True to form ...
 

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

George W. Bush

True to form ...
 

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!

True to form ...
 

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?

True to form ...
 

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!

True to form ...
 

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.

True to form ...
 

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.

True to form ...
 

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.

True to form ...
 

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.

True to form ...
 

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!

True to form ...
 

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!

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/2014 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.


He isn't calling anybody a liar, quite the opposite. When he says
anything, you know it's a lie... Now if he said "ain't that the truth",
Dick should be offended..

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/14, 10:23 AM, KC wrote:
On 3/20/2014 10:06 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:



Because I feel I had something to add, and I want to be in the
conversation like you and the rest here... but it's not worth it to deal
with bullys so you do have a point. When it gets to the point where you
all ignore me and answer each and every post made by harry, I guess I
get the point....

Perhaps your psychotic posts here have something to do with it. Most of
them are so far over the edge from sanity, there's no reason to respond.
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that,
but I'm not posting political stuff here that emanates from "voices" in
my head. You seem to have entire conversations going on between your ears.


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

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/2014 10:39 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that

I suppose that's a lot easier than evaluating issues on their merits.
Thanks for your truthfulness about this.

True to form ...
 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:25:14 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

On 3/20/2014 10:39 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that

I suppose that's a lot easier than evaluating issues on their merits.
Thanks for your truthfulness about this.

I was surprised to see that admission also. It's actually believable.

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/14, 12:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:25:14 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

On 3/20/2014 10:39 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that

I suppose that's a lot easier than evaluating issues on their merits.
Thanks for your truthfulness about this.

I was surprised to see that admission also. It's actually believable.



Of course. Why would any person who is decent politically want to
associate with your Republican Party, the party that is anti-woman,
racist, anti-Latino, pro war, anti the poor and middle income groups,
pro low-wage servitude, anti public school, anti student, anti health
care for those who cannot afford it, anti-labor, anti-veterans,
anti-environment, and, of course, pro corporation uber alles.

Your Republican Party has devolved into a huge sack of ****, and its
most vocal acolytes here do little more than sling that anti-societal ****.

The very best thing you old white farts have to offer is that you are
dropping like flies. :)



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

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/2014 12:25 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/20/14, 12:12 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:25:14 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d
wrote:

On 3/20/2014 10:39 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that

I suppose that's a lot easier than evaluating issues on their merits.
Thanks for your truthfulness about this.

I was surprised to see that admission also. It's actually believable.



Of course. Why would any person who is decent politically want to
associate with your Republican Party, the party that is anti-woman,
racist, anti-Latino, pro war, anti the poor and middle income groups,
pro low-wage servitude, anti public school, anti student, anti health
care for those who cannot afford it, anti-labor, anti-veterans,
anti-environment, and, of course, pro corporation uber alles.

Your Republican Party has devolved into a huge sack of ****, and its
most vocal acolytes here do little more than sling that anti-societal ****.

The very best thing you old white farts have to offer is that you are
dropping like flies. :)





Well, *that's* certainly an open, broad minded and intelligent view on
the partisan nature of modern politics. Your way or the highway, eh?

It's funny that anyone who advocates scaling back on federal programs
due to our inability to afford them ... meaning they are fiscally
conservative ... are automatically tossed into the "anti-everything",
right-wing crazy nut bin by free spending, entitlement granting liberals
.... and some Republicans as well. It's not as simple as that as much
as you want to try to make it.

Rather than paint such a broad brush, how about some liberal ideas ...
that are realistic ... in terms of getting us less dependent on
countries like China?

True to form ...
 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:12:01 -0400, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:25:14 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

On 3/20/2014 10:39 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
My political posts certainly are one-sided, and I wouldn't deny that

I suppose that's a lot easier than evaluating issues on their merits.
Thanks for your truthfulness about this.

I was surprised to see that admission also. It's actually believable.

===

I suppose if you write as much random garbage as he does, the truth
will pop out once in a while. It's sort of like the old story of a
million monkeys pecking away at typewriters accidently creating a work
of Shakespeare.

True to form ...
 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:25:28 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

The very best thing you old white farts have to offer is that you are
dropping like flies. :)

===

"Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

-Satchel Paige

True to form ...
 

On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:57 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

Are you thinking of trading your 5er for a Class A?

No, but I have a deposit on a longer class A.

Why did I think you had a fifth wheel? Alzheimers? Already?

****.


Perhaps you two can swap war stories about your model airplanes before
your wife drops you off at the adult day care center.

True to form ...
 

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:12:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:23:57 -0400, H*a*r*r*o*l*d wrote:

Are you thinking of trading your 5er for a Class A?

No, but I have a deposit on a longer class A.

Why did I think you had a fifth wheel? Alzheimers? Already?

****.


Perhaps you two can swap war stories about your model airplanes before
your wife drops you off at the adult day care center.


Yeah, 'cause stories about model airplanes and RVs are, compared to your politics and religion,
extremely caustic, eh?

Wouldn't you call being confined to a basement by a psychoanalyst Doctor, Doctor pretty close to
'adult day care center' treatment, Krause?

True to form ...
 

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:19:59 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


That's because krause has no original thoughts.

True to form ...
 

On Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:31:26 AM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:


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


And complete liars and thieves such as YOU ...shouldn't be posting here at all.