Left-wing MSNBC host Ed Schultz: "I'm not voting in the midterms"

[BostonPirate]

I've never understood how anyone can think a republican is open-minded If you don't see it their way, watch out! Be prepared to be called "racist, homosexual, tree hugger, etc"

But it's obvious why they go ape-shit when you mention MSNBC, Maddow, Gore; it makes their blood boil to see anyone on the left who's popular and successful.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree that there should be a requirement for lawmakers to read bills before voting. I'd even like an explanation for a vote.

Make 'em write an 'opinion' like judges do for decisions.

 

[MoltenRock III]

The snake oil that our Harvard educated genius has been selling hasn't stemmed the tide of foreclosures and millions have lost their jobs on his watch. Maybe the ruling class isn't quite as smart as they would have us believe.

As to the three top republicans who you refer to, I don't know anything about their educations, nor do I really much care. The important thing to note, is that they are all successful business people. They are all multi-millionaires.

Barry doesn't know anything about business, nor do the vast majority of those who work for him as they've never met a payroll.

The salient question is this. If you need advice on fixing the economy, do you listen to somebody who has read many books and has a sheepskin to prove how smart he is? Or somebody who has actually made a go of it in terms of business success?

George W. Bush was an MBA graduate from an Ivy League school and one of the worst failures of a President.

How can you of all people say this Jack? Would you want a multi-millionaire businessman running your department? You are a public servant, working for a public institution, paid for by taxpayers, as is your salary. If your department was run by a savvy businessman your pension wouldn't exist. Government is not private enterprise and vice versa. Using your logic a successful millionaire could walk into your dept. and run it brilliantly. Is that how you feel?

As far as your continued ranting about the ratings, it's an ad hominem attack. His ratings have nothing to do with this thread, the subject matter at hand, or Ed Schultz' opinions. You're pontificating as if the 1.84 million people on average that watch FOX is stellar. Between ABC, NBC/MSNBC, and CBS averages they over 21 million viewers. FOX news ratings are down 11% this year (as are most other news shows) because American's increasingly are just tuning out.

 

[Knucklehead]

I've never understood how anyone can think a liberal is open-minded If you don't see it their way, watch out! Be prepared to be called "racist, homophobic, warmonger, etc.

Unless of course you are actually a racist ,homophobic,warmonger,like so,so many on the right are.

But it's obvious why they go ape-shit when you mention FOX News, Limbaugh, Palin; it makes their blood boil to see anyone on the right who's popular and successful.

Speaking for myself,I don't watch Fox News ,Limbaugh or Palin,because ,for starters,Fox News isn't a news network,they are habitual liars with a political agenda.An agenda that is completely at odds with my own.

I don't listen to Rush (The Pigman) Limbaugh, because he is lying, multi millionaire who also has an agenda I don't agree with.He doesn't care about the about the day in ,day out lives of average people.For years,he has been trying to incite violence among the people who have the most to lose should they act on his rhetoric.

I don't don't take anything Palin says seriously,because like most other right wing swine, she has demonstrated a willingness to tell shameless lies to excite people and sway publi opinion..

One thing these people all have in common is that they all who seem to hate the government of the United States.Pig Lips herself fucks a man who was involved in a movement to secede from the U.S. I think if you have such open contempt for our government,and large groups of people who make up the constituency,such as ,liberals,or in the alternate,''socialists'',minorities of every stripe, the working class,the poor,the elderly,you're not fit to lead this country.If they believe the government is inherently evil,or could never be a positive force in peoples lives,then why do they wish to become involved in it? I would guess it has more to do with bullshitting people into putting them in charge,so that way,they can continue the agenda of gutting the programs and agencies that assist the average person,while deregulating the business interests that have allowed them to make billions.But they'll do it while talking about Jesus so the stupid asses that are influenced by these criminals can see what good people they are..

I don't care if someone,right or left is popular or successful,good for them.What bothers me is if they are succcessful because they lie to people and influence them enough to vote against their self interests and mine..

You see Laika, for instance,I'm not really interested in the plight of millionaires who are going ape shit about the looming doom of the end of the Bush tax cuts.I won't lose a minutes sleep if they have to suffer through an increase in their capital gains tax.I say tax them on par with the percentage that the average person loses from their paycheck every week.The only difference of course, is that working people actually earn their money.Unlike the incredibly wealthy, it's not sitting in their bank accounts while they lounge beside the pool and yell at their illegal alien servants.Do you think Rush and Fox and Co, are telling their audience that, or is more likely they are calling it a ''death tax'' and are trotting out the two elderly farmers who are ''afraid'' to pass on the farm to the kids?

 

[laikaNYC]

The length of your hate filledrants showcases an underline a rage problem that I believe you have. Your past statements advocating the murder of Oil company men and even threatning to bash my head into the concrete also led me to this obvious conclusion. I hope one day you can have a debate based on merit alone, without name calling. It cannot be at all pleasant living with so much hate towards sincere people.

 

[Knucklehead]

Ok Doctor..So in addition to your obvious talent for parroting/copy and pasting right wing talking points ,you're also a trained mental health professional?

That's funny though,that you'd call Fox News,Limbaugh and Palin ''sincere people.''Seems like it's you that needs help there..

 

[jackoroe]

George W. Bush was an MBA graduate from an Ivy League school and one of the worst failures of a President.

How can you of all people say this Jack? Would you want a multi-millionaire businessman running your department? You are a public servant, working for a public institution, paid for by taxpayers, as is your salary. If your department was run by a savvy businessman your pension wouldn't exist. Government is not private enterprise and vice versa. Using your logic a successful millionaire could walk into your dept. and run it brilliantly. Is that how you feel?

As far as your continued ranting about the ratings, it's an ad hominem attack. His ratings have nothing to do with this thread, the subject matter at hand, or Ed Schultz' opinions. You're pontificating as if the 1.84 million people on average that watch FOX is stellar. Between ABC, NBC/MSNBC, and CBS averages they over 21 million viewers. FOX news ratings are down 11% this year (as are most other news shows) because American's increasingly are just tuning out.

Bush had an MBA and the economy at it's worst during his tenure, was far better than it is now. I know.....it's still Bush's fault almost two years after he's left office. Let's let that part of the discussion go for now, because I've get plenty of issues with Bush.

As to your discussion of Government V. Private sector, your all over the map. Let's make it easy enough. The private sector is profit motivated. If it makes money, somebody will step up and fill the need. Simple enough. The government is the antithesis of this economic model. If a program is failing, that is to say not producing the desired result, government simply throws more of my money at the problem. They don't end the program. If I make hats for a living, and I'm not making any money at it, I'm not going to make more hats that's for sure. I'll do something else or go out of business. So your comparisons between these two economic models, really don't fit.

As to Obama. He's not talking about fixing government. He's trying to fix the economy. That engenders a consideration, or at least a rudimentary understanding, of business models. Something he is singularly unqualified to do by virtue of not having ever run a business of any sort. It's becoming evident that his statist position isn't making matters any better. In short, had Obama been a succesful businessman, he might be qualified to lead business back to prosperity.

Now back to Ed. He's a businessman and not a very good one as is evidenced by his lack of ratings. There's not much of a market for what he's selling. Pointing this out does not qualify as an ad hominen attack. Go back and brush up on your Latin, sir.

Multi-Millionaires do sometimes run governmental entities. Ever hear of Arnold Schwarzenegger? How about Mike Bloomberg? Jon Corzine? Some of these people were more succesful than others, but that success wasn't predicated on any business model, because government isn't business.

It's fair to compare Fox to MSNBC, becasue they are similarly situated. Both are cable networks. Comapring any cable network to a broadcast network only works if every home in America has cable, which isn't the case, so the comparison is not valid.

 

[BostonPirate]

ok

so what does this have to do with ed saying people shouldn't vote?

 

[Lostlover]

Bush had an MBA and the economy at it's worst during his tenure, was far better than it is now. I know.....it's still Bush's fault almost two years after he's left office. Let's let that part of the discussion go for now, because I've get plenty of issues with Bush.

As to your discussion of Government V. Private sector, your all over the map. Let's make it easy enough. The private sector is profit motivated. If it makes money, somebody will step up and fill the need. Simple enough. The government is the antithesis of this economic model. If a program is failing, that is to say not producing the desired result, government simply throws more of my money at the problem. They don't end the program. If I make hats for a living, and I'm not making any money at it, I'm not going to make more hats that's for sure. I'll do something else or go out of business. So your comparisons between these two economic models, really don't fit.

As to Obama. He's not talking about fixing government. He's trying to fix the economy. That engenders a consideration, or at least a rudimentary understanding, of business models. Something he is singularly unqualified to do by virtue of not having ever run a business of any sort. It's becoming evident that his statist position isn't making matters any better. In short, had Obama been a succesful businessman, he might be qualified to lead business back to prosperity.

Now back to Ed. He's a businessman and not a very good one as is evidenced by his lack of ratings. There's not much of a market for what he's selling. Pointing this out does not qualify as an ad hominen attack. Go back and brush up on your Latin, sir.

Multi-Millionaires do sometimes run governmental entities. Ever hear of Arnold Schwarzenegger? How about Mike Bloomberg? Jon Corzine? Some of these people were more succesful than others, but that success wasn't predicated on any business model, because government isn't business.

It's fair to compare Fox to MSNBC, becasue they are similarly situated. Both are cable networks. Comapring any cable network to a broadcast network only works if every home in America has cable, which isn't the case, so the comparison is not valid.

Good business = good ratings? I still don't get the link. Can someone please explain it to me?

And by the way, Ed Schultz does have an actual business in North Dakota that is doing well. He has over 20 employees from what I have heard him say over the radio.

And it's "you're", not "your" in the sentence above.

 

[BostonPirate]

Good business = good ratings? I still don't get the link. Can someone please explain it to me?

And by the way, Ed Schultz does have an actual business in North Dakota that is doing well. He has over 20 employees from what I have heard him say over the radio.

And it's "you're", not "your" in the sentence above.

it means in regards to the media that you are willing to tell people what they want to hear, not what has happened or the truth.

it means a product is catered to an audience. Merchandised like pies or videogames. the commercials for that "help, ive fallenand i cant get up" looks alot different than a commercial for Beer, because they target an audience and give them an image they like.

that is how fox treats the news.

 

[iman]

Business experience as a qualification for political office is an old Republican red herring. I don't know how many of our Presidents have had business experience, but it has not been many. Reagan did have union experience, though. Romney, who is responsible for the healthcare model, is the only Republican leader that I can think of that has actually run a business.

The things we turn to government for are the things that do not necessarily make a profit or that business has failed to address, but are necessary, the military, retirement, healthcare, space program, education, welfare, etc.

If business could adequately address these areas, there would have been no support for our government address them.

Ed's problem is his personality, he comes across as a self promoting loud mouthed radio talk show host, but the Limbaugh model does not play well with liberals. Ed served MSNBC as an attack dog against the Clintons during the primary and has apparently been rewarded with his own program.

Now, can anyone explain Dylan Ratigan?

 

[BostonPirate]

romney used his business experience to hide expenses and charges.

they both know how to cook the books.

romney promised no taxes, and then created and upped the fees across the state to the extent that it was ridiculous.

Bush didn't put war costs into his budgets to hide the deficits he was creating.

businessmen are not to be trusted in the political arena. they will serve their cronies and interests before the people.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Good business = good ratings? I still don't get the link. Can someone please explain it to me?

And by the way, Ed Schultz does have an actual business in North Dakota that is doing well. He has over 20 employees from what I have heard him say over the radio.

And it's "you're", not "your" in the sentence above.

Dude, I have no idea what he's going on about. Additionally, what Ed's ratings are have no bearing in this discussion in the first place. But Jack's opening post in this thread was an ad hominem. (Aka, logical fallacy.)


Jackaroe, please note:

Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent (in this case Ed Shultz) in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Examples:
"You can't believe George when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."

"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[MoltenRock III]

Unless of course you are actually a racist ,homophobic,warmonger,like so,so many on the right are.

You forgot "bible beating Jesus freaks, and high school / college drop-outs".

 

[laikaNYC]

Good business = good ratings? I still don't get the link. Can someone please explain it to me?

And by the way, Ed Schultz does have an actual business in North Dakota that is doing well. He has over 20 employees from what I have heard him say over the radio.

And it's "you're", not "your" in the sentence above.

If you're a good businessman, your show would be successful. In Ed's case, his ratings have dropped heavily compared to last year.

Over 20 employees? Wow, he's a regular Rockefeller.

And no, in that sentence, "you're" wouldn't have been proper. So much for you trying to nit pick someone's grammar.

 

[MoltenRock III]

If you're a good businessman, your show would be successful. In Ed's case, his ratings have dropped heavily compared to last year.

Over 20 employees? Wow, he's a regular Rockefeller.

And no, in that sentence, "you're" wouldn't have been proper. So much for you trying to nit pick someone's grammar.

I don't care about Jack's mistaken grammar, I got what he was trying to say. My brain thinks one thing (correctly) and my fingers type something else. It happens to everyone. It's a message board, not an annual report. But the word "you're" is a correct contraction of you are, btw.

As far as ratings, which this thread is not about, it is still a logical fallacy.

As far as your statement about Ed's ratings being down, BFD. All news channels are down this year, even your beloved FAUX.

Year-over-year ratings overall:

MSNBC was down 9 percent,
Fox News was down 11 percent
HLN was down 20 percent
CNN was down 53 percent

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...rian-williams-are-winners.html/comment-page-1

 

[construct]

First off, I didn't even know who Ed Schultz is until I looked inside this thread. I don't have cable TV. Don't want it; don't need it. It's like that Pink Floyd song: "I got thirteen channels of shit on the TV to choose from." What more could anyone ask.

Am I sitting out this election? Hell, no! I want to vote for Tracey Smith who is challenging Rep. Kay Granger. I want to vote for Bill White to replace Gov. Rick Perry. I want to vote for whoever the hell the Libertarians decide on to replace State Rep. Mark Shelton. And there's a few down-ballot races I'm concerned about, too. I vote every time there's an election. I even vote in water board and school district elections.

I'm not sure Texas' demographics have changed enough to sweep a bunch of Democrats into office, but I don't want to miss out when it does.

 

[palemale]

Business experience as a qualification for political office is an old Republican red herring. I don't know how many of our Presidents have had business experience, but it has not been many. Reagan did have union experience, though.

The last businessman to be president was George "W" Bush. We all see how well that turned out. He was one of the worst presidents in history.

As far as Reagan's union experience, in the performing arts unions, the presidents have little, if any, administrative responsibilities. They work in the trade, but preside over meetings of the union executive boards and membership, sign checks, have some oversight responsibility. When there are strikes or labor disputes, they are expected to "rally the troops" and be the spokesperson for the union. Indeed, they are the public face of the union These are obviously important responsibilities and skillful union presidents help out their unions and members enormously.

 

[Lostlover]

Business experience as a qualification for political office is an old Republican red herring. I don't know how many of our Presidents have had business experience, but it has not been many. Reagan did have union experience, though. Romney, who is responsible for the healthcare model, is the only Republican leader that I can think of that has actually run a business.

The things we turn to government for are the things that do not necessarily make a profit or that business has failed to address, but are necessary, the military, retirement, healthcare, space program, education, welfare, etc.

If business could adequately address these areas, there would have been no support for our government address them.

Ed's problem is his personality, he comes across as a self promoting loud mouthed radio talk show host, but the Limbaugh model does not play well with liberals. Ed served MSNBC as an attack dog against the Clintons during the primary and has apparently been rewarded with his own program.

Now, can anyone explain Dylan Ratigan?

What? He's a hot "dad". CNN has its eye candy...

 

[Lostlover]

If you're a good businessman, your show would be successful. In Ed's case, his ratings have dropped heavily compared to last year.

Over 20 employees? Wow, he's a regular Rockefeller.

And no, in that sentence, "you're" wouldn't have been proper. So much for you trying to nit pick someone's grammar.

Someone needs to brush up on his/her grammar.

So, this is the spammer account now? Onto ignore it goes...