Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the outpouring of hate for Beck. When the left disagrees with what you have to say they try to destroy you. Beck also said he has been audited for the past 3 years. Coincidence? I think not.
[/quote]

Boy you sure had me flummoxed for a second there old timer.

don’t make me summon my inner hulk[/quote]

Judging by your other posts I don’t think it takes much to confuse you…boy.
[/quote]

Your inane ramblings tend to do the job. So no response on your crackpot theory then? It’s cool, I’m not surprised.[/quote]

What theory? That most on the left will try to destroy you if you tell the truth about the chosen one? You think that’s a theory? You are a kid.[/quote]

I know it would irreparably damage your ego to say it, but your audit theory is ridiculous. It’s unsubstantiated and doesn’t have an inkling of rationality. Keep trying to broaden this to some out of scope argument. What you said was dumb. Period. And let’s be serious, you’re the child here. You said something stupid, got called out, and are now grasping at straws throwing all the duds you got trying to cover your tracks.
And at such an advanced age, it’s quite a feat. You must have gotten a hell of a nap in today to still be up at this hour.[/quote]

You’ll go to great lengths to avoid trying to prove that Glenn Beck lies won’t you? What happened, did your mind drift? Did mommy call you for a bedtime snack because you have to get up early to catch the bus? LOL - Just can’t keep your mind focused on the original challenge can you? That’s what always gets you in trouble in school, you just can’t stay focused can you? ADD maybe?

Now hurry up and post all those lies that mean man Mr. Beck tells. Or you could just shut up and go to bed.

What’s it going to be junior?

82

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

we’ve never had a President who has been this far left
[/quote]

This statement is just not true; and it is part of the problem I have with Beck’s radical, unfounded claims that Obama is a socialist. Compare Obama’s policies to Nixon’s policies. Nixon, a republican, did the following:

  1. Clean Air Act of 1970
  2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972
  3. Established the Environmental Protection Agency
  4. Established the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
  5. Established the Council on Envionmental Quality
  6. Established the Consumer Product Safety Commission
  7. Signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1972 which included the creation of the Supplemental Security Income Program

This was all done by a republican. Health Care reform turned out to be a gift to the pharma/insurance industry, largely by dealing away the public option part. Finanaical reform was a joke, evidenced by the record breaking profits by Wall Street for the second year in a row. How is it that Obama’s a socialist and he hasn’t even tried to implement half the amount of the “liberal” policies that Nixon, a republican, did? [/quote]

another evidence that obama is not an socialist is that socialists dont support him, they rather see someone like ralph nader as president.

and furthermore: imperialism is not a typical socialist policy, maybe a socialdemocrat or a stalinist could support imperialism, but not an genuin marxist.

and more: If obama was a socialist he would not have bailed out finance institusions, he would have made them property of the state.
[/quote]

I don’t think he’s as much of a socialist as some would like him to be, or maybe he himself would be if he could get away with it. For example is there any question that the health care bill would look far different if he had his way?

83

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the outpouring of hate for Beck. When the left disagrees with what you have to say they try to destroy you. Beck also said he has been audited for the past 3 years. Coincidence? I think not.
[/quote]

Boy you sure had me flummoxed for a second there old timer.

don’t make me summon my inner hulk[/quote]

Judging by your other posts I don’t think it takes much to confuse you…boy.
[/quote]

Your inane ramblings tend to do the job. So no response on your crackpot theory then? It’s cool, I’m not surprised.[/quote]

What theory? That most on the left will try to destroy you if you tell the truth about the chosen one? You think that’s a theory? You are a kid.[/quote]

I know it would irreparably damage your ego to say it, but your audit theory is ridiculous. It’s unsubstantiated and doesn’t have an inkling of rationality. Keep trying to broaden this to some out of scope argument. What you said was dumb. Period. And let’s be serious, you’re the child here. You said something stupid, got called out, and are now grasping at straws throwing all the duds you got trying to cover your tracks.
And at such an advanced age, it’s quite a feat. You must have gotten a hell of a nap in today to still be up at this hour.[/quote]

Actuall, using the tax code to go after dissidents has a long and despicable history.

To imply that it might happen here is neither ridiculous nor far fetched.

84

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You’ll go to great lengths to avoid trying to prove that Glenn Beck lies won’t you? What happened, did your mind drift? Did mommy call you for a bedtime snack because you have to get up early to catch the bus? LOL - Just can’t keep your mind focused on the original challenge can you? That’s what always gets you in trouble in school, you just can’t stay focused can you? ADD maybe?

Now hurry up and post all those lies that mean man Mr. Beck tells. Or you could just shut up and go to bed.

What’s it going to be junior?
[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You Beck haters are pathetic. Just admit you don’t like the guy’s antics (or his political leanings), we can let it go at that.[/quote]

[quote]siouxperman wrote:
I said those things from the outset a long time ago and for some reason everyone began frothing at the mouth and asking me what he lied about. People who like beck seem to have such a hair trigger.

EDIT: the hair trigger is also what makes them so much fun. catch-22[/quote]

Haha, your senility has distracted you again. Was that last post of yours meant that be that stupid and play that well into what I said earlier? If it weren’t already clear that your mental faculties are in decline, I might think that you were attempting to make some terribly ironic joke. But I don’t. You’re the one accusing me of distracting from the issue? The issue is your harebrained theory and your inability to back it up. Because you can’t. Maybe you’ve just run out of ensure and are more irritable than usual.

Seeing as how I’m currently getting my graduate education paid for based on my scholastic merit, it’s pretty funny that you would take a swing at my “trouble in school.” You’re really reaching now. Is nothing you say based in reality?

85

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the outpouring of hate for Beck. When the left disagrees with what you have to say they try to destroy you. Beck also said he has been audited for the past 3 years. Coincidence? I think not.
[/quote]

Boy you sure had me flummoxed for a second there old timer.

don’t make me summon my inner hulk[/quote]

Judging by your other posts I don’t think it takes much to confuse you…boy.
[/quote]

Your inane ramblings tend to do the job. So no response on your crackpot theory then? It’s cool, I’m not surprised.[/quote]

What theory? That most on the left will try to destroy you if you tell the truth about the chosen one? You think that’s a theory? You are a kid.[/quote]

I know it would irreparably damage your ego to say it, but your audit theory is ridiculous. It’s unsubstantiated and doesn’t have an inkling of rationality. Keep trying to broaden this to some out of scope argument. What you said was dumb. Period. And let’s be serious, you’re the child here. You said something stupid, got called out, and are now grasping at straws throwing all the duds you got trying to cover your tracks.
And at such an advanced age, it’s quite a feat. You must have gotten a hell of a nap in today to still be up at this hour.[/quote]

Actuall, using the tax code to go after dissidents has a long and despicable history.

To imply that it might happen here is neither ridiculous nor far fetched.

[/quote]

The fact that there’s not a shred of evidence doesn’t help.

86

Having an appreciation of political history helps one understand our current state of affairs better, and what can happen within the government when the people are not watching more closely. For example:

To think that the government has never used the IRS to harass anyone speaks to the inexperience and sheer naivete of the poster.

87

One more example:

Could Beck have been harassed by the Obama (and Bush) IRS? Absolutely.

88

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But we shouldn’t be surprised by the outpouring of hate for Beck. When the left disagrees with what you have to say they try to destroy you. Beck also said he has been audited for the past 3 years. Coincidence? I think not.
[/quote]

Boy you sure had me flummoxed for a second there old timer.

don’t make me summon my inner hulk[/quote]

Judging by your other posts I don’t think it takes much to confuse you…boy.
[/quote]

Your inane ramblings tend to do the job. So no response on your crackpot theory then? It’s cool, I’m not surprised.[/quote]

What theory? That most on the left will try to destroy you if you tell the truth about the chosen one? You think that’s a theory? You are a kid.[/quote]

I know it would irreparably damage your ego to say it, but your audit theory is ridiculous. It’s unsubstantiated and doesn’t have an inkling of rationality. Keep trying to broaden this to some out of scope argument. What you said was dumb. Period. And let’s be serious, you’re the child here. You said something stupid, got called out, and are now grasping at straws throwing all the duds you got trying to cover your tracks.
And at such an advanced age, it’s quite a feat. You must have gotten a hell of a nap in today to still be up at this hour.[/quote]

Actuall, using the tax code to go after dissidents has a long and despicable history.

To imply that it might happen here is neither ridiculous nor far fetched.

[/quote]

The fact that there’s not a shred of evidence doesn’t help.
[/quote]

Evidemce for what?

That it has already happened or that Beck was deliberately targeted?

89

Volume 3: Internal Revenue Service

Volume 3 focuses on abuses of the Internal Revenue Service during the Nixon Presidency. Areas of abuse included misuse of tax information, particularly passing such data to the FBI to aid its targetting of domestic dissidents. More ominously, the IRS itself had a Special Services Staff whose job it was to target such individuals and groups for investigation.

The 8,000 individuals and 3,000 organizations on the SSS list included the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the American Library Association, the Ford Foundation, and even the Headstart program. The Committee heard from Donald Alexander, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, accompanied by counsel and several assistant commissioners of the IRS.

Here, knock yourself out.

90

[quote]orion wrote:
Volume 3: Internal Revenue Service

Volume 3 focuses on abuses of the Internal Revenue Service during the Nixon Presidency. Areas of abuse included misuse of tax information, particularly passing such data to the FBI to aid its targetting of domestic dissidents. More ominously, the IRS itself had a Special Services Staff whose job it was to target such individuals and groups for investigation. The 8,000 individuals and 3,000 organizations on the SSS list included the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the American Library Association, the Ford Foundation, and even the Headstart program. The Committee heard from Donald Alexander, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, accompanied by counsel and several assistant commissioners of the IRS.

Here, knock yourself out.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol3.htm[/quote]

Orion I sure hope he’s not saying that he actually trusts the government. No, no he can’t be that young and foolish. He’s just running interference for Obama trying to be a loyal lefty. Yeah that’s it.

91

[quote]ZEB wrote:
One more example:

Could Beck have been harassed by the Obama (and Bush) IRS? Absolutely. [/quote]

Right, so let’s just open this up to everyone who has ever been audited and said something critical of the government at ANY TIME in history and call them all conspiracies. Did I say it has never happened? No, I did not. Did I question your theory that it happened to glenny boy? Yes, I did. Do you have any, ANY evidence that it did? Not one iota. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Beck’s audit’s and his criticisms of those in power may be correlated, but it says nothing of causation. Of course, I guess that’s just a little something I learned in my liberal left wing socialist school.

I’m open to the fact that these things have happened, and it goes without saying that they are absurd misuses of power. No matter how much I disagree with beck I wouldn’t advocate undue personal harassment. You yourself have roundly criticized people for what they “think” or “believe” about something without evidence. I know you’re not going to give on this so I’ll just consider this the last post on the matter and move on.

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

I don’t like him because he’s an obnoxious disingenuous fucking prick who distorts the truth and presents his theories as facts. That’s why I don’t like him.

[/quote]

All that venom and not even one specific accusation. I guess you’re done, you have nothing.
[/quote]

Cute how you only pick out one sentence of my post now. Again, you have to prove Beck is right, as I have to that he is wrong.

You can’t or won’t so you sidestep that part of the post. Fuck off.

93

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

I don’t like him because he’s an obnoxious disingenuous fucking prick who distorts the truth and presents his theories as facts. That’s why I don’t like him.

[/quote]

All that venom and not even one specific accusation. I guess you’re done, you have nothing.
[/quote]

Cute how you only pick out one sentence of my post now. Again, you have to prove Beck is right, as I have to that he is wrong.

You can’t or won’t so you sidestep that part of the post. Fuck off.[/quote]

Hulk, while I don’t like beck either, I think you might have to look at this in a different way. If one says beck is lying, then they are basically the prosecution and the beck supporters become the defense. (on an aside, as much as I’ve been accused of it, I never actually painted him with broad strokes as a “liar”. He has said a few things that are incorrect (swearing in without the bible, the only country that has automatic citizenship etc.), but lying would take some premeditation and that’s up for debate. I posted what I believe are some suspect statements by beck, but never simply stated that he’s a liar.). As the prosecution it’s your responsibility to prove guilt. The defense doesn’t have to prove innocence. In the legal system the onus is on the prosecution. In this situation, whether or not sufficient evidence has been presented is, and always will be, up for debate. Given the polarization of the issue here, it will just continue ad infinitum like much of PWI.

I think I should reiterate that while I think he may have told some fairly innocuous lies, I haven’t (or at least haven’t intended to) painted the man as someone who is a continual liar. It’s obvious that I don’t like the guy, but I don’t have proof that he has repeatedly and purposely lied about things (wild conclusions drawn from tenuous connections? maybe). The video posted of the “liberal hunter” actually gave a decent description of how beck tends to portray information. He does well to toe the line of “a little out there” and “completely outrageous”. And I guess I don’t know if I get more perplexed about beck or his vehement supporters. I mean I understand that he’s saying things that you like to hear, but relax a little bit. As sure as anyone I’ve been guilty in the past of making ill advised remarks, but a little effort should be made to curtail that sort of stuff. I know PWI is one thing and a lot of it is in fun, but I just hope everyone who posts here is more even keel during actual conversation.
/rationality

redacto: in fairness i should’ve asked the anti beck people to cool their heels a little bit too. And the rant was more geared to real life siteeations and discussions, i know most people on the boards don’t take the name calling and stuff too seriously as long as it’s not taken to the extreme.

let’s continue the mud slinging

94

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Here are some more to debunk ZEB:

On November 12, 2009, Beck said the following on his radio show:

�¢??Do you know in the health care bill, we�¢??re now offering insurance for dogs? Do I need to say any more?�¢??

�¢??If you are somebody who is like, �¢??Well, I just, I�¢??m struggling and we�¢??re barely making ends meet,�¢?? I�¢??m not paying for your dog cardiologist! Not gonna do it. I�¢??m sorry, the dog goes nighty-night.�¢??

Now, I want everyone to go through the bill and show me where we�¢??re offering insurance for dogs. It�¢??s not there. Never was. Glenn Beck was lying his ass off.

But I can�¢??t stop there. As long as I was doing research, I had to keep digging.

Just a couple of months ago, Beck started talking about �¢??anchor babies�¢?? and how something needed to be changed to keep babies who are born in this country from being granted automatic citizenship. On June 10, he said the following on his Fox TV show:

�¢??Why do we have automatic citizenship upon birth? Do you know? We�¢??re the only country in the world that has it. Why?�¢??

Uh, Glenn, did you think no one would check the facts? By the way, it is called �¢??jus soli�¢??, which is Latin for �¢??law of ground�¢??. Below is a list of other countries that offer automatic citizenship upon birth.

* American Samoa (birth in American Samoa renders American Samoan and U.S. nationalities, but no birthright to U.S. citizenship)
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Azerbaijan
* Barbados
* Belize
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Canada
* Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
* Colombia
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* El Salvador
* Fiji
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guyana
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Lesotho
* Mexico
* Nicaragua
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
* Saint Christopher and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
* Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
* Uruguay
* Venezuela

So Glenn, that�¢??s 36 additional countries that offer jus soli. Can you feel the heat emanating from your pants yet?

On the July 22, 2009 episode of his Fox show, Beck �¢?? who was still railing against health care legislation �¢?? made this claim:

�¢??I mean, we�¢??ve got czars now. Czars like John Holdren, who has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.�¢??

Before I refute his claim, I must go off on a tangent and say this about �¢??czars�¢??. People have been complaining about Obama having all these �¢??Czars�¢??. I wonder how many of the complainers realize that Obama has a total of 33 Czars and George W. Bush had 45. Now back to Beck�¢??s claim about John Holdren.[/quote]

I think most of them were debunked earlier in the thread. But if I’m wrong that doesn’t mean I’m lying, I could just me mistaken :slight_smile:
[/quote]

They haven’t, so if you can stop bickering with the boys feel free to address these

95

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

For the record I just think he’s a douche …[/quote]

I respect you for telling the truth. More people should be like you. They need to take a deep breath and realize that Beck sometimes acts like a jerk and is annoying. Oh and he also exposes the left for what it is. Which in itself can annoy people who actually vote (cough) democratic.

I agree, we’ve never had a President who has been this far left and the filth that he brought with him to office is unprecedented. If the country only new this before the election he never would have gotten elected. It’s a shame we don’t have an unbiased media. They could have exposed this ideologue before he had the opportunity to put his semi-socialist plans into action.
[/quote]

Obama brings the filth just like them all, Hmm…I’d put Cheney and Rove with the filthiest of the filthy in any administration. I disagree in that only the naive don’t know this ahead of time it’s just everyone holding their noses and voting for their party. He got elected because Bush was a travesty for 8 years and the last thing the majority of America wanted was another old, rich white guy as pres. and business as usual plain and simple. Hell, Kerry probably still could have beat McCain and that’s saying something.

“Oh and he also exposes the left for what it is. Which in itself can annoy people who actually vote (cough) democratic.” I’d say ditto for Stewart and Colbert that do the same for those that vote republican except they’re actually humorous.

96

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I don’t think he’s as much of a socialist as some would like him to be, or maybe he himself would be if he could get away with it. For example is there any question that the health care bill would look far different if he had his way?
[/quote]

So, at the same time “we’ve never had a President who has been this far left,” and Obama would like to be much more socialist “if he could get away with it?” What is your basis for this assumtion outside of Glenn Beck’s radically false raving and ranting about it?

Lots of people throughout the country have legit reasons to be upset with the government, but not for the reasons that Beck claims. A great example of this is the Obama = a socalist thing; it’s only believable if you suspend common sense (aka if you don’t pay attention to reality). Government-run health care could have been seen as a socliast policy, not what got. Nationalization of the failing banks instead of handing them cash could have been seen as a socliast policy, not all at what we got.

The claims featured on Beck’s show distract people from actually understanding what is going on in the government; this is the reason why people like Glenn Beck are dangerous and should be understood for what they are.

97

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

I’m open to the fact that these things have happened, and it goes without saying that they are absurd misuses of power. No matter how much I disagree with beck I wouldn’t advocate undue personal harassment.[/quote]

Glad to read the above. I could not agree with you more. And keep in mind that Obama comes from Chicago politics, so you gotta believe this guy rewards friends and punishes enemies to the enth degree.

98

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

I don’t like him because he’s an obnoxious disingenuous fucking prick who distorts the truth and presents his theories as facts. That’s why I don’t like him.

[/quote]

All that venom and not even one specific accusation. I guess you’re done, you have nothing.
[/quote]

Cute how you only pick out one sentence of my post now. Again, you have to prove Beck is right, as I have to that he is wrong.

You can’t or won’t so you sidestep that part of the post. Fuck off.[/quote]

Okay, let me take one more crack at this and then we can let it go if you don’t want to play. I am flat out stating that out of all the things that Beck has said he has never lied. That is my supposition. Now the onus is directly on you to tell me specifically where I am wrong.

If this doesn’t make sense to you then we are done.

Thank you,

Zeb

99

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

I don’t like him because he’s an obnoxious disingenuous fucking prick who distorts the truth and presents his theories as facts. That’s why I don’t like him.

[/quote]

All that venom and not even one specific accusation. I guess you’re done, you have nothing.
[/quote]

Cute how you only pick out one sentence of my post now. Again, you have to prove Beck is right, as I have to that he is wrong.

You can’t or won’t so you sidestep that part of the post. Fuck off.[/quote]

Hulk, while I don’t like beck either, I think you might have to look at this in a different way. If one says beck is lying, then they are basically the prosecution and the beck supporters become the defense. (on an aside, as much as I’ve been accused of it, I never actually painted him with broad strokes as a “liar”. He has said a few things that are incorrect (swearing in without the bible, the only country that has automatic citizenship etc.), but lying would take some premeditation and that’s up for debate. I posted what I believe are some suspect statements by beck, but never simply stated that he’s a liar.). As the prosecution it’s your responsibility to prove guilt. The defense doesn’t have to prove innocence. In the legal system the onus is on the prosecution. In this situation, whether or not sufficient evidence has been presented is, and always will be, up for debate. Given the polarization of the issue here, it will just continue ad infinitum like much of PWI.

I think I should reiterate that while I think he may have told some fairly innocuous lies, I haven’t (or at least haven’t intended to) painted the man as someone who is a continual liar. It’s obvious that I don’t like the guy, but I don’t have proof that he has repeatedly and purposely lied about things (wild conclusions drawn from tenuous connections? maybe). The video posted of the “liberal hunter” actually gave a decent description of how beck tends to portray information. He does well to toe the line of “a little out there” and “completely outrageous”. And I guess I don’t know if I get more perplexed about beck or his vehement supporters. I mean I understand that he’s saying things that you like to hear, but relax a little bit. As sure as anyone I’ve been guilty in the past of making ill advised remarks, but a little effort should be made to curtail that sort of stuff. I know PWI is one thing and a lot of it is in fun, but I just hope everyone who posts here is more even keel during actual conversation.
/rationality

redacto: in fairness i should’ve asked the anti beck people to cool their heels a little bit too. And the rant was more geared to real life siteeations and discussions, i know most people on the boards don’t take the name calling and stuff too seriously as long as it’s not taken to the extreme.

let’s continue the mud slinging[/quote]

LOL, it is more fun that way isn’t it? Seriously, glad you agree with me on this. I tried to be as clear as possible regarding the coming up with proof about Beck being a liar. What Hulk is essentially saying is “nuh uh you have to prove he’s telling the truth.” You’re thinking very clear here great analogy as well. And, (Oh wait, name calling I have to name call) um, you suck.

100

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

For the record I just think he’s a douche …[/quote]

I respect you for telling the truth. More people should be like you. They need to take a deep breath and realize that Beck sometimes acts like a jerk and is annoying. Oh and he also exposes the left for what it is. Which in itself can annoy people who actually vote (cough) democratic.

I agree, we’ve never had a President who has been this far left and the filth that he brought with him to office is unprecedented. If the country only new this before the election he never would have gotten elected. It’s a shame we don’t have an unbiased media. They could have exposed this ideologue before he had the opportunity to put his semi-socialist plans into action.
[/quote]

Obama brings the filth just like them all, Hmm…I’d put Cheney and Rove with the filthiest of the filthy in any administration.[/quote]

I’ve heard that repeatedly from the left. But, quite honestly I do not now why these two men are bad people. If you know something specific that I don’t please share it with me. I am not playing coy here, I’d really like to know why the left calls them filthy. Please make sure to give me specifics. Thank you.

There is much truth to what you are saying. Timing was perfect for this. However, that does not give the media a free pass. They didn’t do their job in vetting Obama. In fact, they ran cover for him.

There is a line that has been crossed between entertainment and real political commentary. I think it began in the 1992 Presidential election when Bill Clinton went on one of the late night talk shows and played his sax.