Check out the CNN anchor as he "announces" what he assumes will be Chicago's victory in the Olympic sweepstakes.
Well, to err is human as they say, so no hard feelings. But leave it to MSNBC to provide the absolute low-light to the whole Olympics/Chicago fiasco. Ed Schultz, liberal MSNBC commentator (is there any other kind?) has his own take on those who questioned the wisdom of Chicago's candidacy in the first place.
Yes, according to Ed, we are all traitors-akin to Jane Fonda going to Hanoi during the Viet Nam war. Watch this clip below from the "Ed Show" October 2.
How outrageous is it for this guy to compare those Americans who were not supporting Chicago to Hanoi Jane Fonda's going to North Viet Nam and posing on an anti-aircraft gun?
My dear Mr Schultz. What Jane Fonda did during the Viet Nam war was an act of treason. She consorted with the enemy, made radio broadcasts in their favor and went to POW camps, where those American captives who did not join in her photo ops were singled out for (increased) torture and punishment. That was treason.
But if I question the wisdom of bringing the Olympics to Chicago (which I did) in the face of more pressing problems facing the city, that is not an act of treason. If I question the President's priorities (as I did) in going to Copenhagen when he has more pressing issues (such as deciding on more troops for Afghanistan), that is not treason.
Similarly, is it an act of treason tantamount to what Fonda did to root against the American team in the World Cup, say, because the players happen to be jerks? (I'm making up this example.) Would it be an act of treason to root for Curacao in the Little League World Series against a US team because I have an attachment to Curacao? Would you really compare that to Jane Fonda's treason, Mr Ed? Am I a traitor if I could care less how the US does in the World Cup?
Surely, you jest, Mr Ed.
Of course, this is the very same mentality that drives people to say that to oppose President Obama's policies is to be a racist. It is an empty, shallow form of debate that shows how utterly devoid of serious thinking the liberals are.
Mr Ed, it's sports-not a war.
Chicago lost because they proposed putting the Olympics in the South-side. That is like putting the Olympics in South-Central LA or Bedford-Sty section of Brooklyn. Big, bad mistake!
ReplyDeleteWhat? I thought it was going to be held at Wrigley Field.
ReplyDelete"I believe it is a worthwhile endeavor to promote and boost the Untied States of America"
ReplyDeleteDid our President really say this?
Isn't this the same guy who went on a world tour telling countries how sorry we are as a country for our image. Is this the same guy who is tying to weaken our status in the world and at the same time cutting our military stature in the world.
Was that promoting or boosting Barrack??
I guess if that was his goal again he failed, last on the list of 4 countries/cities in the consideration for the Olympics.
I wonder what the result would have been if he didn't promote Chicago, 13th? Well I am sure glad he made America stronger buy finishing behind Tokyo and Madrid.
"Madrid is still in, Madrid is still in???"
Priceless quotes from the liberal media!
In regards to Schultz I can only simply say to the good ole boys at Media Socialist Nazi Broadcasting Company, Get a life buddy. You should play back this clip and listen to yourself. We should all be behind the president and where were you the last 8 years, were you behind president Bush, was the left behind him?
How does it feel to have your boy attacked at every step? Now you know how the so-called "Righties" feel. By the way isn't that against the PC code, shouldn't you be apologizing to all right-handed people for using their hand preference as a punchline for a joke.
More insanity from the Social Progressive Lefties! Oops sorry left-handers.
Nope. They were going to build the whole thing in the Southside. Spend billions so gangs could have the pleasure of raping and murdering the tourists.
ReplyDeleteAnd to think for 8 years, they called Bush every name in the book.
ReplyDelete