or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wasserman-Shultz Must Be Fired
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wasserman-Shultz Must Be Fired

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the chair of the DNC. Since she came into the spotlight a few years ago, I've found her to be extreme in her rhetoric. But lately, she's gone into orbit with outrageous comments and blatant lies (a few of these are a bit older):

See Wasserman-Shultz deny unemployment has gone up since Obama was elected.

See Wasserman-Schultz blame Bush for the rise of Hamas

See (hear) Wasserman-Schultz call the GOP "anti-women."

See Wasserman-Schultz say that veterans that are assaulted because of their service are not "real victims."

Also, Wasserman-Schultz said:

1. She called Paul Ryan's medicare plan a "death trap for seniors."

2. Empathetic judges: Wasserman Schultz wants federal judges who can feel your painapparently upholding the Constitution is secondary. Diversity on the bench is critical. As practitioners, you need judges who get it! We need judges who understand what discrimination feels like. We need judges who understand what inequality feels like. We need judges who understand the subtleties of unfair treatment and who are willing to call it out when they see it.

3. Stated that including the military in hate crimes legislation was "belittling to blacks and jews."

4. Compared the Tea Party to Nazies: Wasserman Schultz held a small rally last year outside the office of Republican Allen West, denouncing the war hero who was running for the Florida congressional seat he eventually won. Explaining the difference between the expression of her First Amendment rights and Tea Party rallies, she said, I dont see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way Ive seen Tea Party extremistsRepublican Tea Party extremistsexpress their right is dramatically different.

5. Mommy, are you going to get shot: After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona, Wasserman Schultz used her daughters anxiety to score political points: After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.

6. Defended taking Mitt Romney out of context on his "I like to fire people" comment, saying he "had an opportunity to be abundantly clear, and chose not to."



and here is the one that prompted the thread:

See Wasserman-Shultz strongly imply the Tea Party was at least "party responsible" for the Gabby Giffords shooting.

No Republican would ever get away with the comments she has made. She has got to be fired. Then again, I suppose having a nutbag like her can only help conservatives.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 14
Congratulations. You've found someone approaching radical to call a "nutbag."

This should entirely rewrite the narrative.

Meanwhile, the Republican field has been a smorgasbord of lying, adulterous, batshit political extremists and hypocritesbut that isn't a problem at all. Because they're on your side.

Get caught having had affairs? You're "lynched" when people discuss it.

See what I mean?

No. Of course you don't.
post #3 of 14
My God, why doesn't Michele Bachman get deselected? She's said some insane things.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-1...achmann-quotes

Ah, my mistake. Rank stupidity is an asset for potential Republican candidates for the highest office.

Jesus.
post #4 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Congratulations. You've found someone approaching radical to call a "nutbag."

This should entirely rewrite the narrative.

Meanwhile, the Republican field has been a smorgasbord of lying,

Who has lied?

Quote:
adulterous,

When did Democrats start caring about that? And when did I take issue with WS's personal life?

Quote:
batshit political extremists

What is so "extreme" about any of them? Is all "extreme" change bad? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with several of them on varying issues (Santorum on gay rights and other social issues, Paul on foreign policy and the gold standard), but "extreme?" I don't know about that.


Quote:
and hypocrites

Other than Gingrich, that's a stretch too.

Quote:
but that isn't a problem at all. Because they're on your side.

When did I ever say that?

Quote:

Get caught having had affairs? You're "lynched" when people discuss it.

Cain didn't "get caught having affairs." He was accused of sexual harassment by people who were not necessarily credible and had potential ties to Obama's Chicago political machine. He was lynched because he was a true threat to the President.

Quote:

See what I mean?

No. Of course you don't.

The problem is you are projecting your own partisanship on to me. Look in the mirror.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 14
You have just posted a list of things that someone has said and that you disagree with.

Because you disagree with them, you think the woman who said them should be “fired”.

But many people fully agree with many of the things she has said. Many of the things she has said are arguably true, and are discussed in an intelligent way in places other than this place. Many have been discussed right here.

But you disagree. And you’re not interested in discussing the things she said. You just list them and say “SHE SHOULD BE FIRED.”

Why? You give no reasons whatsoever. You just disagree.

Your political position is not the default position for all right-thinking people everyone. It is just one position.

I’m not projecting any partisanship on to you. You are steeped in it, slathered in it, stinking with it.
post #6 of 14
Also, hyphenated last names are so 90's.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #7 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

You have just posted a list of things that someone has said and that you disagree with

Because you disagree with them, you think the woman who said them should be fired.

No, I posted a list of stupid, outrageous comment she made.

Quote:

But many people fully agree with many of the things she has said.

Then those people are hateful liars and or delusional. There is no place for her disgusting rhetoric.

Quote:
Many of the things she has said are arguably true, and are discussed in an intelligent way in places other than this place. Many have been discussed right here.

No, they've not been "discussed." You and a few others have simply defended the indefensible.

Quote:

But you disagree. And youre not interested in discussing the things she said. You just list them and say SHE SHOULD BE FIRED.

Why? You give no reasons whatsoever. You just disagree.

Your political position is not the default position for all right-thinking people everyone. It is just one position.

Im not projecting any partisanship on to you. You are steeped in it, slathered in it, stinking with it.

I'm not talking about my political positions. I'm talking about saying the Tea Party caused the Giffords shooting. I'm talking about saying Paul Ryan's medicare plan is a "death trap" for seniors." I'm talking about saying military members who are assaulted because they wear the uniform are not "real" victims. I'm talking about someone denying the 100% indisputable fact that unemployment is higher now than it was on January 20th, 2009. These are not debatable items. They are grotesque examples of hate speech. They are straight out of the standard Democratic playbook that has been the "game plan" for 30 years. Say that your opponents want to kill seniors, are racist, violent and "extreme." Act in a blindly partisan and shameful way, then claim your opponents use "extreme, violent rhetoric." THAT is why she must go.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Also, hyphenated last names are so 90's.



I forgot that one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is the chair of the DNC. Since she came into the spotlight a few years ago, I've found her to be extreme in her rhetoric. But lately, she's gone into orbit with outrageous comments and blatant lies (a few of these are a bit older):

See Wasserman-Shultz deny unemployment has gone up since Obama was elected.

See Wasserman-Schultz blame Bush for the rise of Hamas

See (hear) Wasserman-Schultz call the GOP "anti-women."

See Wasserman-Schultz say that veterans that are assaulted because of their service are not "real victims."

Also, Wasserman-Schultz said:

1. She called Paul Ryan's medicare plan a "death trap for seniors."

2. Empathetic judges: Wasserman Schultz wants federal judges who can feel your painapparently upholding the Constitution is secondary. Diversity on the bench is critical. As practitioners, you need judges who get it! We need judges who understand what discrimination feels like. We need judges who understand what inequality feels like. We need judges who understand the subtleties of unfair treatment and who are willing to call it out when they see it.

3. Stated that including the military in hate crimes legislation was "belittling to blacks and jews."

4. Compared the Tea Party to Nazies: Wasserman Schultz held a small rally last year outside the office of Republican Allen West, denouncing the war hero who was running for the Florida congressional seat he eventually won. Explaining the difference between the expression of her First Amendment rights and Tea Party rallies, she said, I dont see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way Ive seen Tea Party extremistsRepublican Tea Party extremistsexpress their right is dramatically different.

5. Mommy, are you going to get shot: After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona, Wasserman Schultz used her daughters anxiety to score political points: After my daughter heard that, you know, Gabby had been shot, the first thing she asked me was, you know, Mommy, are you going to get shot? Does that mean you're going to get shot? But Mommy, Florida's going to pass an immigration law like Arizona and then people are going to be mad at you.

6. Defended taking Mitt Romney out of context on his "I like to fire people" comment, saying he "had an opportunity to be abundantly clear, and chose not to."



and here is the one that prompted the thread:

See Wasserman-Shultz strongly imply the Tea Party was at least "party responsible" for the Gabby Giffords shooting.

No Republican would ever get away with the comments she has made. She has got to be fired. Then again, I suppose having a nutbag like her can only help conservatives.

It's best to just ignore MJ in this thread. He clearly is just a big bag of troll at this point. He knows he has been reported so many times that no one clears to deal with him at this stage so he just keeps jabbing things with a sharp stick thinking it the same as an actual discussion.

The reality is that in Europe, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would be one of those folks practicing Judiasm and folks like MJ with their anti-semitism wouldn't give her the time of day because they would be too busy plotting her death or finding ways to aid and abet in it.

Here in the United States of course we are not anti-semetic like they are all over Europe. Here she has significant power but she uses it to create victims, in others words she acts like the oppressor she claims to be fighting against. She projects, just like MJ does because she feels so guilty about all she has while claiming to help others and of course not really doing anything about it. The reason the left always gets such a hard-on over claims of hypocrisy, why they are always looking for it, is because they are walking and pure forms of it.

In Europe, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's language wouldn't even be tolerated. It would be classified as hate speech and she would likely be on trial after being arrested.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #10 of 14
But seriously, to imply that the Tea Party is in any way responsible for the Giffords shooting is to be either willfully ignorant of reality or an outright liar. Jared Loughner is clearly a mentally unstable man with a history of psychotic behavior and trying to associate him with political opponents or a political movement to paint them all in a certain light is beyond pathetic - it's despicable.

It would be like someone saying that entire "Occupy" movement - everyone who has participated in it - is responsible for the rapes, murders, assaults, burglaries, vandalism, etc. that have occurred at some of their demonstrations. That is an equally despicable claim, and if a prominent Republican said such a thing he/she should rightly be challenged on it.

People are responsible for their own actions. This guilt-by-association stuff is just nonsense.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 14
Mitt Romney should be disqualified.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...UF_hwrI.reddit

"I think it's about envy. It's about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing American based on 99% vs 1% ...that's inconsistent with 'One Nation, Under God.'"

Demonstrably false and disgusting. Ooh, I like this game. Who's next?

Newt Gingrich says the sanctity of marriage is the foundation of our country but cheated on two of his wives, one while sick with cancer. Yay, ship him off to a desert island!

Rick Santorum compared gay sex to pedophilia and bestiality. Into the volcano with him!

Whee, awesome game.

John Kyl said 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortions and later, when showed how egregiously stupid, reckless, and bullshit the claim was, tried to pass it off by claiming that the statement was not intended to be factual. Hey, that means it was intended to be false, bullshit, and misleading! Fire him!

The tea party claims they want small government but most of them, including Ron Paul of the libertarian wing, have shoveled plenty of pork into their own districts. FIRE ALL THE PEOPLE!

SDW, you're patently ridiculous.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #12 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But seriously, to imply that the Tea Party is in any way responsible for the Giffords shooting is to be either willfully ignorant of reality or an outright liar. Jared Loughner is clearly a mentally unstable man with a history of psychotic behavior and trying to associate him with political opponents or a political movement to paint them all in a certain light is beyond pathetic - it's despicable.

It would be like someone saying that entire "Occupy" movement - everyone who has participated in it - is responsible for the rapes, murders, assaults, burglaries, vandalism, etc. that have occurred at some of their demonstrations. That is an equally despicable claim, and if a prominent Republican said such a thing he/she should rightly be challenged on it.

People are responsible for their own actions. This guilt-by-association stuff is just nonsense.

We agree completely on this.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Mitt Romney should be disqualified.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...UF_hwrI.reddit

"I think it's about envy. It's about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing American based on 99% vs 1% ...that's inconsistent with 'One Nation, Under God.'"

Demonstrably false and disgusting. Ooh, I like this game. Who's next?

What is false? What is disgusting.

Quote:

Newt Gingrich says the sanctity of marriage is the foundation of our country but cheated on two of his wives, one while sick with cancer. Yay, ship him off to a desert island!

So one's personal failings in marriage disallow one from believing in marriage as an institution?

Quote:

Rick Santorum compared gay sex to pedophilia and bestiality. Into the volcano with him!

No, he did not. That's how it was portrayed.

Quote:

Whee, awesome game.

John Kyl said 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortions and later, when showed how egregiously stupid, reckless, and bullshit the claim was, tried to pass it off by claiming that the statement was not intended to be factual. Hey, that means it was intended to be false, bullshit, and misleading! Fire him!

He was not being literal. It's like people say things like "half the time, x happens." They don't mean 50%.

Quote:


The tea party claims they want small government but most of them, including Ron Paul of the libertarian wing, have shoveled plenty of pork into their own districts. FIRE ALL THE PEOPLE!

SDW, you're patently ridiculous.

"Most of them" was clearly not intended to be a factual statement on your part. See how this works?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 14
I have never seen you twist a micrometer (it's a metric thing...we wouldn't know about that thanks to Reagan the GodKing) to defend a liberal or a Democrat. With the sheer amount of twisting and spinning you just did in the post above, you could make your own Cirque de Soleil. Do you really not have the metacognition to be able to see that? Come on man.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Wasserman-Shultz Must Be Fired