Ed Schultz hurling insults at the founding fathers....

WOW. This guy is something else hurling insults at the founding fathers.

Video...

He starts by saying we are hiding behind the second amendment, then goes on to say, "the people who owned that document owned slaves, oppressed women, and were short on tolerance". I mean holy crap guy. He goes on to say more but i was just blown away by that. Technically he may be right i'm not sure about the facts, but they derserve more credit for what they did.

I don't know if this has been posted but damn i don't even really know how to respond.

reply to post by onequestion


Just more of the left/right paradigm! Yep, Yep......Those folks in Washington DC are sure doing a fine job though aren't they? That is if you want a government whose goal is to divide and conquer versus unite people to live in peace..........

Originally posted by onequestion
WOW. This guy is something else hurling insults at the founding fathers.

Video...

He starts by saying we are hiding behind the second amendment, then goes on to say, "the people who owned that document owned slaves, oppressed women, and were short on tolerance". I mean holy crap guy. He goes on to say more but i was just blown away by that. Technically he may be right i'm not sure about the facts, but they derserve more credit for what they did.

I don't know if this has been posted but damn i don't even really know how to respond.

edit on 15-12-2012 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2012 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-12-2012 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

He at no time "hurled" any "insults".

Ed Schultz did not say one single thing which was in any way derogatory or not 100% factually based in this video clip.

...and I'm saying that as a guy who has owned firearms since he was 8 years old and hunted his entire life.

reply to post by onequestion


The people who owned that document also believed in freedom of speech.

Something Mr. Schultz takes full advantage of.

Oh the irony.

reply to post by onequestion

i'm not sure about the facts, but they derserve more credit for what they did.

You deserve to know more facts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by onequestion

 

The people who owned that document also believed in freedom of speech.

Something Mr. Schultz takes full advantage of.

Oh the irony.

If they really thought that much about free speech, why wasn't it incorporated into the language of the Constitution and not tacked on at the end as an afterthought?

Answer: they were forced to tack it on by the antifederalists who wouldn't have signed the Constitution otherwise.

reply to post by frazzle


Nice thread frazzle i read through a lot of it.

Answer: they were forced to tack it on by the antifederalists who wouldn't have signed the Constitution otherwise.

reply to post by onequestion


Thanks. The comments are pretty interesting, too.

Ed Schultz would insult his own mother if it would help advance liberal agendas and get more than the usual 10 faithful viewers he has.

reply to post by onequestion


Is it an inuslt if it's true?

Because women didnt have rights until the 20th century and it took a hundred years for slaves to be freed.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by onequestion

 

Is it an inuslt if it's true?

Because women didnt have rights until the 20th century and it took a hundred years for slaves to be freed.

And it took a declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writs of habeas corpus to get the slaves freed, or so they tell us. There simply wasn't a better way.

reply to post by onequestion

Hes right. The Founders were hypocritical, creating a document which guaranteed rights and freedom supposedly for all.

The same can be said about the Supreme Court. Just look at the Dred Scott decision.

Culture and politics should never be ignored.

That having been said, the document they created, the Constitution, is incredibly comprehensive and ahead of its time.

Its the law of the land and with good reason. The Founders having come from monarchies and totalitarian governments tried to ensure that we would never experience that here.

So why are they being attacked? Because our government HATES the Constitution. The establishment HATES the Constitution. They want unlimited power, unlimited control, in spite of the document they swore to uphold.

"The Constitution was meant to restrain the government. Its now used to restrain the people".

- RON PAUL.

reply to post by onequestion


I agree with Ed. I have gone bowhunting (felled one deer and one peccary) and have even shot squirrels and birds(quail) with a slingshot effectively.
Inversely, local police force do not need the armament that they possess. We don't need them to lead to the oppressive Nazi society we witnessed many decades ago. The Guestapo.

It was a very different time back then and I imagine guns would have been more "useful" than they are today. I know it must be hard for people to let go of things sometimes, especially something they have been a custom to all their lives.

So many people are brainwashed into thinking that if they don't have a gun someone will come to their house and shoot their child. I will agree guns are not the issue, rather its the culture of guns that America has. I can go legally get guns if I want, sure there is a process in me doing will be longer and slightly more difficult, but I do feel much safer than i would if I was in America and owned a gun along with every other person walking around.

If I meet someone on the street - I don't always think, do they have a concealed weapon? What sort of life is that?

Oh but what about Switzerland? They all get guns! ... they also all get military training, but are not getting shipped around the world trying to figure out why and who they are fighting.

In your defence you have made many enemies, so do what you want America, but you will do it anyway.

Maybe America should make it illegal to utter a harsh word in relation to the god-like Founding Fathers. Just so nobody dies of shock or anything from the total horror of hearing someone be critical of them.

"the people who owned that document owned slaves, oppressed women, and were short on tolerance"

1. They did not own that document
2. Those who support open borders and let illegals run wild in to this country create a slave class, and well as other well known instances of modern day slavery.
3. People like Schultz the guy who called Laura Ingram a right wing #.
4. Anyone see any tolerance shown from Schuitz, and his followers?

Nope.

What a hypocrite

Bighead Ed is entitled to his opinion....even though I disagree with his pointed delivery.

It is a bit dismaying when the left uses certain facts of the times as a reason to question the Constitution and the Founding Fathers that created it.

There is a reason they did not address emancipation in the original drafts of the Constitution. Some states made it clear that if it was included, they would not sign the document or join the union. The founding fathers knew they needed the support of all the states (colonies) to defeat the British. It was decided to be a fight left for another day.

I don't always like what people have to say, but I respect their freedom to say it.

Go big Ed!

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by onequestion

 

The people who owned that document also believed in freedom of speech.

Something Mr. Schultz takes full advantage of.

Oh the irony.

If they really thought that much about free speech, why wasn't it incorporated into the language of the Constitution and not tacked on at the end as an afterthought?

Answer: they were forced to tack it on by the antifederalists who wouldn't have signed the Constitution otherwise.

Actually it was not an after thought they discussed it at length and the reason was it was a natural right and to them a given that everyone had those rights and they feared if they wrote a bill of rights and put them in the constitution that people would think the constitution granted those rights and thus could take them away. That was concern so they settled on a compromise with the bill of rights and the 9th and 10th amendments to remind people these were just illustrations of some of the natural rights of man but there were more rights and no rights were granted by the document but they already existed as natural rights and the constitution must protect all natural rights whether written in the constitution or not.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by onequestion

 

The people who owned that document also believed in freedom of speech.

Something Mr. Schultz takes full advantage of.

Oh the irony.

If they really thought that much about free speech, why wasn't it incorporated into the language of the Constitution and not tacked on at the end as an afterthought?

Answer: they were forced to tack it on by the antifederalists who wouldn't have signed the Constitution otherwise.

Actually it was not an after thought they discussed it at length and the reason was it was a natural right and to them a given that everyone had those rights and they feared if they wrote a bill of rights and put them in the constitution that people would think the constitution granted those rights and thus could take them away. That was concern so they settled on a compromise with the bill of rights and the 9th and 10th amendments to remind people these were just illustrations of some of the natural rights of man but there were more rights and no rights were granted by the document but they already existed as natural rights and the constitution must protect all natural rights whether written in the constitution or not.

edit on 15-12-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Brutus: .... to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than that this principle is a fundamental one, in all the Constitutions of our own States; there is not one of them but what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights interwoven in the body of them. From this it appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high, and when an appeal was made to the people to form Constitutions for the government of themselves, it was their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is, therefore, the more astonishing, that this grand security to the rights of the people is not to be found in this Constitution.

Yeah, it was discussed. Hamilton won that argument, too.