• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ed Shultz pulls out the race card... SHOCKING!




I see what you are trying to do here Grim 17 and I have something to say about it.

To wit:

I am not a person who automatically agrees with anything that anyone, including Ed Schultz, says about anything.

But I do believe that Mr Schultz makes a valid point here.

There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose a U.S. Military attack on Syria.

Anyone who is opposed to it because they 'think' that shutting it down will hurt the 1st Black American elected to the office of President of the USA has more problems than I have time to talk about here, but, unfortunately, there are plenty of people on the far right in the USA who have those problems and the U.S. Congress voting against an attack on Syria will not make those problems go away.

The only way to eliminate those problems that I know of is a one way trip to a graveyard for those who have them.

I'll just add that I noticed some time ago that some losers on the right will use any chance that they find to try to slam Obama and anyone associated with him. I've also noticed that Obama is still in the White House and it is very likely that he will be there until another Democrat takes his place in 2017, whether anyone on the right likes it or not.

I'll also add that ignoring racism has never made it go away, it must be attacked every time that it raises it's ugly head.

I could say a lot more but I'll just leave it at that for now.

If anything that I have said here hurts anyone's 'feelings', well, that's just tough-deal with it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.




"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz
 
Last edited:




If Ed Schultz is the #1 Liberal hate-monger, where does Glenn Beck sit on the list of far-right hate-mongers?

Every political group in the USA has its own hate-mongers. Anyone who is surprised by this knows very little about politics on this planet.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
 
I see what you are trying to do here Grim 17 and I have something to say about it.

To wit:

I am not a person who automatically agrees with anything that anyone, including Ed Schultz, says about anything.

But I do believe that Mr Schultz makes a valid point here.

There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose a U.S. Military attack on Syria.

Anyone who is opposed to it because they 'think' that shutting it down will hurt the 1st Black American elected to the office of President of the USA has more problems than I have time to talk about here, but, unfortunately, there are plenty of people on the far right in the USA who have those problems and the U.S. Congress voting against an attack on Syria will not make those problems go away.

The only way to eliminate those problems that I know of is a one way trip to a graveyard for those who have them.

I'll just add that I noticed some time ago that some losers on the right will use any chance that they find to try to slam Obama and anyone associated with him. I've also noticed that Obama is still in the White House and it is very likely that he will be there until another Democrat takes his place in 2017, whether anyone on the right likes it or not.

I'll also add that ignoring racism has never made it go away, it must be attacked every time that it raises it's ugly head.

I could say a lot more but I'll just leave it at that for now.

If anything that I have said here hurts anyone's 'feelings', well, that's just tough-deal with it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.




"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz

So, when people like Ed Schultz accuse people like Senator Marco Rubio as racist, based solely on the fact that he may vote against the resolution to commit as act of war, you're okay with that??

Then what I heard him say is... wait for it... It's Bush's fault. I never would have guessed that.

To focus at all on Rumsfeld or Sanitorium, as if they are Members of Congress, or Party leaders is ridiculous. That is comparable to using Ken Salazar's or Les Aspin's (who almost got me killed in Somalia) statements as a banner to be held accountable for and by the entire Democrat Party. Ridiculous.

The "either you're with us" remark in the clip had nothing to do with Iraq; it was during the roll out to Afghanistan when France (and Turkey at that time) refused to allow us use of their airspace, and was a reference to the language used in the Joint Address to Congress following 9/11.

This continual stirring of hatred against anyone that is against the President (that isn't a Democrat BTW) and declaring them ipso facto racist is below any thinking and reasonable person.

Are there racists out there in the world? Of course there are. They're like a mixed box of candy; some are white, some are brown, some are other hues as well. Racism isn't the sole ownership of non-Democrats.

Ed Shultz has but one purpose in life; fermenting hatred, exclusion and minimization of others. Sounds to me like he's practicing exactly what he's railing against.

And if it hurts anyone's feelings for me to say so, well, that's just tough-deal with it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.
 
If Ed Schultz is the #1 Liberal hate-monger, where does Glenn Beck sit on the list of far-right hate-mongers?
With me? In a very special place of disdain.

Every political group in the USA has its own hate-mongers. Anyone who is surprised by this knows very little about politics on this planet.
Of course they do, but didn't I just read you doing a pretty good attempt at justifying Schultz' statements?




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.
So now the entire GOP is out of touch and running out of time. Nice...
 
1. I was listening to Shultz's radio show the other day, actually, and he was saying some pretty harsh things about the idea that we need to intervene. :( so sad to see ole Ed turn into such a hate-filled racist.

2. That being said, an item which is so broadly defined as to include everything has come to mean nothing. Those on the left may want to ask themselves whether or not they wish to reserve the deserved scorn that racism should have poured upon it for when it actually comes up; not simply when it is politically convenient to accuse ones' opposition of it in order to avoid thinking.
 
I see what you are trying to do here Grim 17 and I have something to say about it.

To wit:

I am not a person who automatically agrees with anything that anyone, including Ed Schultz, says about anything.

But I do believe that Mr Schultz makes a valid point here.
[snip...]

Mr. Shultz's points were totally unconnected as he stated two (main?) things 1) racial hate is a motive alleged to apply to those here (but somehow only in the GOP) that oppose Obama's (evolving?) Syria adventure plans, yet the reason that "the world" opposes the Obama Syria adventure is because of what the Bush administration did in Iraq.

Mr Schultz opposes this "mini war" nonsense but not based on either of those reasons. In essence Mr. Schultz has decided that he alone knows what is in the hearts of others, and naturally only the hearts of those in the "far right" among the GOP are racist to oppose this planned "mini war".

Mr. Schultz wants Obama to start the war (that he personally opposes) but by allowing those demorats in the house (which he agrees with) to vote no becuse he wants to compel the GOP (hardliners?) to pick up their slack for Obama's political success. Mr. Shultz feels that if you were for total war A (Iraq?) then you should be for "mini war" B (Syria) or you must be a racist.
 
With me? In a very special place of disdain.

Of course they do, but didn't I just read you doing a pretty good attempt at justifying Schultz' statements?




So now the entire GOP is out of touch and running out of time. Nice...




Did I say that the entire GOP is out of touch and running out of time? No, as a matter of fact, I did not - those are your words, and you should get credit for them.

But I will say that the GOP has a lot of people who are dragging it down and will cause it to end up with the Whig Party if they don't change their attitude a lot and soon.

Personally, I don't care what they do.

Not my problem.
 
Last edited:
With me? In a very special place of disdain.

Of course they do, but
didn't I just read you doing a pretty good attempt at justifying Schultz' statements?








So now the entire GOP is out of touch and running out of time. Nice...




If you have a problem with any of Ed Schultz's statements, get with him about it.

I'm just going to guess that you probably won't like what he tells you.

I'm also going to guess that since we're talking about things that happen in the USA, if you don't like what ed Schultz has to day about anything, the best thing for you to do is change the channel or turn your TV off because you're not going to stop the man from saying whatever it is that he wants to say.

Deal with it.




"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
 
Last edited:
Mr. Shultz's points were totally unconnected as he stated two (main?) things 1) racial hate is a motive alleged to apply to those here (but somehow only in the GOP) that oppose Obama's (evolving?) Syria adventure plans, yet the reason that "the world" opposes the Obama Syria adventure is because of what the Bush administration did in Iraq.

Mr Schultz opposes this "mini war" nonsense but not based on either of those reasons. In essence Mr. Schultz has decided that he alone knows what is in the hearts of others, and naturally only the hearts of those in the "far right" among the GOP are racist to oppose this planned "mini war".

Mr. Schultz wants Obama to start the war (that he personally opposes) but by allowing those demorats in the house (which he agrees with) to vote no becuse he wants to compel the GOP (hardliners?) to pick up their slack for Obama's political success. Mr. Shultz feels that if you were for total war A (Iraq?) then you should be for "mini war" B (Syria) or you must be a racist.




Anyone who expects or even hopes that someone's argument for or against anything will be reasonable and consistent is out of touch with reality.
 
Anyone who expects or even hopes that someone's argument for or against anything will be reasonable and consistent is out of touch with reality.

But calling someone "out of touch with reality" is not nearly as much fun as calling them a racist. Its bad to hate on the GOP deranged (mentally challenged?) but perfectly acceptable to hate on those GOP racists. ;)
 
I see what you are trying to do here Grim 17 and I have something to say about it.

To wit:

I am not a person who automatically agrees with anything that anyone, including Ed Schultz, says about anything.

But I do believe that Mr Schultz makes a valid point here.

There are plenty of valid reasons to oppose a U.S. Military attack on Syria.

Anyone who is opposed to it because they 'think' that shutting it down will hurt the 1st Black American elected to the office of President of the USA has more problems than I have time to talk about here, but, unfortunately, there are plenty of people on the far right in the USA who have those problems and the U.S. Congress voting against an attack on Syria will not make those problems go away.

The only way to eliminate those problems that I know of is a one way trip to a graveyard for those who have them.

I'll just add that I noticed some time ago that some losers on the right will use any chance that they find to try to slam Obama and anyone associated with him. I've also noticed that Obama is still in the White House and it is very likely that he will be there until another Democrat takes his place in 2017, whether anyone on the right likes it or not.

I'll also add that ignoring racism has never made it go away, it must be attacked every time that it raises it's ugly head.

I could say a lot more but I'll just leave it at that for now.

If anything that I have said here hurts anyone's 'feelings', well, that's just tough-deal with it. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.

"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being." ~ Friedrich Otto Hertz

This kind of "reasoning" (I use the term loosely) makes me want to puke. There is something intrinsically wrong with people who blame everything on skin color. We really need to change the definition of racism.

They didn't vote for him because he's black and they're racist.
They hate him because he's black and they're racist.
They're making a big deal about Benghazi because he's black and they're racist.
They don't like Obamacare because he's black and they're racist.
They won't vote for the president's Syria plans because he's black and they're racist.
They want him to fail because he's black and they're racist.
They oppose his policies because he's black and they're racist.

Schultz has no valid point. Too many people have taken their strategy from the Junior High School Girls' Playbook. Whenever there's a need for a put down, leave it to a 14-year-old to say, "You're (She's) just jealous." Substitute "racist" for "jealous" and I think you get the picture.

Nobody buys this **** except idiots who watch these ridiculous infotainment programs or who are impressed by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Or who are RACIST THEMSELVES.

Now. Hand me a puke bag.
 
This kind of "reasoning" (I use the term loosely) makes me want to puke. There is something intrinsically wrong with people who blame everything on skin color. We really need to change the definition of racism.

They didn't vote for him because he's black and they're racist.
They hate him because he's black and they're racist.
They're making a big deal about Benghazi because he's black and they're racist.
They don't like Obamacare because he's black and they're racist.
They won't vote for the president's Syria plans because he's black and they're racist.
They want him to fail because he's black and they're racist.
They oppose his policies because he's black and they're racist.

Schultz has no valid point. Too many people have taken their strategy from the Junior High School Girls' Playbook. Whenever there's a need for a put down, leave it to a 14-year-old to say, "You're (She's) just jealous." Substitute "racist" for "jealous" and I think you get the picture.

Nobody buys this **** except idiots who watch these ridiculous infotainment programs or who are impressed by the likes of Jesse Jackson. Or who are RACIST THEMSELVES.

Now. Hand me a puke bag.




I'll just repeat what I said above: Ignoring racism has never made it go away.

Anyone who thinks there is no racism in the USA hasn't spent much time on the internet.

Anyone who is upset by anything that Ed Schultz (Or anyone else on TV or the radio.) has to say needs to learn how to change the channel.
 
I'll just repeat what I said above: Ignoring racism has never made it go away.

Anyone who thinks there is no racism in the USA hasn't spent much time on the internet.

Anyone who is upset by anything that Ed Schultz (Or anyone else on TV or the radio.) has to say needs to learn how to change the channel.

It's not THAT portion is what you said I was addressing. It was this:

But I do believe that Mr Schultz makes a valid point here.
 
I have a theory...people on message boards who complain the most about left wing pundits calling out the some of the right for possible racism? They are probably the same ones who have been calling Obama a KenyanMarxistMuslimWhohatesAmerica the past 5years.
 
I have a theory...people on message boards who complain the most about left wing pundits calling out the some of the right for possible racism? They are probably the same ones who have been calling Obama a KenyanMarxistMuslimWhohatesAmerica the past 5years.

Have I in the last 5 years called Obama:
A Kenyan... No
A Marxist... No
A Muslim... No
A person who hates America... No

Conclusion:
So much for that brilliant theory of yours.
 
Have I in the last 5 years called Obama:
A Kenyan... No
A Marxist... No
A Muslim... No
A person who hates America... No

Conclusion:
So much for that brilliant theory of yours.

Don't know....are you one of the people on message boards.complaining about some of the GOP being called racists?
 
How does this network have more than one viewer?
It seems Grim17 IS that one viewer. The whole place will shut down if he stops watching.
 
How does this network have more than one viewer? Their ONLY line of defense is crying, "Racist!!!!111"

They are fair and balanced: they also call the GOP racists anti-female, anti-children, anti-middle class and pro-1%ers. ;)
 
It seems Grim17 IS that one viewer. The whole place will shut down if he stops watching.

You don't have to watch the network to hear about the idiocy that happens on it.
 
Don't know....are you one of the people on message boards.complaining about some of the GOP being called racists?
I complain about it, and I never called Obama any of those things either. So far your theory is garbage. Why don't you put your thinking cap on here for a moment and try to grasp what is really going on. Let me give you a hint: opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his skin color. It has to do with his ideology. If you don't understand that, then maybe you shouldn't be posting.
 
I have a theory...people on message boards who complain the most about left wing pundits calling out the some of the right for possible racism? They are probably the same ones who have been calling Obama a KenyanMarxistMuslimWhohatesAmerica the past 5years.

Absolutely because they all agree with establishing a huge federal nanny state and support massive income redistribution programs, they just want a white demorat to enact these things. ;)
 
I complain about it, and I never called Obama any of those things either. So far your theory is garbage. Why don't you put your thinking cap on here for a moment and try to grasp what is really going on. Let me give you a hint: opposition to Obama has nothing to do with his skin color. It has to do with his ideology. If you don't understand that, then maybe you shouldn't be posting.

Well....I wasn't here back then....but I was on a different board....and my theory held true. The same people complaining now about "the race card" are the same ones that were Birthers, claimed he was a Muslim and all the rest.

People that have been here that long knows who is who. So...long term Dems on this site? Please tell me if I am correct in my "theory".
 

What the hell are you bitching about? He stated an opinion on an opinion show. He said Black, so ****ing what? Did you watch the video or just read the caption? Can you refute that race isn't part of the reason President Obama is opposed so much by conservatives? Why do you whine so much when somebody on the left mentions race. Guilty consious?

BTW, do you remember your hero Glenn Beck, say President Obama hates White people?


 
Back
Top Bottom