Individually, it's like watching paint dry....My suggestion? Put 'em on the screen together....Better yet, put 'em in a cage...and don't even feed 'em. Get 'em totally lathered up. THAT might be interesting....MAYBE.
I'm sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, WD. But as I was driving home from the library, a plutocrat cut me off in traffic. I was quite flustered as a result.
dmarks: I'm sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, WD.
You're responding to a comment I didn't make dummy. As for a plutocrat cutting you off... I don't see how you'd know. We know plutocrats by their actions, and cutting people off in traffic isn't one of those actions. I think this is a sign that dmarks has gone off the deep end. If he stops commenting here I think it's a safe assumption that the reason is he's been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Or maybe he's just off his meds.
If it were the MTV "Celebrity Deathmatch", Schultz would notice his wife in the audience, and jump out of the ring and proceed to beat her to a gross Claymation pulp, leaving Michelle all alone in the ring.
There is absolutely Zero evidence for this wife-beating slander against Ed Schultz. But, because he is a progressive, the facts don't stop dmarks from promulgating this Rightwing lie.
But when I asked dmarks about bush beating his wife... first dmarks denied it, then after I presented him with the facts he was completely silent. Obviously wife beating is OK with dmarks unless it's a Democrat being accused.
Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd? What, you want some broken bones or something (and abusers rarely beat their wives in front of witnesses)?
WD: You aren't fooling anyone on the Schultz wife beating denials.
"Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd?"
As WD traces this back to a "right-wing lie", i guess that makes the woman Schultz assaulted a right-wing liar. Since this is where the information came from, after all. She's probably a dirty evil plutocrat, to boot!
I guess that makes the woman Schultz assaulted a right-wing liar. Since this is where the information came from, after all.
You've presented no evidence that Ed Schultz "assaulted" anyone. You've all presented no proof that, whoever this woman is, she "gave her word". You're just making this up... it's a complete fantasy.
And of course the hypocrite dmarks ignores the fact that George bush beat Laura.
Will: Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd?
What the hell are you talking about? I've never seen any evidence that his wife gave her word. We've been over this before, and unless there is some evidence that hasn't been previously presented here... you really should know better Will. Since when do unfounded allegations equal guilt?
WD.....your mommy is calling you again...time to brush your teeth....put your retainer in and go to bed.....and none of that under the covers stuff tonight,you've got band practice in the morning.
According to Free Republic, Mr. Schultz's wife applied for a domestic violence protection order on November 11, 1995. I guess that you can research it by going to this site - http://publicsearch.ndcourts.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=203281
An order of protection doesn't mean Ed Schultz beat his wife. There are other reasons such an order could be issued...
From Wikipedia: Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage".
A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving stalkers of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets. [end Wikpedia expert]
Will: I guess that you can research it by going to this site...
You might "guess" you can, but I can see no way to do so. If I enter the link exactly as you have it in your comment, the resulting error page says, "Server Error in '/' Application". There is nothing there about Ed Schultz. And the "According to Free Republic" is a message board with unsubstantiated rumors (if I remember correctly. If it is an actual article please link to it).
I doubt there is any article. Unsubstantiated rumors and smears are what dmarks and Will apparently believe equate to "cold hard facts". I guess that's enough when you have as much irrational hatred for a person as dmarks and Will have for Ed Schultz... a good man who just happens to have a different perspective on politics than them.
I am dead serious. Unlike you (a person who thinks war crimes are a laughing matter), I never joke about such things. Ed Schultz fights for the middle class and rejects the wealthy-worshiping policies some deluded fools subscribe to.
And he certainly isn't the kind of scumbag who would try to pass off unsubstantiated rumors and smears as "cold hard facts".
19 comments:
Michelle can be grating on ones nerves, and she has tendency to talk over the "competition." But to compare here to the Bozo?
At least Michelle has a functioning mind.
On a set of standardized intelligence tests, yeah, you're correct, she would probably win.
I'm sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, WD. But as I was driving home from the library, a plutocrat cut me off in traffic. I was quite flustered as a result.
dmarks: I'm sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, WD.
You're responding to a comment I didn't make dummy. As for a plutocrat cutting you off... I don't see how you'd know. We know plutocrats by their actions, and cutting people off in traffic isn't one of those actions. I think this is a sign that dmarks has gone off the deep end. If he stops commenting here I think it's a safe assumption that the reason is he's been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Or maybe he's just off his meds.
WD's comment makes no sense. I think a plutocrat got into this blog and edit it to make him look bad.
Anyway, back on subject. Ed would beat her up. Because she's a woman and all. That's the kind of guy he is.
WD does'nt realize the RNC has been giving us glasses that when worn allow us to identify plutocrats who are walking among the general population.
The difference, fellows, this woman would fight back and I would place it flat even money.
If it were the MTV "Celebrity Deathmatch", Schultz would notice his wife in the audience, and jump out of the ring and proceed to beat her to a gross Claymation pulp, leaving Michelle all alone in the ring.
There is absolutely Zero evidence for this wife-beating slander against Ed Schultz. But, because he is a progressive, the facts don't stop dmarks from promulgating this Rightwing lie.
But when I asked dmarks about bush beating his wife... first dmarks denied it, then after I presented him with the facts he was completely silent. Obviously wife beating is OK with dmarks unless it's a Democrat being accused.
Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd? What, you want some broken bones or something (and abusers rarely beat their wives in front of witnesses)?
WD: You aren't fooling anyone on the Schultz wife beating denials.
"Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd?"
As WD traces this back to a "right-wing lie", i guess that makes the woman Schultz assaulted a right-wing liar. Since this is where the information came from, after all. She's probably a dirty evil plutocrat, to boot!
I guess that makes the woman Schultz assaulted a right-wing liar. Since this is where the information came from, after all.
You've presented no evidence that Ed Schultz "assaulted" anyone. You've all presented no proof that, whoever this woman is, she "gave her word". You're just making this up... it's a complete fantasy.
And of course the hypocrite dmarks ignores the fact that George bush beat Laura.
Will: Schultz's wife's word doesn't constitute evidence, wd?
What the hell are you talking about? I've never seen any evidence that his wife gave her word. We've been over this before, and unless there is some evidence that hasn't been previously presented here... you really should know better Will. Since when do unfounded allegations equal guilt?
WD.....your mommy is calling you again...time to brush your teeth....put your retainer in and go to bed.....and none of that under the covers stuff tonight,you've got band practice in the morning.
According to Free Republic, Mr. Schultz's wife applied for a domestic violence protection order on November 11, 1995. I guess that you can research it by going to this site - http://publicsearch.ndcourts.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=203281
Shhh. WD is riding high in a whirlwind of his own lies. Cold hard facts like these, Will, have no place in his world.
You are thinking of your own world dmarks. I have, so far, seen absolutely no "cold hard facts" that indicate Ed Schultz beat his first wife.
And Will, that site has been linked to in a previous discussion here on this blog. You forgot what I said about it then?
I'll post it again:
An order of protection doesn't mean Ed Schultz beat his wife. There are other reasons such an order could be issued...
From Wikipedia: Misuse of restraining orders is claimed to be widespread. Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, has remarked, "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage".
A 1995 study conducted by the Massachusetts Trial Court that reviewed domestic restraining orders issued in the state found that less than half of the orders involved even an allegation of violence. Similarly a West Virginia study found eight out of 10 orders were unnecessary or false. The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving stalkers of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets. [end Wikpedia expert]
Will: I guess that you can research it by going to this site...
You might "guess" you can, but I can see no way to do so. If I enter the link exactly as you have it in your comment, the resulting error page says, "Server Error in '/' Application". There is nothing there about Ed Schultz. And the "According to Free Republic" is a message board with unsubstantiated rumors (if I remember correctly. If it is an actual article please link to it).
I doubt there is any article. Unsubstantiated rumors and smears are what dmarks and Will apparently believe equate to "cold hard facts". I guess that's enough when you have as much irrational hatred for a person as dmarks and Will have for Ed Schultz... a good man who just happens to have a different perspective on politics than them.
Good man? You've got to be kidding.
dmarks: Good man? You've got to be kidding.
I am dead serious. Unlike you (a person who thinks war crimes are a laughing matter), I never joke about such things. Ed Schultz fights for the middle class and rejects the wealthy-worshiping policies some deluded fools subscribe to.
And he certainly isn't the kind of scumbag who would try to pass off unsubstantiated rumors and smears as "cold hard facts".
Post a Comment