prove me wrong you greasy POS or STFU.
Rusty: As long as the domestic violence is committed by a mouthpiece of the hardline pro-fascistic Left, WD thinks it is great. He has already defended and supported it many times.
The individual making the accusation is the one that needs to present the proof. Also, I never said Rusty lied about this particular issue. I said I looked for confirmation on the internet and only found these accusations on Rightwing sites.
Present proof of your accusations or STFU Rusty. Forget it... I know you have no intention of providing any proof. If you could have you would have.
dmarks: ...this is not true at all if someone "Chooses" to kill another human being. Only these decision are private matters.
[1] A zygote/fetus isn't a human being. [2] The Supreme Court decided it's a matter of privacy.
dmarks: As long as the domestic violence is committed by a mouthpiece of the hardline pro-fascistic Left, WD thinks it is great. He has already defended and supported it many times.
You're a sick pathetic liar. I've defended it zero times. I've supported it zero times. How can I do either when I don't even know if it happened or not? Your lies don't even make any sense.
Also, fascism is Rightwing. by definition Leftwingers can't be fascists.
WD: "The individual making the accusation is the one that needs to present the proof."
Funny... this contradicts directly your slandering of Bush as a "war criminal". Again and again you use the dead silence of the UN (lack of resolutions, proclamations, etc) as evidence for Bush's guilt, and again and again you say that one must assume Bush is a (haha) "war criminal", and offer proof otherwise to make him innocent.
"[1] A zygote/fetus isn't a human being."
It is. You have no idea what you are talking about, and from this it is clear that you know nothing of human biology and development.
Either that, or you are so blinded with hatred, you are like the illogical racists who said Black people were not human beings.
Your hatred and illogic is known on this subject, from when you argued that born US citizen, free of the womb, can be killed at a whim if the killer declares it to be an 'abortion'.
"You're a sick pathetic liar. I've defended it zero times"
You have lied about and defended the wife-beater Schultz so many times here. It is far more than zero, but probably less than a dozen. I am sure you are going to lie about and justify Schultz's actions many more times here.
"Also, fascism is Rightwing. by definition Leftwingers can't be fascists"
Many leftwingers are fascists, including Hugo Chavez and Pol Pot. Your definition is self-serving and imaginary.
Here is the real definition:
"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
.... one that fits left-wing tyrants no less than right-wing ones.
And you so strongly embrace parts of it. Why, in recent messages you advocated "forcible suppression of opposition" by advocating censorship of people who criticize those in power if they belong to organizations, or have more money than you like. A perfect example of your views on the First Amendment (in opposition to it) being perfectly fascist.
Rusty informed us:
"I'm here saying Ed Shultz was charged with domestic violence by his ex-wife....I'm here saying his ex-wife went to court and had a restraining order issued against him because she feared his alcohol fueled rages."
But because Schultz lies on the teevee in favor of causes WD likes, he will probably many more times deny the obvious.
If it were Limbaugh that did what Schultz did, we'd get several messages from WD about Limbaugh's war on women.
Thanks for proving, Rusty, that to WD, it doesn't matter if someone rapes children, beats his wife, or wants to see the Israelis (specifically Jewish ones) wiped out.... it's all fine if the person has a "D" after his name. Especially if he believes insane stuff about George W. Bush.
Like I said, wd, send me a dufussy picture of Insanity and I will be more than happy to post it for you. But until then, stuff it with the bias comments.
dmarks: Funny... this contradicts directly your slandering of Bush as a "war criminal". Again and again you use the dead silence of the UN... as evidence for Bush's guilt, and... you say that one must assume Bush is a... war criminal, and offer proof otherwise to make him innocent.
I've never said this. NEVER. I said the UN not decrying bush's actions wasn't proof of his innocence... as you've falsely asserted. I've never said it proves him guilty. And I've pointed out this distinction to you MANY times, so we know you're lying.
And I've never said you needed to provide evidence that proved him innocent or else assume he's guilty... that's what you're doing with Ed Schultz!
dmarks: Either that, or you are so blinded with hatred, you are like the illogical racists who said Black people were not human beings.
More vile lies from dmarks. I'm not "blinded by hatred" for anyone. I've never said a Black person wasn't a human being.
dmarks: You have lied about and defended the wife-beater Schultz so many times here.
I defended him in political matters dick. And if you think asking for proof that something happened is the same as defending it and supporting it then you're dumber than a box of rocks.
dmarks: Your definition is self-serving and imaginary.
My definition is the real one. Straight from the individual who invented the term, Giovanni Gentile. YOUR definition is self-serving.
WD,one more time...please answer the following two questions either yes or no.
1) Did Ed Schultz's ex-wife accuse him of domestic violence?
2) Did Ed Schultz's ex-wife seek a restraining order against him due to her fear of his alcohol filled rages?
Now WD,Rusty is going to make a wild guess and say you wont answer those two simple questions and you will demand proof of Schultz's actions....and your response will attempt to deflect the truth about Sgt.Schultz.If you do just that,you'll prove just how greasy you really are....just as we all suspected.
[1] I have no idea. You claim she did, but REFUSE to provide any evidence from a reputable news source that backs up your accusations.
[2] I have no idea. You claim she did, but REFUSE to provide any evidence from a reputable news source that backs up your accusations.
Questions answered. And how does asking for proof prove how "greasy" I really am? I think it proves how greasy Rusty is. He thinks he can throw out accusations sans proof and it says something bad about someone if they object and ask for proof.
I'm going to make a wild guess and Rusty will respond by thanking me for confirming "what we all knew".
Typo Correction (so dmarks doesn't flame me for it, as he has a habit of doing)... I'm going to make a wild guess that Rusty will respond by thanking me for confirming "what we all knew".
On 11/02/1995 in Cass County North Dakota...
Maureen K. Zimmerman filed a tempory protection order for domestic violence against Ed Schultz.
There you go greasy one...spin that...or use your acceptance of diviante behavior to justify it.
I'm beginning to think you are on the creepy side WD.
Mr. Schultz does seem to have a temper at times (not to mention a proclivity to verbally abuse people).
WD said: "Typo Correction (so dmarks doesn't flame me for it, as he has a habit of doing).."
Actually, spelling flames are your sole dominion. You did one against me in the last week or so.
Rusty: Thanks for sticking to the facts. And true to my prediction. WD is defending domestic violence again. And again. And again.
You and I know the only thing that would stop WD from supporting Schultz' wife beating. That would be if Schultz became a Republican. Then WD would sing a different tune.
dmarks: And true to my prediction. WD is defending domestic violence again. And again. And again.
I said in another thread that you are dumber than a box of rocks. And you keeping proving it over and over again. I've never defended domestic violence.
Also, Schultz WAS a Republican. This shows that you know absolutely nothing about him.
You have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not. You just eagerly believe Rusty's unproven claims because Schultz is a Democrat. If he were a Republican you'd be singing a different tune.
It seems Maureen Zimmerman (Sgt.Schultz's ex-wife)has a pretty good read on what domestic violence really is....in fact,fat Ed showed her up close and personal just what spousal abuse is.
Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard,"supports wife beating.Maybe WD is a muslim who abides by a strict interpretation of the koran....that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior.Creepy guy,that WD....oops,I mean Greasy Bastard.
WD said: "You have no idea if Ed Schultz beat his wife or not."
I know he did. But since he is on your side, you again, in your most recent comment, deny-and-defend.
"If he were a Republican you'd be singing a different tune."
No, I would condemn him just as equally. There is no evidence that I give someone a free pass on anything like this because they are on "my side". I defy you to come up with one example. But you won't.
But there is plenty of evidence that you do this, yourself.
--------
Rusty said: "Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard,"supports wife beating"
You state the obvious. You know, sometimes such things don't need to be said. But maybe just maybe this will sink in with WD sometime. After the hundredth time of stating the facts to him.
Now watch for yet another "deny and defend" comment from WD.
"that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior.Creepy guy,that WD....oops,I mean Greasy Bastard."
Well, previously, he did lie about and defend Scott Ritter's "Sanduskyish" behavior.
By the way, as for Sandusky, apparently he was a Republican. However, I strongly condemn him. Very strongly. No, I won't lie about him and excuses his behavior because he is supposedly on "my side" politically.
Now for an earlier one:
"However, based on Rusty's belief that [1] workers should be subservient to the owners,"
Duh. Workers in an owner's place are paid to do a job. That is the reason they are there. If there is an "subservience", it is that they take orders from managers who know what is to be done.
How can you object to this?
In your world, someone would walk into McDonalds, become a fry cook, and then immediately decide he was going to cook stuff twice as long as give the customers free Fillet-Mignon. Why? In your world, someone paid to do a certain job knows everything, and should be able to do anything he wants.
dmarks: I know he did.
HOW do you know this? Just because Rusty told you? Or is it just because you feel it in your gut? Probably the same way you "know" Scott Ritter accepted bribes from Saddam... you read it on some website you're too embarrassed to post a link to.
dmarks lied: But since he is on your side, you again, in your most recent comment, deny-and-defend.
I asked what the proof is. That isn't "denying" or "defending".
No, I would condemn him just as equally.
Without evidence? So if I told you George bush beat Laura you'd condemn him? I heard he did, and I'm not offering any proof... so I expect your next comment to be a condemnation of the wife beater George bush. Unless you're a hypocrite and approve of wife beating.
dmarks: There is no evidence that I give someone a free pass on anything like this because they are on "my side". I defy you to come up with one example. But you won't.
The example will be your next response (unless you ignore this comment). You'll deny that George bush beat his wife Laura.
dmarks: But there is plenty of evidence that you do this, yourself.
There is none except in your imagination.
dmarks lied: Rusty said: "Yet WD,now known as "that greasy bastard, "supports wife beating".
I'm strongly opposed and think the legal penalites for those who do it should be harsh.
dmarks: But maybe just maybe this will sink in with WD sometime. After the hundredth time of stating the facts to him.
You can state your lies a million times... they will never "sink in".
dmarks: Now watch for yet another "deny and defend" comment from WD.
Impossible, since there has yet to be ONE.
dmarks: "that could explain his acceptance of all sorts of diviant behavior. Creepy guy, that WD... oops,I mean Greasy Bastard."
You accept something that is false.
dmarks: Well, previously, he did lie about and defend Scott Ritter's "Sanduskyish" behavior.
Nope. I never did defend Scott Ritter on this matter.
dmarks: No, I won't lie about him and excuses his behavior because he is supposedly on "my side" politically.
I'm not on your side politically and you're lying about me. So dmarks is guilty of what he's accusing me of. Except instead of defending he's lying and attacking.
dmarks: Duh. Workers in an owner's place are paid to do a job.
Of course. That does not mean both parties shouldn't treat each other fairly and with respect. You and Rusty believe the workers are there to be exploited.
dmarks: In your world, someone would walk into McDonalds, become a fry cook... blah, blah, blah, more DUMB lies...
Not at all. The worker should do his job, listen to his boss, but also be treated with respect and be paid fairly. Neither you or Rusty believe in that last part.
I'm still waiting for that dufussy picture of Hannity, wd.
I'm still waiting for Rusty or dmarks to fill me in as to how they know Ed Schultz beat his wife when the "evidence" they've presented isn't at all clear as to what happened.
Post a Comment