Big Ed Schultz is on MSNBC blaming Putin's annexation of Crimea on:

George W. Bush

On 3/19/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Look. Big Ed starts his show with images and videos of GWB behind him
and, whether you paid attention or not, made references to Bush's
actions back then and the mood, (political and otherwise) that influence
whatever options we have now. That's casting blame on Bush. There
was no reason to even reference what Bush did 12-13 years ago. Different
time, different situation.


That's just giving today's circumstances perspective. That's not blaming
Bush. Thinking Americans are weary of war, and Ed was explaining why.

Bush's foreign policy fiascos have made us cautious.




--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/19/2014 6:08 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/19/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Look. Big Ed starts his show with images and videos of GWB behind him
and, whether you paid attention or not, made references to Bush's
actions back then and the mood, (political and otherwise) that influence
whatever options we have now. That's casting blame on Bush. There
was no reason to even reference what Bush did 12-13 years ago. Different
time, different situation.


That's just giving today's circumstances perspective. That's not blaming
Bush. Thinking Americans are weary of war, and Ed was explaining why.

Bush's foreign policy fiascos have made us cautious.






Part of my problem is that I just can't tolerate much of "Big Ed".

I've come to realize that MSNBC has a strategy in terms of trying to
capture and appeal to liberal only thinkers. Or non-thinking followers.

They have covered part of the audience appeal with "cerebral" hosts
like Maddow. They have the working class covered by Matthews and Co.
Minorities are covered by Rev. Al and Big Ed works the unions and the
rest of the leftovers.

Of all of them I find Big Ed the most objectionable. He's a blowhard
with bully tendencies. I can only handle a few minutes of his BS before
I have to switch channels.

Oh ... then MSNBC has "The Cycle". They hit the 25 to 35 year old
segment. Stupidest show I've seen except for their token conservative,
Abby Huntsman. She's an airhead, but a good looking airhead.

Now they have some new guy who looks like Justin Bieber and appears to
have not yet had to shave. What age group is MSNBC targeting their
liberal propaganda with him? 12-14 year olds?

On 3/19/14, 6:25 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/19/2014 6:08 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/19/14, 5:56 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/19/2014 5:42 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:


Look. Big Ed starts his show with images and videos of GWB behind him
and, whether you paid attention or not, made references to Bush's
actions back then and the mood, (political and otherwise) that influence
whatever options we have now. That's casting blame on Bush. There
was no reason to even reference what Bush did 12-13 years ago. Different
time, different situation.


That's just giving today's circumstances perspective. That's not blaming
Bush. Thinking Americans are weary of war, and Ed was explaining why.

Bush's foreign policy fiascos have made us cautious.






Part of my problem is that I just can't tolerate much of "Big Ed".

I've come to realize that MSNBC has a strategy in terms of trying to
capture and appeal to liberal only thinkers. Or non-thinking followers.

They have covered part of the audience appeal with "cerebral" hosts
like Maddow. They have the working class covered by Matthews and Co.
Minorities are covered by Rev. Al and Big Ed works the unions and the
rest of the leftovers.

Of all of them I find Big Ed the most objectionable. He's a blowhard
with bully tendencies. I can only handle a few minutes of his BS before
I have to switch channels.

Oh ... then MSNBC has "The Cycle". They hit the 25 to 35 year old
segment. Stupidest show I've seen except for their token conservative,
Abby Huntsman. She's an airhead, but a good looking airhead.

Now they have some new guy who looks like Justin Bieber and appears to
have not yet had to shave. What age group is MSNBC targeting their
liberal propaganda with him? 12-14 year olds?





Whatever they are, they are many rungs higher on the ladder than than
the morons who populate Fox.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

In article ,
says...


There isn't a thing Harry utters that isn't word for word, phrase for
phrase, mantra for mantra a direct copy and repeat of current talking
points made by leading Congressional Democrats, their strategists or
liberal cable show hosts. It's amazing to witness. One of the sheep.


And how is that different from what you've been doing, but from the "R"
point of view?
You've got the "R" talking points down pat. Don't kid yourself.

Going back to Big Ed Schultz ... his primary purpose in life is to
raise dust and cause trouble. He's the darling of labor unions and blue
collar liberals and (like Harry) cannot imagine a world that can
survive without them. Also like Harry he doesn't mention dirty games
the unions play like the recent demonstrations in front of an automobile
dealership that hired non-union carpenters to do some renovations to
it's showroom. Union carpenters didn't conduct the demonstrations
however. They had to work. Their union *hired* people to do the
protesting and conduct the demonstrations. Isn't that just lovely. A
private business is demonstrated against, possibly affecting their sales
and ability to conduct business simply because they exercised their
freedom and right to determine and hire who they wanted to do some work.
Sick.

If that dealership can prove lost sales for the days the demonstrations
were conducted they should sue the carpenter's union for every penny of
lost revenues plus a goodly lump sum for general aggravation.

Yada, yada. If you don't like it, turn the channel to Fox News.
Pretty sure they cover the evils of unions.
BTW, Schultz bucked the unions in coming out against Keystone.
Not that I give a tinker's damn what he does.

On 3/20/2014 7:49 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


There isn't a thing Harry utters that isn't word for word, phrase for
phrase, mantra for mantra a direct copy and repeat of current talking
points made by leading Congressional Democrats, their strategists or
liberal cable show hosts. It's amazing to witness. One of the sheep.


And how is that different from what you've been doing, but from the "R"
point of view?
You've got the "R" talking points down pat. Don't kid yourself.

Going back to Big Ed Schultz ... his primary purpose in life is to
raise dust and cause trouble. He's the darling of labor unions and blue
collar liberals and (like Harry) cannot imagine a world that can
survive without them. Also like Harry he doesn't mention dirty games
the unions play like the recent demonstrations in front of an automobile
dealership that hired non-union carpenters to do some renovations to
it's showroom. Union carpenters didn't conduct the demonstrations
however. They had to work. Their union *hired* people to do the
protesting and conduct the demonstrations. Isn't that just lovely. A
private business is demonstrated against, possibly affecting their sales
and ability to conduct business simply because they exercised their
freedom and right to determine and hire who they wanted to do some work.
Sick.

If that dealership can prove lost sales for the days the demonstrations
were conducted they should sue the carpenter's union for every penny of
lost revenues plus a goodly lump sum for general aggravation.

Yada, yada. If you don't like it, turn the channel to Fox News.
Pretty sure they cover the evils of unions.
BTW, Schultz bucked the unions in coming out against Keystone.
Not that I give a tinker's damn what he does.


It's not a question of whether I like it or not. I like to stay
somewhat informed as to what each party is advocating or doing.

I have often expressed my negative opinions on the ultra-right
Teabaggers like Ted Cruz and others. To me they are as dangerous if not
more so than than many of the liberal progressives.

Interestingly, as I sit here listening to "Morning Joe" this morning it
struck me as they interviewed Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of
State in Bill Clinton's administration) regarding Ukraine and Putin's
ambitions that she is advocating stronger vigilance, alluding to
"other" military options the USA has available (other than troops on the
ground) in Ukraine or other ex-Soviet satellites. Her stance and
references to the use of military assets are stronger than any of the
right-wing "warmongers" that Harry references.

I didn't hear it but apparently Putin delivered a speech during the
annexation signing ceremony of Crimea that smacked of his nostalgic
desire to return Russia to it's former glory and power it had as the
Soviet Union. That's something to pay attention to. Power goes to
people's head sometimes and we've ignored for too long many nut cases in
the past.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:11:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/19/14, 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Big Ed Schultz is on MSNBC blaming Putin's annexation of Crimea on:

George W. Bush



That's an absolute complete bull**** lie.

You, of all people, should not be accusing others of telling a lie.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 08:25:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/20/2014 7:49 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


There isn't a thing Harry utters that isn't word for word, phrase for
phrase, mantra for mantra a direct copy and repeat of current talking
points made by leading Congressional Democrats, their strategists or
liberal cable show hosts. It's amazing to witness. One of the sheep.


And how is that different from what you've been doing, but from the "R"
point of view?
You've got the "R" talking points down pat. Don't kid yourself.

Going back to Big Ed Schultz ... his primary purpose in life is to
raise dust and cause trouble. He's the darling of labor unions and blue
collar liberals and (like Harry) cannot imagine a world that can
survive without them. Also like Harry he doesn't mention dirty games
the unions play like the recent demonstrations in front of an automobile
dealership that hired non-union carpenters to do some renovations to
it's showroom. Union carpenters didn't conduct the demonstrations
however. They had to work. Their union *hired* people to do the
protesting and conduct the demonstrations. Isn't that just lovely. A
private business is demonstrated against, possibly affecting their sales
and ability to conduct business simply because they exercised their
freedom and right to determine and hire who they wanted to do some work.
Sick.

If that dealership can prove lost sales for the days the demonstrations
were conducted they should sue the carpenter's union for every penny of
lost revenues plus a goodly lump sum for general aggravation.

Yada, yada. If you don't like it, turn the channel to Fox News.
Pretty sure they cover the evils of unions.
BTW, Schultz bucked the unions in coming out against Keystone.
Not that I give a tinker's damn what he does.


It's not a question of whether I like it or not. I like to stay
somewhat informed as to what each party is advocating or doing.

I have often expressed my negative opinions on the ultra-right
Teabaggers like Ted Cruz and others. To me they are as dangerous if not
more so than than many of the liberal progressives.

Interestingly, as I sit here listening to "Morning Joe" this morning it
struck me as they interviewed Madeleine Albright (former Secretary of
State in Bill Clinton's administration) regarding Ukraine and Putin's
ambitions that she is advocating stronger vigilance, alluding to
"other" military options the USA has available (other than troops on the
ground) in Ukraine or other ex-Soviet satellites. Her stance and
references to the use of military assets are stronger than any of the
right-wing "warmongers" that Harry references.

I didn't hear it but apparently Putin delivered a speech during the
annexation signing ceremony of Crimea that smacked of his nostalgic
desire to return Russia to it's former glory and power it had as the
Soviet Union. That's something to pay attention to. Power goes to
people's head sometimes and we've ignored for too long many nut cases in
the past.


I just started Clancy's new book, "Command Authority". It seems to parallel the current actions by
the Russians - only Putin's name not used.

On 3/20/14, 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

It's not a question of whether I like it or not. I like to stay
somewhat informed as to what each party is advocating or doing.


What is the GOP advocating in terms of foreign policy in the current
situation with Russia and the Crimea?

What is the GOP advocating in terms of an alternative to the ACA?

Is there more than "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi," and 50+ attempts to
appeal the ACA?



--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/20/14, 9:07 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 17:11:07 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/19/14, 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Big Ed Schultz is on MSNBC blaming Putin's annexation of Crimea on:

George W. Bush



That's an absolute complete bull**** lie.

You, of all people, should not be accusing others of telling a lie.


Old fart racists like you should not be issuing moral dictums.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!