Ed Schultz, Butter and Egg Man at MSNBC, knows a lot about psycho behavior and psycho talk because he is a master of it. Yet, he assigns this term to Marco Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library this week.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2011/08/26/ed-schultz-dont-be-fooled-pretty-boy-rubio-hell-be-ugly-senior-cit
Here is a sentence from Rubio's speech that Ed left out (a known Ed tactic):
"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us."
Here is the entire text of Rubio's speech from the LA Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/08/marco-rubio-reagan-library-republican-ticket.html
How curious that Schultz has introduced a segment of his show to "psycho talk". His entire hour-long show is psycho talk. This is the guy who called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" repeatedly on the air. This is the guy who edited a Rick Perry speech in Iowa to make it appear that he was calling President Obama a "big, black cloud hanging over America" when Perry was clearly talking about our national debt. And he thinks Rubio is engaging in "psycho talk"??
I would love to see this big dolt engage in a debate with Rubio-on any subject. Does he wish to argue that Medicare and Social Security are sustainable the way we are going? What is his solution?
It's not just that Schultz and his fellow mad-hatters at MSNBC are ideological left-wingers. It's not just that they organize their daily programs to attack the major Republican contender as they surface. Ed Schultz, particularly, is a dishonest reporter, who manufactures his talking points and molds them with creative editing.
Do I want to see Schultz fired? On the contrary. I want every fair-minded person who considers him or herself a middle-of-the-roader to spend an entire evening watching the nightly parade of Democratic propagandists masquerading as news people. Watch and see the outrageous statements they make. See how many conservative voices appear to debate with them. Compare that with the liberal debators on the much-maligned Fox channel.
Please don't fire Ed Schultz. He makes our case every night.
6 comments:
Politically speaking, Laura Ingraham IS an ignorant slut. I have no idea what her sexual proclivities are, and I suspect Schultz doesn't either. But that hardly matters 90% of the time anyone of any persuasion uses the term in public debate, does it?
Marco Rubio is indeed an accomplished speaker, and will not be quelled by reflex dismissal from Ed Schultz -- not that Schulz makes much of a case for you, Rubio, or anyone else.
Rubio, however, is a rank demagogue IF he means to imply that any drastic qualitative overhaul of social security is necessary. What ails social security is simple arithmetic, and can be fixed by simple arithmetic, if EITHER party was willing to tell the truth to voters just for once.
It worked fine for the human life expectancy and retirement age it was designed for. We cannot live longer, retire sooner, pay in less, and take out more.
The arithmetic adjustments are, raise the retirement age, OR lower the monthly payments, OR raise the percentage of payroll tax, OR some combination of the above. The one possibility I've left out is to impose a mandatory maximum life span, which I don't believe anyone would support, including me.
IF Rubio is volunteering as point man to revive the notion Bush fronted that it should all be invested in the stock market... we all noticed in 2008 what would have happened IF that had been done in 2003, although certain well placed political operatives and investors in Karl Rove's circles would have laughed all the way to the bank.
Is that what Rubio wants? Hopefully not. He is capable of offering better. He has a mind, but its not clear whose service his mind is commited to.
Apparently, Ed Schultz or the Left Wing, have no conception of what negative incentive is.
As one example, when in, say, the 40's or 50's the cost and burden of unwanted single mother pregnancies were born by the family, there were significantly fewer babies born out of wedlock. When the government stepped in to "do something" about this and began paying (and rewarding) more for more bastard children, their numbers skyrocketed over the years... especially in the black community. What we have done to them in the socialist effort to manage everything in the society is unconscionable.
Offloading the cost and consequences of bad behavior simply increases the incidences of bad, risky, and destructive behavior.
When you pay a significant portion of the population to basically do nothing, as in England for example, you get both financial and moral decay. When you try to take away any benefits from those who have been on relief of one kind or another their entire lives, they riot.
Democrats are always Stage One thinkers... help them out with immediate steps (which last forever) but the Democrats NEVER ask "What comes next? (What comes next or sooner rather than later is crushing, unsustainable debt.)
There is a place for government to do certain things for the citizens and the Constitution is the best place to learn where to start.
.
Miggie, are you suggesting that social security is a way to pay people for doing nothing? Neither Schulz nor Rubio were talking about aid to families with dependent children, nor about temporary aid to needy families, the current incarnation. Nor, to my knowledge, does social security significantly increase the incentive to have babies out of wedlock. Its a good thing you are not Rubio's speech writer.
Gary, if you think that Schultz literally meant that he was familiar with Ingraham's sexual proclivities, or that they were a matter of common knowledge, I think you missed the point. People of all ideological persuasions have been known to use sexual metaphors. It may be in bad taste, I don't generally indulge in them, but it doesn't mean that the person referenced is therefore intelligent, insightful, or has anything whatsoever to offer humanity. Your text suggested not only that the term was in bad taste, but that criticizing Ingraham is just beyond the pale because she is such a great leader. (Can you say "feuhrerprinzip"?)
She's not. She's a hysterical opinionated talking head to whom facts are an inconvenient irrelevancy. There, that's MY way of putting it.
Did any of you actually watch the program? Probably not. That is the hallmark of Regressive thinkers across the country and indeed the planet.... What Ed said was that Rubio was a two-faced politician praising Medicare and the social safety net and the for political purposes at the Reagan Library putting on the Tea Bag T and saying it was a wretched thing. He can't have it both ways.
Ed begged him to come on for the full hour to debate him or at least explain himself.
Anonymous,
Yes, I did watch the program as well as Rubio's speech. That's why I say Schultz is an oaf.
Ed Schultz begging Marco Rubio to come on his show is like me begging Angolina Jolie to come with me for a weekend in Tijuana.
Not going to happen, no matter how long either of us begs.
.
Post a Comment