Ed Schultz Denounces Colbert/Stewart Rally

Ockham said:

Good. I thought it was just me able to get to it.




Smarmy is a two way street. I'm just giving as good as I'm getting.

Click to expand...

The ole "well you are too!" tactic. :roll: Sorry I called you out for being a jerk because you were being a jerk.

Next time I will just skip you by as it seems that discussion and debate are not what you're here for.

Because generally speaking, people have been similar to one another throughout history. While our (though, you seem to be Canadian, so I naturally would not comment on the Canadian system) political system has both changed and at the same time, not changed, young people have not been *more* apathetic than they used to be. There have been pockets of time where young people are more politically active (the Depression-era, the 1960s), but it is more of a cyclical thing. During the 1970s, I would say young people had a combination of being who they generally are in our country (those who are not politically active due to temperament) with the cynicism of the era added on top of it. The dramatic rise of civil organizations in that twenty years eased the irritation of young people who found that their political goals were not being fulfilled, while at the same time, they saw more immediate results. The immediate results could literally be a family that they had personally been helping, where the success was seen.

For the most part, young people are not politically active, even if they are predisposed to a political viewpoint. Every once in a while there is a moment where young people are active, but they return to their immediate concerns instead.

I can agree with a lot of that, and I do think that here in Canada we are about the same.

Ockham said:

Ed Shultz would denounce his own mother or his own children if it gained him 1 or 2 additional kool-aid drinkers to watch his anaemic rantings.

Click to expand...

Just like all the other political entertainers. So, why do we watch them?

There is a huge difference between Glenn Beck and all the other pundits on TV and radio, and it's why I went from not caring for him at all 10 years ago when he was competition along with Rush to now where I have some respect for him is simple.

Glenn presents more than just a biased opinion. He presents either Historical facts that are easily verifiable or he shows the video or plays the audio that backs up what he says just about 100% of the time and that is why Obama, and just about every Liberal HATES HIS GUTS.

Liberals can't use Historical facts or the truth because about 99% of the time they make up the stories they tell and then like with Olbermann, Matthews, Schultz, and a few others use each others lies to bolster and back up their own lies.

Of all of those who are unqualified to be speaking out these three idiots are as bad as you can get.

I do have to admit it was a shock for Matthews to come out of the closet over just the sight of Obama. Wow that was something.

Middleground said:

The ole "well you are too!" tactic. :roll: Sorry I called you out for being a jerk because you were being a jerk.

Next time I will just skip you by as it seems that discussion and debate are not what you're here for.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see anything you've posted worth responding to since I've been here. Discussion and debate requires two people who have something worth discussion or debating. When you misrepresent facts and get called on it, you resort to hyperbole and then whine about it. I don't debate or discuss when that's the only thing I can look forward to. Feel free to skip me permenantly.

Councilman said:

Liberals can't use Historical facts or the truth because about 99% of the time they make up the stories they tell and then like with Olbermann, Matthews, Schultz, and a few others use each others lies to bolster and back up their own lies.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Some liberal the other day tried to show me "facts" such as that the Republican effort to make Bush tax cuts permanent would add $4 trillion to the deficit (Senate Republicans unveil a plan that would add $4 trillion to deficit by making Bush tax cuts permanent // Current) that tax cuts don't boost revenues (Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues - TIME) and that Reagan's financial policies weren't beneficial for the country (Will The Tax Cuts Ultimately Pay For Themselves?, 3/3/03). I don't buy any of it.