The Ed show

#1
V

Vols520

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
9,102
Likes
5
#1
He just said its a sign of desperation that scott brown is attacking warren lying about her heritage.

Love the spin.
 
#3
#3
Why would you quote anything Ed Shultz has to say; let alone pay homage to him by giving him a thread?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
Faux-cahontas.

Don't forget, she's the first women to take the NJ bar while nursing. Such an inspirational person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Vols520 said:
He just said its a sign of desperation that scott brown is attacking warren lying about her heritage.

Love the spin.
Click to expand...

I have directv so I can customize my guide. MSNBC is no longer listed.

I suggest it.
 
#8
#8
Plenty of solid reasons not to vote for Warren in this race; her lying about her heritage is not one of them.
 
#11
#11
I can't stand Ed, Rev. Sharpton, or Lawrence O'Donnell.

I like Scarborough, Matthews, and Maddow.
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
Plenty of solid reasons not to vote for Warren in this race; her lying about her heritage is not one of them.
Click to expand...

It's enough reason to me. But if you need another:

Elizabeth Warren claims she was the one who created the intellectual foundation of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what I think since I won't be voting in MA.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
Plenty of solid reasons not to vote for Warren in this race; her lying about her heritage is just one of them.
Click to expand...

fyp. I think falsely claiming heritage to a minority group shows some character flaws that I find questionable. I agree there may be more important reasons not to vote for her, but this would be on the list.
 
#15
#15
DC_Vol said:
Seriously? Maddow?
Click to expand...


She's very smart and makes good arguments. Of the three I like, she is probably the most partisan and least objective, but I think she is well researched and, for what she is, persuasive and articulate.

I prefer the other two a bit more because they have insight, having been involved before.

Oh, and I like Mika's rack.
 
#16
#16
YorkVol said:
fyp. I think falsely claiming heritage to a minority group shows some character flaws that I find questionable. I agree there may be more important reasons not to vote for her, but this would be on the list.
Click to expand...

Agree - it's also part of a pattern of hers. If the practicing law without a license thing is true then she's just one more opportunist
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
Agree - it's also part of a pattern of hers. If the practicing law without a license thing is true then she's just one more opportunist
Click to expand...

And while practicing law without a license, she was defending large corporations against suits by former employees. You know, the same corporations she's railing against as her primary campaign platform.
 
#18
#18
bamawriter said:
And while practicing law without a license, she was defending large corporations against suits by former employees. You know, the same corporations she's railing against as her primary campaign platform.
Click to expand...

I would think the practicing law without a license could be a big issue.

I have read that she is in trouble and I have read she did not need a MA license to practice in Federal Court.

From what I read there is no argument that she does not have a MA license. She has a NJ license. The question is can she legally do a federal court case out of her office based in MA without the MA license.
 
#19
#19
lawgator1 said:
She's very smart and makes good arguments. Of the three I like, she is probably the most partisan and least objective, but I think she is well researched and, for what she is, persuasive and articulate.

I prefer the other two a bit more because they have insight, having been involved before.

Oh, and I like Mika's rack.
Click to expand...

you once made the claim that Keith Olbermann's show was well researched and presented only the facts

Matthews isn't much better than Lawrence O'Donnell
 
#21
#21
Gramps said:
From what I read there is no argument that she does not have a MA license. She has a NJ license. The question is can she legally do a federal court case out of her office based in MA without the MA license.
Click to expand...

I don't know the law in MA. I know that you're not supposed to even consult with clients in the state of TN without a TN license, regardless of which court might be hearing the case.
 
#22
#22
azVolFan said:
How so? You don't think it should even be a factor?
Click to expand...

If she had the greatest policy ideas in the world, but was someone who was not virtuous, I would vote for her. Her official capacity is to introduce and advance sound policy. Her personal flaws are irrelevant.

As it is, her policy positions are absurd. She thinks that every consumer that does not adequately inform themselves before a purchase is a victim and that the seller should be there to inform and counsel the consumer on the consumers best interests. That, alone, is enough for me to decide not to vote for her.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
She's very smart and makes good arguments. Of the three I like, she is probably the most partisan and least objective, but I think she is well researched and, for what she is, persuasive and articulate.

I prefer the other two a bit more because they have insight, having been involved before.

Oh, and I like Mika's rack.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this. I like her style of always citing her sources. I'll pick up stories on her show that I don't pick up anywhere else. It is a nice complement to O'Reilly.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top