Is this the worst smear job the media has ever done on Glenn?

Anyone curious about how the media works? If you take a short clip from Glenn’s show and a provocative headline, then blast it out to a bunch of blogs looking to get easy traffic – they will usually write it up without really looking for the context. That’s what happened the other day when progressive group Right Wing Watch sent out a clip of Glenn with the headline Beck: ‘Hillary Clinton Will Be Having Sex With A Woman On The White House Desk If It Becomes Popular’Lots of websites ran with it, but they didn’t really look into any of the context. Stu decided to award media outlets like MSNBC, Wonkette, Daily Kos, and The Daily Beast for their terrible, terrible reporting skills on The Wonderful World of Stu.

Watch:

  • Deckard426

    Hillary Clinton, always in charge, never responsible.

  • Emma Nicholson

    my&nbspr­ο­­ο­mate’s&nbspm­ο­ther-in-law&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­κ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­­61&nbspevery&nbspհ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­r&nbsp­ο­n&nbspthe&nbspі­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­℮­­­­­­τ.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbsp­ο­ut&nbsp­ο­f&nbspW­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κ&nbspf­ο­r&nbspfive&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ&nbspher&nbspр­­­­­­а­­­Уment&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­­18965&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­օ­­­­­­r­­­­­­κing&nbsp­ο­n&nbspthe&nbspі­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­℮­­­­­­τ&nbspf­ο­r&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­℮­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­օ­­­­­­υ­­­­­­rs.&nbspwebѕ­­­­­­і­­­­­­τ­­­­­­℮&nbsplink,

  • Emma Nicholson

    …&nbsphttp://Profitbeatsnow&#x32&#48&#x31&#52getgmkwnyu4zq8

    ❥❥❥ ❥�❥❥ ❥❥❥ ❥❥❥� ❥❥❥

  • Krimsen King

    Hey glenn… YOU ARE THE MEDIA… you do ‘smear jobs’ on people all the time with your reckless assumptions and ridiculous conspiracy theories… at least these media are just reporting something stupid you said… You don’t even usually have THAT much when you ‘smear’… hahahaha good grief

  • BlueMN

    Plus it’s not a smear if it’s exactly what Beck said and the one minute video RWW made it the context clear.

  • randice

    Conspiracy theories? Please elaborate.

  • Anonymous

    Hey — thanks for what’s going on behind the curtain.

  • Anonymous

    Plus, it’s not smear since what Beck said is absolutely true. Hillary Clinton would chew her left arm off on live tv if she thought it would get her elected.

  • Krimsen King

    well he’s got a silly new one just about every day, but… usually the ‘progressive cancer’ sweeping thru this school or that because of some single silly individual school policy… or some business or corporate policy that’s ridiculously PC, and rather than overly cautious corporate thinking, it’s a ‘progressive plot’ or something… u know, the birth certificate stuff, the secret muslim thing, the ‘President has a deep-seated hatred of white people… or white culture, I dunno…’ stuff… just kinda generally paranoid delusion kinda stuff… u know ;)

  • randice

    Apparently you haven’t been keeping up with common core, or, watching any of the videos taken within these conferences? Regarding the BC issue, you mean like this? http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/04/27/obama-releases-birth-certificate-holds-press-conference/ – it’s sarcasm. Regarding the ‘muslim thing’… why is everyone so afraid to say this? Are you racist? Barack’s father was muslim. By culture, the offspring, Barack, is muslim. That’s not a conspiracy theory, that’s just a fact. See Fatwa: 130231. And who cares if he is a muslim? One can be a muslim and be a Christian, they don’t necessarily all subscribe to islam.

  • RIVERRATTFacebook User

    MUSLIM”! You may as well,,Yell Out,,”TURMITE”!,Because that word is the very thing that is what is EATING the foundation of AMERICA Today,! An ACE HARDWARE,Has No Spray Fore It,!

  • randice

    That really has nothing to do with what we were talking about regarding ‘the muslim conspiracy thing’.

  • Krimsen King

    no, actually I don’t know much about common core, but it sounds bad… and glenn hasn’t really shed any light on the real problems with it because he’s obsessed with this ‘progressive’ conspiracy. Actually, ‘by culture’, Barack has always been an American. Islam is a religion, not a culture. From what I understand, he was separated from his father almost immediately, and for the rest of his life. So, his father’s culture and religion were clearly not shared by the son. Religion is a part of a culture, not one in the same. And one cannot be Muslim and Christian. Muslims believe Christ was a prophet, not a god, so they cannot possibly…. why am I trying to explain this…. WHAT CHRISTIANS DO YOU KNOW THAT SUBSCRIBE TO ISLAM???? good lord, what are you talking about????

  • randice

    Glenn’s done an excellent job exposing common core. Do you just fly by here every now and then? He talks about it continuously. His book ‘conform’ also goes into great depth. There is such a thing as ‘muslim culture’. Good grief. I never said Islam was a culture, I said muslim. I think we all know that Islam is a religion. And of course muslims can be Christians. But can Christians me islamists? NO! They’re different. (Islam and muslim). Such as the idea of creating ‘christlam’. They don’t mix. It doesn’t matter how “brief” Barack’s stay with his father was. It wouldn’t even matter if he never knew him. Father muslim = son muslim. Nice try though, Krim.

  • Anonymous

    Obama spent much of his formative years in Jakarta, with his “father”, Lolo Soetoro, being indoctrinated/trained in Islam.

  • randice

    I’m not sure if this is in reply to me or not, but, I’m not seeing any relevance regardless. And it appears you came here just to do a ‘fly by’ of stating falsehoods and not backing yourself up; how progressive of you; so I’ll bid you good day.

  • Krimsen King

    I must say, you have a fascinating lexicon… of course, ‘Muslim’ is the adjective form of ‘Islam’ to many people, so of course, Christians can’t be Muslims. They can live in Muslim countries, be a part of Muslim cultures, but they are not then ‘Muslims’… nor are children of Muslims who have no exposure to the religion. In other words, it cannot be inherited like hair or eye color… haha and yes, of course you can’t create ‘christlam’, I dunno where u heard a ridiculous thing like that, but obviously, no one can combine religions, for whatever reason… Islam derives much of it’s teachings from Christianity, as Christianity does from Judaism, etc etc… I think maybe your unique definition of words is obscuring your perceptions of reality and of the people in it…

  • Krimsen King

    and then he went to Christian churches for 30 years, being indoctrinated/trained in Christianity… if you think it’s an indoctrination competition, which religion do you think would win? hahaha ;)

  • randice

    I’m surprised you haven’t heard of Chrislam. See: http://www.charismanews.com/world/32349-chrislam-rising

    Christians, while many splinters, and who knows what some of them believe, but, those that follow Christ, no, they can’t be muslims. Muslims however yes, can be Christians. See: http://30mosques.com/2011/08/a-foot-in-each-world/

    We are however way off topic. Any other conspiracy theories you’d like to address about Glenn?

  • Krimsen King

    Muslims don’t believe in the divinity of Christ… really, they just cannot be Christian any more than Christians can be Muslims… they are two different things. Is that why the secret Muslim thing isn’t a conspiracy theory?? because Muslims can be Christians??? You do realize people really don’t have ‘secret’ religions, merely beliefs they hold to themselves. And those can never be discerned by vague, ridiculous conspiracy theories…

  • randice

    No, don’t try to obfuscate. Barack is a muslim by birth; but he is the one that stated he was a Christian. I just pointed out to you that one could be a muslim and a Christian, if that is indeed what he is. So, there’s no “conspiracy theory”.

  • Anonymous

    Feel free to make videos out of these songs and share them everywhere to
    fight the WAR OF IDEAS BUT I WOULD ASK YOU SEND ME THE LINKS SO I CAN
    TO CAUSE I SUCK AT VIDEOS! LOL!
    FREE DOWN LOAD SPREAD THE MESSAGE OF OATH KEEPERS
    https://soundcloud.com/user262008952/i-believe-in-the-constitution-3
    https://soundcloud.com/user262008952/bye-bye-american-pie
    https://soundcloud.com/user262008952/getting-screwed-by-business_8
    https://soundcloud.com/user262008952/federal-agent-man-7

  • Krimsen King

    hahaha there is no such thing as ‘muslim by birth’… the possible exception might be if both parents are adherents of the religion. Otherwise, you cannot ‘inherit’ a religion. You can inherit your parent’s beliefs, but that’s really not the same thing. And even if you could, Barack would be mostly Christian. But really, which is a stronger belief, do you think… the one ‘inherited’ and unknown, or the one raised in and grown in understanding? Also, just because you may not believe or subscribe to it, that doesn’t mean the conspiracy theory doesn’t exist.

  • Krimsen King

    oh, also the one raised in and grown in understanding is inherited too… so… haha

  • Anonymous

    I think you misplaced your comment? My comment “Obama spent much of his formative years in Jakarta, with his “father”, Lolo Soetoro, being indoctrinated/trained in Islam” was directed at Krimsen King, and it addresses his claim that BO has “always been an American …… and he was seperated from his father almost immediately” – but he forgets that BO’s formative years were indeed spent with Lolo Soetoro, his ‘adoptive’ father who was indoctrinating BO into the Muslim faith.

  • Anonymous

    You don’t know how many years he went to Christian churches. It may have been a ‘prerequisite of Michelle’s before they got married. What happened in hi formative years would have far more to do with molding his beliefs that what he was exposed to later. hahaha ;)

  • Krimsen King

    really… you’re saying a person’s childhood knowledge is more influential than the knowledge he gains the rest of his life… really….. also, your theories about ‘prerequisites’ and amount of time spent in Christian churches are ridiculous and irrelevant.

  • Sam Fuels

    Only recently has the totalitarian notion of “freedom from obstacles” become confused with the idea of “minimized coercion” that defines liberty.

  • James Chappell

    Actually, in Islam, aren’t children believed to be born with ‘fitrah’, a kind of divine sense of attunement to God, which itself is why people are believed, by many Muslims, to be Muslims by default? I often see the phrase, “revert to Islam” used when people convert from other religions. Just an observation, by the way, not trying to get involved in this little tiff.

  • randice

    There is, if 1) both parents are muslim; or 2) the father is muslim. Also, the offspring may denounce the religion, and I really can’t remember if it’s at the age of puberty or the age of majority; it’s one of the two. It’s unknown if he did that, and quite frankly, I don’t care one way or the other. As for Glenn however, as far as I can remember, he doesn’t believe he is a muslim, which I’m not sure why, it’s pretty self evident given the father. So, what’ the conspiracy theory again?

  • randice

    No problem James, as pointed out to Krim, a child can be born a muslim by either both parents being muslim or the father being muslim.

  • randice

    Like this? http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing Seriously Krim, what is it you’re trying to prove?

  • randice

    What are you talking about? Are you talking to me or yourself? Who said anything about ‘prerequisites or time spent in Christian churches’? Not I. (though I did just recently post something else to you on a previous comment you wrote considering you brought it up about the time spent in church). But as stated earlier, I don’t care one way or the other.

  • randice

    Okay, I apologize, it’s not showing a name, so, it’s hard to keep up with who is saying what. Yes, Lolo… another interesting figure. Right up there with Frank and Jeremiah.

  • randice

    Sorry, it’s not showing a name for you, so I’m getting comments confused. Yes, Lolo, another interesting figure. Right up there with Frank and Jeremiah.

  • Krimsen King

    You realize you’re subscribing to the tenets of strict adherents of Islam, right… Those are classifications ONLY made by strict adherents of Islam. The rest of us don’t consider religion inherited like that… The conspiracy is that this man is somehow Muslim, though he’s never practiced the religion.

  • Krimsen King

    I suppose alittle of both… I was asking you if you believed that a religion taught in childhood has more of an influence than a religion taught THE ENTIRE REST OF HIS LIFE… and I was saying that your theory about his Christianity being a ‘prerequisite of Michelle’s before they got married’ and the exact amount of years he spent in a Christian church are completely irrelevant to the man’s real religious beliefs, none of which anyone has a right to speculate on btw ;)

  • Krimsen King

    yes, I think Muslims do believe something like that… strict adherents of the religion, that is… so, wouldn’t only strict Muslims believe this about someone? I don’t understand why Christians would believe Muslim religious tenets… when they don’t believe anything else in the religion… hmmm

  • randice

    I refer you back again to the fatwa for 1. It doesn’t matter what you or I consider. Muslims as you are I’m sure aware, are different in their beliefs. We have no idea what the hell he studied in all practicality. He could be an atheist by now for all I know, or anyone knows for that matter. We go back again to, who the hell cares?

  • randice

    It wasn’t me that said that. So, let’s just drop that conversation before this gets any more confusing.

  • Krimsen King

    ah, I see… my mistake. So, we do agree after all :)

  • Krimsen King

    well, apparently a LOT of people care what religion he is and what he ‘believes’… and yes, it really doesn’t matter because we can’t know deep personal beliefs. But, we do have a pretty good idea of what he studied… he’s written two books about it, and his public records are well extensive enough to know that he was educated by the American education system, and went on to study Constitutional Law at Harvard. Now, this may not tell us everything about his knowledge and ideals, but it tells us some things.

  • randice

    I actually agree with most of this. Now that we have all that out of the way, I’m still not sure exactly what the ‘conspiracy theories’ are you’re talking about. While starting snarky, you at least now appear pretty reasonable, and I can only take to assume given many of your responses, you’ve never listened to any of Glenn’s shows; and are instead speaking of maybe something you’ve heard about. It just may be possible that if you actually listened once in awhile, you’d see that he’s really not so bad. Quite entertaining, actually.

  • Krimsen King

    well, no I don’t get a chance to really hear him on radio very often.. but I do read the transcripts all the time. And yes, they are VERY entertaining sometimes, but that doesn’t make him right about very many things… the conspiracy theories I noted were only a few, most of them involve some deep-rooted, never-seen ‘progressive plots’ to undermine freedom, where the only thing I’ve seen really undermining our freedom is the OVERWHELMING power of a very few, very wealthy people. And I NEVER read about him saying ANYTHING about the horrible CORRUPTING influence the massive amounts of money in our political process have… that was really my only beef with his conspiracy theories… otherwise, yes, very very entertaining :)

  • Krimsen King

    also, I can be reasonable and snarky at the same time haha ;)

  • randice

    I think there’s a difference between being “not being right about very many things” and “being right on a lot of things”. Most of which Glenn is; though I will admit, much of it is speculative at first. It all is until the full truth comes out, which in almost every case, we’ll never know “the full truth”. Good grief, just look at everything that’s going on now… it will take years to unravel; if it even can be done. I also agree on the few ‘wealthy people’ that “control” most of what’s going on. I don’t however subscribe to the fact that it’s strictly one side or the other. It’s both. Hence the word ‘progressives’. They’re on both sides of the aisle. One of the lovely things about being a conservative is I can say without a doubt, both sides suck. If I could, I’d fire about 97%.

  • randice

    Ha…. I wouldn’t quite go that far, but, I am one that does believe one can agree to disagree.

  • Krimsen King

    you say both ‘sides’ suck, but you call yourself ‘a conservative’, kinda inherently placing you in ‘a side’… Part of the conspiracy theory junk I was talking about was calling this ‘cancer’ in our society ‘progressivism’… Now, he can make up his own definitions for his own classifications, but again, that doesn’t make them correct. I would venture that ANY ONE of these devious people he calls ‘progressive’ would not only deny it, but be bewildered by the idea. He takes definitions from a hundred years ago from long deceased political alignments and uses them as if they are applicable in today’s society… but they are not. And the problem with these theories being ‘speculative at first’ is that, as you said, ‘we’ll never know’… and when we’ll never know, the speculation, especially when exaggerated and full of hyperbole, becomes very harmful to his perception and the perception of his audience. Our current mess will take years to unravel… that’s why it is so very important that we all not get lost in useless speculation and ridiculous conspiracy theories and try to focus on what we can and do know so we can figure our way out.

  • Krimsen King

    I don’t… we can either agree or disagree. But agreeing to disagree is still disagreeing…

  • Anonymous

    Impressions during the formative years are much more influential than those experienced during later years. Look it up. What is “ridiculous and irrelevant.” is what you are trying to pass off here. You have made it plain that you don’t know what you are talking about, but are trying your darnedest to tread water.. Better swim on out of here because you are drowning.

  • Anonymous

    There it is …
    *Jermiah Wright said, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”“Well, people that go to church, the brides normally have their wedding at their church, which is why I think Michelle joined,” Wright told Klein. “Now that’s been my sneaking suspicion because she didn’t grow up in the
    church. Where have you heard or read about her family raising her in
    the church?”*

    It’s all about looking good for politics, but Krim is blind to it and will not give it up. He will stay willfully ignorant.

  • Anonymous

    The thing is, at that time in his life, he had Islam drilled into him. Everyone knows that the things one is exposed to during their formative years forever color them – whether good or bad.

  • Anonymous

    No problem ;-)

  • randice

    Only if you’re one that likes to argue. :-)

  • randice

    Of course he did. Thus the fiasco in foreign relations, and the treatment of Israel, and the kowtowing to the MB.

  • randice

    You think seriously people would be bewildered that they’re called progressives? Geez o’ petes… I think the only one that would think that way may be Jeb Bush, and no doubt he’d deny it. I don’t think the rest would though. http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/07/10/progressive-playbook-van-jones-admits-hes-manipulating-the-public/

    “Progressives” are very much relevant today; as are Communists, Socialists, Independents, Reps, Dems, etc.. they’ve always been here.

    And, while I agree with what you stated, you’re still yet to point out a conspiracy theory. And in addition, most of what he’s speculated, has either come to fruition, or, is in the midst of. One thing however, that I will say that I love about Glenn, and it’s VERY, VERY hard for me, as a listener to do, is to remain calm. Glenn has been through much more than I, in hitting rock bottom, and it’s my guess that when you get to that point, you really need to have faith to get out. I try, but, I’m human. In addition, he always urges his listeners to “do their own homework”. The information is out there, people just need to stop being lazy and “do their own homework”. Put ideology aside and look at the facts (whatever facts are known).

  • Krimsen King

    isn’t that blatantly obvious by now… haha ;)

  • Krimsen King

    yes, and it’s getting increasingly difficult to discern objective fact from all the nonsense that flies around.. as for the conspiracy theories… Obama is not a ‘secret Muslim’, he’s not (according to any objective facts) a Muslim at all, even if it did matter. But it’s still a conspiracy theory that he has come aligned with here and there, like the one about the birth certificate being false, cover-ups of this or that, and really, the most ridiculous thing is this getting amped up and upset about interpretations of things people SAY. He imposes this stereotypical kind of thinking on everybody’s words, so that, if and when he disagrees with them, they become the evil ‘progressive’… Now, yes, of course, some liberals that call themselves ‘progressive’ now would not be surprised by the characterization. But they also wouldn’t know what glenn means by the classification. And a lot of the conservatives and republicans that glenn thinks are progressive, like jeb, would be shocked and appalled by being called ‘progressive’ but probably only because they equate it with ‘liberal’, so even they wouldn’t really know what glenn meant. And yes, I suppose the people you call ‘progressives’ are of a kind that have always been here, just like all the other kinds, so how, precisely could they be this ultimate evil, this disastrous ‘cancer’, if they have always existed in society? My biggest beef with glenn is that he uses YOUR emotions, gets YOU upset, probably to the point where you can no longer think straight… emotional duress makes perceptions very skewed and often dark and narrow. Please be careful of your perceptions during these times.

  • randice

    But of course. But if you want to be taken seriously, well, you know the rest… ;-)

  • randice

    Well again, we go back to… GB doesn’t believe Barack’s a muslim; and he made fun of the birthers – so, that takes those two away. Funny how words change, isn’t it? Liberal used to mean someone standing for freedom – now, it’s not. Regardless of everything though, I understand what you’re saying, however, here’s my position: I’d rather be upset and informed, than happy as a sheep being led to the slaughter house. IYKWIM.

  • Krimsen King

    fair enough.. It was just a few examples I’ve heard from him now n then, and like I said, the ‘progressive plots’ are the most ridiculous bits… Also, you have to understand that, to a lot of people, ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ still do mean someone standing for freedom. The liberals I’ve known really don’t want absolute government control over everyone. To be sure, there are some extreme, left-wing dips that do want it, but not the VAST majority of those glenn calls ‘progressive’. They mostly just want reasonable government oversight of things. I appreciate your position, but you must also realize that there are ‘in-betweens’ between being upset and informed and being a blind sheep… lots and lots of in-betweens, and really, the level of emotional distress displayed by glenn is most definitely sufficient to cloud his perceptions. We all just need to be very careful of what we think we know. Truth is subjective, but objective truth and objective fact are not. Makes them much harder to find… also, I don’t know what iykwim is…

  • Krimsen King

    haha who ever said I wanted to be taken seriously?

  • Anonymous

    LOL, Glenn Beck should give himself the Media Failed Life Achievement Award

  • Anonymous

    Sorry, I get acronym happy sometimes. IYKWIM – if you know what I mean…
    I actually agree with what you are saying – and I’m not saying all those people are bad. I’m friends with all sorts! LOL.. May they never all come together! It surely doesn’t mean that I’d want all (very few actually) in power.
    That however said, I think you’re being a little naïve to some of the things going down. Can you name me one department in the federal government that’s not under investigation/scrutiny/ scandal at this moment? (I think the DOE is the only one that’s not, but, if you go to: http://progressives.today.com, you’ll be asking yourself why they’re not in there).Sorry, I got side tracked.
    And while you talk about ‘reasonable government oversight’, I think this is where we get in trouble. Oversight over what? Minus commerce and defense, what is constitutionally, the government’s role? (not however taking into account that each person has their rights upheld – so put an umbrella under defense).

  • Anonymous

    Ha! Ha! I like you. Don’t agree with you, but, I like you. You’re funny.

  • Krimsen King

    we’d probably agree on more than you believe.. but thank you, I like you too. You’re civil and sincere :)

  • Krimsen King

    Just because all the money in our electoral process has made partisan bickering and useless hearings of nonsense ‘scandals’ extremely profitable, that doesn’t mean the idea of government itself is flawed. Not that regular investigations of government action aren’t just a necessity, they are of coure, but I get sidetracked too.. The government needs to oversee all kinds of things in society that aren’t profitable, like infrastructure, research and development, prisons, fire n police, and it needs to oversee our elections. Money is SO not necessary for a free and fair election. The taxpayers could easily subsidize a public election system where ‘campaigning’ is reduced to objective facts about all candidates’ policy positions, propositions, and philosophies of governance. What we have now is an endlessly, MASSIVELY WELL-FUNDED noise machine where you can’t just find objective facts, you have to dig through mountains of bull cookies.. and NO ONE has time to dig through mountains of bull cookies just to know what our representatives want and are able to do with our government. Government doesn’t need to be ‘shrunken’ to be efficiently smaller, but we have to cut out the most useless parts, and make the rest more efficient.. not just cut ideologically, but with reasoned compromise.. (something our well funded overlords are dead-set against ;)

  • Randice

    Oh… and we were getting along so well. :-(
    Benghazi is not nonsense. The IRS is not nonsense. Fast and Furious is not nonsense. The VA is not nonsense. The catch and release is not nonsense. Obamacare is not nonsense. Solyndra is not nonsense. The DOJ dropping voter intimidation investigation is not nonsense. I could go on and on but I’m afraid I’d get carpal tunnel.
    No one said government was bad. I think sometimes people confuse conservatives with anarchists. There’s a difference between what the federal government is allowed to do via the Constitution, and what is not covered falls onto the states.
    And while I agree that tons of money goes into elections, I blame the voters. If they’re too stupid to fall for the shiny object rather than using this neat little invention called ‘google’, then, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I’m all for a voter IQ test. :-)
    The government (I’m referring to federal) does indeed need to be shrunken, as it’s involved in areas that are set up more for the states. It has gotten so large that the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing, thus leading to a massive, over-bloated, incompetent, tax-payer blowing, huge deficit making buffoonery.
    I agree though that much will not change because of some well-funded overlords. The unions would never have it. ;-)

  • Randice

    Well in honesty, you did initially come on here not for a conversation, but, to just throw a bomb. Not too many, on either side, will strike a conversation after something like that. But, I like to get to the root of issues. I’m sure there’s a lesson in here somewhere… ;-)

  • Krimsen King

    just because people have incessantly tried to make these things ‘political issues’ or ‘partisan issues’ doesn’t mean they actually are.. Benghazi is a city in Libya, and attacks happen all the time, regardless of the party in the whitehouse.. and I can actually link all the other ‘scandals’: obamacare is a poor solution to a problem caused by a healthcare system solely based on profit that left millions without vitally needed care.. solyndra is just another in a LONG line of research and development failures funded (NECESSARILY) by our government looking for solutions to clear problems in our country.. as for the irs ‘targeting’… you realize that these organizations were ‘targeted’ for auditing and investigation TO PAY TAXES. That’s it. Why do we believe that politically active organizations should be tax-exempt???? I don’t know what ‘areas.. are set up for states’.. I understand the ethos behind ‘state’s rights’, but our population has grown so large, our country so massive, that we need a federal government to be relatively strong and take on quite a few responsibilities. States just can’t do everything on their own, it’s what we fought the Civil War for.. E PLURIBUS UNUM.. that means our Constitutional FEDERAL government. So, if we let our government be controlled by the highest bidder, what difference does political party or ideology make, really??? does it just come down to your last sentence? is it just a battle of who can get the most money???? IS THAT WHAT AMERICA HAS COME TO?????? I’m serious. Technically this is now an oligarchy. Please look it up. It ain’t pretty… gangsters now run the entire world, thanks to this country.

  • Krimsen King

    actually, I came here merely to make a statement. Apparently, your perspective has turned it into a ‘bomb’ ;)

  • Krimsen King

    yes, the problems and issues themselves are not nonsense, of course. Making them into partisan bickering very much IS NONSENSE. Also, let me ask you.. where do you suppose unions get their money? and where do you suppose well-funded overlords get theirs?… and do you think OUR ELECTIONS SHOULD BE DECIDED BY THIS???????

  • Randice

    Well, it just so happens that I’m well versed with unions. Where do they get their money? Members of course. However, corporations and unions are different with people giving money to them in that, unions, someone is FORCED to pay dues if they are part of a union. Those who are part of an organization that are unionized but refuse to be members STILL have to pay “administration fees” to the union. This is not the case however for those states that are “right to work” – but, for those that are either a) not right to work; or b) recently turned right to work, but, got locked in a contract (such as Michigan and Wisconsin) before the law changed, this is not the case. Here’s another example: I interviewed for a job. Got the job. When doing paperwork, they gave me papers to sign which included information about the union and automatic withdraw paperwork for dues. I stated I didn’t want to be in the union. They said, ‘sorry. You want the job, you have to be a part of the union’. What a get up!!
    Where do the “overlords” get theirs? I don’t know – who are you referring to?

  • Randice

    Benghazi: this even comes from a left leaning source. Even they can’t hold Obama’s water anymore.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/29/benghazi-scandal-tied-to-white-house/?tid=pm_pop

    Obamacare: http://www.mediaite.com/online/rothman-new-revelations-transform-obamacare-from-fiasco-into-scandal/

    Wasn’t Obamacare going to save every American 2,500 a year? Wasn’t everyone going to be able to keep their doctor? Wasn’t everyone going to be insured? Why is it with Obamacare 30m will be uninsured? Isn’t that the same figure that brought us Obamacare to begin with?

    IRS targeting: Where have you been with the new revelations coming about between the IRS and Senators? The emails? How much do you actually read/know prior to speaking? Go here:

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/weekly-update-jw-busts-open-irs-scandal/

    States Rights: Go here: http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/issues/states-rights

    And I have to disagree… Gangsters yes, do run this country, but, it is, we the people’s fault, for not paying attention, and allowing the federal government to grow so large, and not holding the “servants” accountable. It’s no one’s fault, but our own.
    As Franklin famously said when asked what country they gave us: “A republic. If you can keep it.”

  • Randice

    Some people hold other people that make statements, accountable. ;-)

  • Gele Eerie

    The herky-jerky processes of technological advance are destroyed when those who preach from collectivism’s altar attempt to direct that everything be made equally available to everyone.

  • Krimsen King

    i was referring to our oligarchs.. u know, the very few very wealthy people who control our entire society. They got their money from their overstuffed overseas bank accounts, and they pay our politicians to write laws to benefit themselves. I do understand your frustration with mandated unionizing. Unfortunately, when our government is controlled by the same companies we work for, unions become the only voice for average workers. They provide the ONLY bargaining power to get living wages, or humane work hours and conditions. Really, if we ‘defeat’ unions, we’ll be defeating any chance we have to keep the middle class from becoming extinct.

  • Krimsen King

    actions will always be much more important than statements

  • Krimsen King

    sorry, I don’t do links.. I have full confidence in you to make your point yourself, no need for extra reading.. also, if your source ‘leans’ any direction, it may not be all that reliable.. Benghazi, at worst, is a terrorist attack in a foreign country in chaos.. making it a political issue is wrong and foolish.. it has nothing to do with political party or even leadership.. embassies get attacked by terrorists in chaotic foreign countries no matter who is president or what party is in power.. obamacare is an imperfect solution to a serious problem caused by the healthcare system we had, and like any government program, it had it’s problems and difficulties. It doesn’t change the fact that healthcare is a necessity for existence, over which we often have no control.. therefore, it cannot be linked to the same ‘free market forces’ as exist in ‘the private sector’.. the irs ‘targeting’ was apparently ‘auditing’ or ‘investigating’ because there were thousands of new ‘conservative’ political organizations applying for tax exempt status.. now, apparently all kinds of political organizations have tax exempt status, WHICH IS HORRIBLY WRONG, but new ones will always need to be audited and investigated, no matter what political ‘leanings’ they have.. but even if they got ‘nailed’ in this ‘targeting’, THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE TO PAY TAXES.. so.. not a scandal.. And of course it’s our fault.. we fell for platitudes like ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ and ‘family values’.. we were sold on ‘traditional America’, when it was really a brand new American oligarchy they were planning.. and it’s policies of ‘increasing productivity’ and ‘incentivizing job creators’ was really just a way to make us all work for slave wages… competition all the way to the bottom.. it’s not about how large our government is.. it’s about how bought and sold it is.. government is a SERVICE… it needs to provide services like the military, fire, police, infrastructure, but also things like healthcare, education, elections, and energy.. these things are often not inherently profitable, and when we try to MAKE them profitable by privatizing them, we get a horrible, brutal oligarchy like russia… some things just cannot and should not be based solely on profit.

  • Randice

    Ah… like Soros? Yeah, he’s a ‘spooky dude’.
    Unions are totally irrelevant today. Federal laws have replaced anything the unions stood for. Unions have destroyed this country. When they first started, yes, definitely needed. Now? Nope. Detroit is a good example of what unions can do. Or, Hostess. I worked in negotiations between administrations and unions in settling contracts. In nearly every case, the unions were more inclined to lay people off then what they were to give concessions. Way to fight for the little guy! While I am all for PRIVATE unions, and of course the option to choose, I cannot and do not support GOVERNMENT unions.

  • Randice

    You should consider ‘doing links’. You may be surprised at what you’ll learn. I agree that Benghazi shouldn’t be a political issue. This should have been non-bipartisan. It became political when the lies began and individuals tried to cover it up and repeatedly told lies in the process and spread that out to the public. I don’t think anyone disagrees that we needed change in healthcare. The question was how to go about that. And when it starts as a bill passing before it is known what is in the bill, there starts trouble. When it is changed through executive fiat without going through Congress, there is another problem. When backroom deals go on to get a bill passed, there is a problem. When judges on the SC rewrite the law to uphold the constitutionality, there is a problem. When further deficits are added for another government program, there is a problem. When religious liberties are trampled, there is a problem. When all the lies that sold a program come to fruition, there is a problem. Could it have gone through the private market? Absolutely. The problem was they wouldn’t allow the insurances to cross state lines; therefore, real competition could not emerge. There was also no tort reform, another issue on the rising healthcare costs. I could go on, but, I’m getting tired.

    The IRS… when government agencies, and senators, collude with one another, there is a problem. When the ratio of audits for “new organizations” lie 11:1, there is a problem. (conservative vs. liberal).When donors are also sought after, there is a problem. If there was no scandal, why’d Lerner play the 5th? Why was it blamed on “rogue agencies in Cincy” when in fact, documented emails are pointing back to the administration?

    We again go back to the general term of “government”, and you are not separating those out.

    The Constitution’s Preamble says the federal government was established (and the Constitution was adopted) to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

    The Constitution’s articles, and the subsequent Amendments, specify the prerogatives of the Feds. They are listed in Article I, Sec. 8; Articles II-V; Amendments XIII-XVI, XIX-XX, XXIII-XXVI. These prerogatives belong to one of the following categories:

    1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;

    2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;

    3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;

    4) Copyright protection;

    5) Coining money;

    6) Establishing post offices and post roads;

    7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;

    8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.
    James Madison, author of the first 10 amendments, spells this out in FP #45.
    All things NOT covered above THEN falls to the states. The more close to home a law is to the people, the more accountable those lawmakers will be held by the people; thus the reason we were set up as a “republic”, not to be confused with a “democracy”.
    The difference between the government and private in terms of business is that the private sector will be held accountable. There is no such thing with the government; thus the majority of our problems.

  • Krimsen King

    I really can’t believe you just said that… ‘The difference between the government and private in terms of business is that the private sector will be held accountable’????? HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY WHOM??? Their shareholders? Their boards??? Most of us aren’t part of those, but we all vote(or can), so where is the accountability really??? There is no such thing as accountability for our oligarchs, the wealthy ‘ceo’.. unless you count billions in bonuses after crashing their companies and the world economies ‘accountability’.. I don’t.

  • Krimsen King

    Yes, like soros.. anyone involved in pumping millions upon millions of dollars into our political system is most definitely spooky, putting it mildly.. I agree that unions should be better regulated, oh maybe by OUR GOVERNMENT.. but if our government is entirely bought and sold by our biggest companies, biggest employers, unions again become the only recourse we the people have. If our government were truly representative, fair and just, and uncorrupted by the influence of so much wealth, YES, unions would be unnecessary and even maybe wrong. But this is not our situation now. We now live in an oligarchy.. yes, the unions will be extinct soon, they cannot stand up to that much money and political influence.. but when they go, so will our chances for improving our stations in life. Our wages and work conditions will no longer stagnate and drift down.. they will plummet down, and we will all be as slaves again to our brilliant oligarchs, our ‘free market capitalists’ (who aren’t really free market at all) and our ‘job creators’ (who only seem to be able to create slave jobs in other countries)

  • Randice

    Unions regulated by the government? Bwahahahahaha!! Have you any idea how much they give the government in political donations? LOL.. will NEVER happen! Have any idea who the biggest contributors are to government?

    Here’s your top 10. http://freebeacon.com/politics/none-of-the-top-10-biggest-political-donors-are-republican/

    7 out of the 10 are.. wait for it… UNIONS!!!
    And you talk about money and political influence? Really?
    I think you also mistake “capitalism” for “crony capitalism”. Crony capitalism is NOT capitalism!

  • Randice

    The free market (I say again, the “free market”, not to be confused with crony capitalism) ALWAYS regulates itself. People vote with their wallets. It’s quite simple really. As for CEO’s – so long as it’s not cronyism.. who cares what they’re paid? I don’t. What their paid doesn’t effect me one iota. Does it effect you?

  • Krimsen King

    I think you mistake ‘crony capitalism’ for the inherent corruption that comes from all the money in our political system. Yes, unions are big donors to candidates. And YES, IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Everything about ‘funding campaigns’ is utter nonsense, not only useless, but detrimental to our democracy. Also, your figures might be out of date. Since that horrid citizens united case and the most recent thing about financial disclosures or whatever, BILLIONS of dollars have been flowing in from all directions to all candidates, and they are ALL beholden to their highest bidders, not the people, so our political disagreements are irrelevant anymore. Political party and ideology mean NOTHING compared to all the money our ‘representatives’ receive from who-knows-where. And we don’t… we don’t know who is giving how much to whom, and it is increasing. Soon the billions will be trillions and the only government we will have left will be corporate government… sheesh, we’re dam close now…

  • Randice

    I’m not confused by the two; but, I do recognize that all of man is corrupt. It’s humanism. The figures I gave you is up to 2012. The SC however got the Citizen’s United case correct. What people donate is freedom of speech, though I am all for limits. We however come back to (towards your last sentences) – money doesn’t mean anything. It’s the VOTERS that mean everything. And when we have disengaged, lazy, uninformed voters, it doesn’t matter how much money is given into politics.

  • Randice
  • Krimsen King

    well of course it does.. I’m glad we finally got to the root of our disagreement. Yes, the lazy, uninformed, disengaged voters have allowed this to happen, but ‘this’ is the OVERWHELMING influence of money in our political system. What difference do political party or alliance or ideology mean when the biggest donors give the biggest amounts to BOTH parties??? They get what they want, NO MATTER WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT. Equating money and speech NECESSARILY gives a greater voice to the wealthiest. This is not the American way… Money is MOST DEFINITELY NOT FREE SPEECH. It is MONEY, and it’s influence in our elections is INHERENTLY CORRUPTING. No ifs, ands or buts… there is no such thing as ‘limiting’ donations.. routes are always found to get around these ‘limits’. IT MUST END ALTOGETHER if we want a truly representative government again. Until this happens, all questions of political affiliation or alliance are utterly irrelevant. Also, ‘all of man’ is NOT corrupt. Obviously all of man has the capacity for corruption, but it is definitely not ‘humanism’. And I happen to believe that ‘humanity’ means more than basic animal instinct like ‘self-preservation’ or ‘rational self-interest’, the traits that oligarchs sanctify to pit us all against each other and rise to the very tippy top, as they have now.

  • Krimsen King

    It’s really not that simple… the free market never regulates itself, are you kidding?? That’s why we have ALWAYS needed our strong central government to oversee and regulate (act as a referee, if you will) the markets. And it will always be necessary. Without it, we become like russia and malaysia and all the other two-bit oligarchies.. only ours is bigger.. is that the ‘American way’?? to be just a bigger oligarchy than all the others?????? Used to be people voted with their votes… used to be…..

  • Randice

    I see… so, let’s just look at KY for example.. you mean, that the “overwhelming influence of money” kept 90% of the voting population home last night? Do tell.. how did they make that happen? Pay them to stay home?
    Biggest donors give biggest contributions to BOTH parties? Um… you should probably read the link.
    And, “all men” are indeed corrupt, or, more specifically, I guess it is more correct to say, corruptible.
    But, I’m always willing to listen. What’s your solution?

  • Krimsen King

    yes, actually… massive amounts of money put toward an incessant, distasteful bickering match (mud-slinging is what we used to call it) can convince LOTS of people that their vote is irrelevant. That, along with legislation crafted by these donors to make it harder to vote, like disallowing independents from voting in primaries, can go a LONG way to suppressing the vote. Yes, they do give the biggest contributions to both parties, but since we don’t know who is spending how much and where… (yes, foreign money can influence our elections) it’s really hard to know for sure what, precisely, is the amount and effect. The solution is to GET ALL MONEY OUT OF OUR ELECTIONS. Campaign contributions have been warping politicians and elections for FAR TOO LONG, and now, now they have completely taken control. Without politicians willing to serve the people without RIDICULOUS PROFIT, we are left with no recourse. This is what it means to live in an oligarchy.

  • Randice

    The markets were handling themselves just fine, up until the late 1800′s when the federal government became involved. (See: ‘the Sherman Antitrust Act’ and ‘the Interstate Commerce Act’). While there, they weren’t too heavily relied upon until the early 1900′s and the election of Teddy and Wilson; and later exploded by FDR.

  • Randice

    We come back again to, needing a voter IQ test to vote. If they are that stupid, well, you just can’t fix stupid. And the commercials drive me insane; I agree – lots of mudslinging. I turn them off when they come on – and do my own homework. :-)
    Okay, so, you came up with a “get money out of all elections” so, then how do people run? How do people get to know them? What about the state and national level? Really.. I’m interested to know what you propose.

  • Krimsen King

    actually the markets were NOT handling themselves just fine, right up until 1929, when we all realized that robber barons always do the same things… and they are NEVER good….

  • Krimsen King

    well, I think we can agree that our current campaign system doesn’t really inform anyone of anything… and look how many billions they’re pouring into it now.. now cut ALL that money out, end the bush tax cuts, cut a bunch of agencies that aren’t necessary, and not only can you fund public elections, you can fund universal healthcare, too… a public election system would be necessarily accountable and reviewable by congress, or the people as it were, and must also necessarily deal ONLY in objective fact, policy proposals and ideas for governance. It wouldn’t take much to have an easily accessible, easy to understand public information system, maybe on TV prior to elections (debates would still be necessary but much less ridiculous), and of course on the internet for elections wherever across the country.. unfortunately, the ‘representatives’ our oligarchs have chosen for us have NO desire to see any of this happen….

  • Randice

    I’m not sure what I think of the Bush tax cuts, considering they apply to all; in addition, you cut those, and the tax rate goes up higher on the corporations/businesses, which are currently at 35% now anyway, we’re #1 in what businesses are faced with in terms of taxes. (major reason why businesses are moving overseas). But, I could possibly compromise on something a little, assuming that is, we could cut the useless alphabet soup agencies. I’m really not sure what I think of public electoral system either. I’m not familiar with it and am uneducated at pros and cons. But, I’d at least be willing to look into it if it was actually brought up for discussion. See, I’m fair!

  • Krimsen King

    haha I know you are.. that’s why I keep talking to you ;) Ok, so the bush tax cuts do technically apply to all, but I remember when they were instituted… I got a weeks pay worth of a tax return… yeah, real ‘helpful’ and ‘stimulative’.. the real beneficiaries were those with billions or trillions who had ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for more, deeper tax cuts. As for these businesses moving overseas.. yes, there will always be third-world gangster governments willing to cut corporate or business taxes to attract these global multi-national corporations. Does that mean we should bend our internal tax policy to suit these oligarchs?? This really is the philosophy that turned this country into an oligarchy. And yes, it would be nice if it were ‘brought up for discussion’, but as I said, the only people who really can or should have NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER in cutting off this brand new faucet of money flowing to them. Not to mention, the prevailing attitude is like yours, believing that money somehow equals free speech. Until these incredibly wrong notions are seen for what they are, there will be no such discussion.. especially in a media market dominated by sensationalism and superficial nonsense.