Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
CNN’s Glenn Beck shows us some conservative math.
Glenn Beck falsely claimed that “drilling in ANWR alone would yield 100 million barrels a day.” In fact, according to Energy Department researchers, if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is opened for drilling for oil in 2008, the estimated peak production would yield, at most, 1.45 million barrels a day in 2028.
The rosiest scenario is a million and a half barrels, and Glenn Beck transmutes it – via the power of bull**** – into 100 million.
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
“The rosiest scenario is a million and a half barrels,”
Let’s repeat that. This is the optimistic scenario. The mid-range scenarios put peak production at about a million barrels a day.
Those numbers (1.5 mil) come from an independent commission under the jurisdiction of the Bush Administration’s DoE. I wonder where Glenn got his.
“I wonder where Glenn got his.”
Oooh! I know! I know! Ask me!!
Oooh! I know! I know! Ask me!!
Dare I…
I suspect it’s the same source Al Franken suggested Rush Limbaugh uses, in Franken’s Connecticut Forum debate with Ann Coulter.
Here’s a thought….maybe he made a MISTAKE.
I mean, I know liberal talk show hosts are perfect and never say anything that is incorrect, but here on planet earth, people do make errors.
Here’s a thought….maybe he made a MISTAKE.
Jay, you could be right. It may be wrong to vilify Beck from the outset. If this is so then he will certainly have been made aware of it by the time of his next program and will issue a correction, this being a serious hot-button political issue du jour and him being a responsible host who doesn’t want to misinform his audience. He has issued corrections before, so it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
It looks like Beck had the oil volume in the right context:
But if he’s going to posture like that, he really ought to take the trouble to get it right.
its surely not that Beck has a track record of making shit up.
Uhhh . . . I think that “patch loaded with 420 Tcf” Beck mentioned might be the entire proved reserves of natural gas for the United States.
I guess that was another mistake? Unless someone else can find the source for this massive natural gas deposit.
Why lookee here:
http://flickr.com/photos/raynetoday/315696376/
more:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/you-know-drill-by-dday-so-john-mccain.html
“I think that “patch loaded with 420 Tcf” Beck mentioned might be the entire proved reserves of natural gas for the United States.”
Good guess, but not quite. It’s the estimated undiscovered reserves in that little “patch” called the entire outer continental shelf surrounding the lower 48 states.
Jay: “Here’s a thought….maybe he made a MISTAKE.”
You are defending him with Halon’s Law. I.E. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” However, I respond with a corollary I once read. “Stupidity in great enough quantity is indistinguishable from malice.”
At some point the mistakes add up to a total loss of credibility. Clearly you’re beyond this point, and so is Glenn Beck. The man is a moron who shouldn’t have his own TV show.
Jay: “I mean, I know liberal talk show hosts are perfect and never say anything that is incorrect, but here on planet earth, people do make errors.”
Nice strawman. I see you are working hard to rebuild your credibility.
Jay, by definition, it’s a mistake. Duh. But, as always, the mistake is in the “good for Republicans” direction. You’ll never hear him arguing that it’s 100,000 barrels of oil/day, it’ll always be 100 million.
Never mind that it’s all a very stupid distraction from what’s really going on (hint: we can’t even begin to fix it by drilling Alaska).
Clearly you’re beyond this point
This coming from a person whose idea of debate is:
A. Calling people liars
B. Calling people names
I see you are working hard to rebuild your credibility.
Well at least I am safe in knowing that even if I had zero credibility, it would still be more credibility than you.
Here’s a thought….maybe he made a MISTAKE.
I mean, I know liberal talk show hosts are perfect and never say anything that is incorrect, but here on planet earth, people do make errors.
Yes, but Glenn Beck seems to be making a career out of it.
I’ll bet Glenn a drink if he can back up his numbers.
Glenn Beck makes mistakes because his mouth is a million times faster than his brain. He’s not even smart enough to realize that he’s out of his league in the pundit class.
Even if it was just an innocent mistake this time, I have faith that his next one will be tainted with malice.
“Tell us how we know you won’t betray us to our enemies.” Tool of the highest magnitude.
“Tell us how we know you won’t betray us to our enemies.” Tool of the highest magnitude.
I agree this comment bespeaks of a supreme alpha tool, although – as you probably already know – it’s not as bad as it has been portrayed. Here is the rest of the quote – “And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way”
This suggests to me that he could have been talking about American discomfort with the Islamic faith, which is real and obvious. Again, this is not to say it was a good or legitimate question; it was of course a ridiculous and bizarre xenophobic thing to say to any Muslim, let alone an American citizen (in fact Beck himself won’t defend it). But snipping after ‘enemies’ does make it sound misleadingly worse, in my opinion.
I don’t watch Glenn Beck, so I don’t know his rate of mistakes. But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.
Me: “Clearly you’re beyond this point”
Jay: “This coming from a person whose idea of debate is:
A. Calling people liars
B. Calling people names”
I only call people liars when they lie, which is exactly what you just did here. It is possible to insult someone and debate at the same time. I can advance and argument and insult someone at the same time.
Me: “I see you are working hard to rebuild your credibility.”
Jay: “Well at least I am safe in knowing that even if I had zero credibility, it would still be more credibility than you.”
That’s funny coming from a man who just insulted me, twice. Your entire post was 100% insult, 0% substance. So you did exactly what you accused me of doing. What does that make you?
“I don’t watch Glenn Beck, so I don’t know his rate of mistakes. But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”
Translation: I have no fucking clue what I’m talking about, but I’m going to make a claim anyway.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? You just admitted you had no information to base your claim on, but you still made one.
Good guess, but not quite. It’s the estimated undiscovered reserves in that little “patch” called the entire outer continental shelf surrounding the lower 48 states.
Thanks for that, Quaker. Clearly Glenn is still having some “mistake” issues, then.
I only call people liars when they lie, which is exactly what you just did here.
Oh please. You knee jerk with the “liar” accusation all the time. You just call people “liars” because you’re too stupid and too intellectually lazy to debate issues. Somebody makes a claim and you shout “LIAR!” without anything to support your point of view.
I can advance and argument and insult someone at the same time.
Problem is, you never “advance and (sic) argument.” You just skip to the insults.
Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? You just admitted you had no information to base your claim on, but you still made one.
You need to learn how to read egghead. I didn’t make a claim. I said (and I’ll repeat it because you’re so freaking dumb, you probably don’t know how to scroll):
“…maybe he made a mistake.”
You see? Maybe means there’s some uncertainty. Like “perhaps” or “possibly.”
Example: “Maybe CS doesn’t suffer from a permanent infliction of head-up-the-ass syndrome.”
If I had said, “Glenn Beck made a mistake” that would be a claim.
Next.
Oh, seriously, Jay, don’t be a child.
You said “maybe” to cover your ass while you made a bunch of wild conjectures about Glenn Beck’s rate of inaccuracy (which is an interesting statistic, please, show me how on Earth you’re measuring the liberal and conservative pundits’ rate of errors), and then admitted you don’t watch Glenn Beck, so you can’t be sure.
That is, you stepped into the conversation to be contrarian and little else. It’s about as silly as somebody readily admitting they’re not a fan of baseball, but then saying that “Ted Williams probably struck out about as much as any other baseball player, Red Sox or Yankee.”
Sure, the “probably” insures you against being “wrong,” but it reveals you as somebody with no clue what they’re talking about.
helpful hint Jay, maybe you shouldn’t defend Glenn Beck if you’ve never watched his show. He’s a complete moron, just a blithering idiot, and defending him without knowing that is none too sharp.
Me “I only call people liars when they lie, which is exactly what you just did here.”
Jay: “Oh please. You knee jerk with the “liar” accusation all the time. You just call people “liars” because you’re too stupid and too intellectually lazy to debate issues.”
Nope. I call people liars when that’s the most logical deduction I can make. Like when you say something that is obviously false. Either you are lying or just stupid.
For instance…
“Problem is, you never “advance and (sic) argument.” You just skip to the insults.”
And you are lying again. The first post I discussed Halon’s Law and its corollary and how this is an issue of Glenn Beck’s credibility. Since you replied to it and were able to quote some of it, you must have read it first. Therefore, either you are functionally retarded and couldn’t comprehend what I wrote, or you are lying when you say I never advance an argument.
Me: “Seriously, how fucking stupid are you? You just admitted you had no information to base your claim on, but you still made one.”
Jay: “You need to learn how to read egghead.”
Men in glass houses…
Jay: “I didn’t make a claim. I said (and I’ll repeat it because you’re so freaking dumb, you probably don’t know how to scroll):
‘…maybe he made a mistake.’”
No Jay, you said…
“I don’t watch Glenn Beck, so I don’t know his rate of mistakes. But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”
This is the claim you made that I was talking about. It was right in the post I quoted. Again I ask, how fucking stupid are you?
“You see? Maybe means there’s some uncertainty. Like ‘perhaps’ or ‘possibly.’”
Yes, and probably means better than 50%, which is a testable claim. One you made after admitting you have zero evidence to base it on.
To recap…
Jay is so fucking stupid he wasn’t able to figure out what claim I was talking about when I quoted him in my post. This is so dumb he should feel enough shame to leave this site forever.
You said “maybe” to cover your ass while you made a bunch of wild conjectures about Glenn Beck’s rate of inaccuracy (which is an interesting statistic, please, show me how on Earth you’re measuring the liberal and conservative pundits’ rate of errors), and then admitted you don’t watch Glenn Beck, so you can’t be sure.
Spider, give me a freaking break. I said ‘maybe’ because the possibility existed that it was a mistake while Media Matters in typical fashion made it out to be that Beck purposely tried to mislead his viewing audience which is why they said he “falsely claimed” instead of “mistakenly claimed.” By accusing him of “falsely claiming” something, the attribute malice to his remarks.
As for other pundits that make errors, Keith Olbermann tells his fair share of tall tales yet I see him praised among the commentators at this blog as well as our host. For people who claim to care so much about the accuracy of a particular pundit, one would think that high standard would be applied to anybody. But as is often the case with ideologues, people don’t care as long as the person is spouting a point of view they agree with.
I don’t watch such shows anymore because I know that they’re often full of shit. That was the reason for my comments about Beck’s accuracy not being that much off from other pundits of the same type. I’ve never seen his show, but I am guessing it is not much different from any other show just like it! It’s like trying to find some differentiation between daytime soap operas. People argue over which is better than which, but they’re basically all the same.
That is, you stepped into the conversation to be contrarian and little else. It’s about as silly as somebody readily admitting they’re not a fan of baseball, but then saying that “Ted Williams probably struck out about as much as any other baseball player, Red Sox or Yankee.”
Actually, the more apt comparison is seeing a pitcher hit a batter, and people insisting that the pitcher purposely threw at the batter. Somebody comes along and says that the pitcher might have done it accidentally. A person can see the replay of that one particular pitch and not have seen a baseball game before to make that call.
“As for other pundits that make errors, Keith Olbermann tells his fair share of tall tales yet I see him praised among the commentators at this blog as well as our host.”
Prove it. You can’t just make a claim like this and expect people to believe you. Also, you have made a claim, you must back up THAT CLAIM. So I don’t want you to post one or two mistakes and think you’ve done enough. You must show that Keith Olbermann is as prone to errors as Glenn Beck is. That means, you must show error rates for both men.
“Actually, the more apt comparison is seeing a pitcher hit a batter, and people insisting that the pitcher purposely threw at the batter. Somebody comes along and says that the pitcher might have done it accidentally. A person can see the replay of that one particular pitch and not have seen a baseball game before to make that call.”
Yes, and if that pitcher has a history of intentionally hitting batters, then what?
Glenn Beck has a history of making ‘mistakes’ that always seem to favor his side. At some point you have to be terminally naive to believe they are merely mistakes.
Also, you have made a claim, you must back up THAT CLAIM. So I don’t want you to post one or two mistakes and think you’ve done enough. You must show that Keith Olbermann is as prone to errors as Glenn Beck is. That means, you must show error rates for both men.
Oh please. You tried to pull this nonsense before and was called out on it. You can head on over to Olbermannwatch.com and take a look at some of the wrong and false things that Olbermann has said. This notion however, that one has to find the EXACT EQUAL AMOUNT of errors or falsehoods on either side for a generalized claim to be valid is just asinine. Speaking in generalities is not always wrong. As I said, daytime soap operas are all basically the same.
Yes, and if that pitcher has a history of intentionally hitting batters, then what?
Yeah, and how do you derive intent? Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez and Bob Gibson hit a lot of batters in their career largely because they pitch(ed) inside.
“Oh please. You tried to pull this nonsense before and was called out on it.”
Yeah, cause it is nonsense to demand someone proves what they actually said. You should always accept inadequate evidence as proof.
“You can head on over to Olbermannwatch.com and take a look at some of the wrong and false things that Olbermann has said.”
Your claim, you provide the fucking evidence. I’m not going to do your research for you.
“This notion however, that one has to find the EXACT EQUAL AMOUNT of errors or falsehoods on either side for a generalized claim to be valid is just asinine.”
It’s what you fucking said, you little piece of shit. If you don’t want to defend it, then don’t say it.
No wonder you are a Republican. You are too fucking stupid to be anything else.
“Yeah, and how do you derive intent?”
A normal human being with a functioning brain can do this with ease. Part of it is looking at the context. If a pitcher hits a batter after giving up a home run, or after the opposition pitcher beaned a batter, then saying it was intentional is the most logical deduction, especially if that same pitch has a pattern of doing this and is normally has a high level of control.
In this case, Glenn Beck has a history of making these ‘mistakes’ but they tend to bolster his political views. But surely this is just a coincidence, right Jay? He can’t possible be lying intentionally, could he? Of course, this is moot because it doesn’t matter when it comes to his credibility.
By the way, I think it is clear that you have admitted to lying about in one of your previous posts in this thread. I hope you will stop whining in the future when you are called a liar, and you will be, and not just by me.
It’s what you fucking said, you little piece of shit. If you don’t want to defend it, then don’t say it.
More tough talk from behind the computer screen. Piss off. Like I said, you’ve been called out on this before so don’t think I’m going to fall for it.
In this case, Glenn Beck has a history of making these ‘mistakes’ but they tend to bolster his political views.
PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE OR YOUR JUST A FUCKING LIAR!!!!
Ahh. I channeled CS.
He can’t possible be lying intentionally, could he?
Sure it’s possible. But I’m the only one suggesting it was possible. You and others are CONVINCED he was lying. You just hung yourself with that question dumbass.
Geez, Jay, did you see a sign saying “Pudding here”?
Getting things wrong by several orders of magnitude is standard operational procedures for conservatives. And since they never acknowledge mistakes, because it wouldn’t be conservative to do so, they can sit certain in their wonderful conservative world that even if they’re wrong, their fellow conservatives will always back them up because conservatives are always right because of who they are.
In a nutshell: conservatives derive legitimacy from identity, not credibility. Credibility is a meaningless concept in Conservative World.
“More tough talk from behind the computer screen.”
Tough talk? What tough talk? I dropped an F-bomb, how is that tough? I didn’t threaten you, I didn’t threaten anyone. It what way was it tough?
“Piss off. Like I said, you’ve been called out on this before so don’t think I’m going to fall for it.”
Fall for what? All I am asking is for you to prove your claim, I even gave a reasonable level of evidence you would need to provide based on the nature of the claim. If you think I am asking for too much evidence, explain why.
“PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE OR YOUR JUST A FUCKING LIAR!!!!”
Sure, I’ll provide the evidence as soon as you respond to my post above in its entirety. You see, you have a habit of ignoring my points and concentrating on the insult, insults which you provoke. So as soon as you respond to my post above, I will get to work providing you with the reasonable evidence you require.
Me: “He can’t possible be lying intentionally, could he?”
Jay: “Sure it’s possible. But I’m the only one suggesting it was possible.”
You are an illiterate moron. Oliver merely described it as bullshit, which doesn’t imply intent. I even pointed out that is doesn’t matter if he is lying or merely mistaken, the effect on his credibility is the same. Crusty Dem, Duros, SpiderJ all talked about the possibility of him making a mistake. So no, you are not the only one saying it wasn’t a lie.
However, you are lying about what was said here. How ironic.
“You and others are CONVINCED he was lying. You just hung yourself with that question dumbass.”
Tut, tut. No need for insult Mr. Internet Tough Guy.
You should probably take a deep breath, calm down, and read what people write a little more carefully.
Yes, and probably means better than 50%,
Really? Is that true? I thought “probably” was a vaguer than that, like “several.”
Yeah, and how do you derive intent?
Could be, possibly, maybe, perhaps, probably because they’re dicks.
“You and others are CONVINCED he was lying. You just hung yourself with that question dumbass.”
We get convinced (at least I do) of his un-truthiness based on his on-going pattern of falsehoods, outright lies and deceptions and misrepresentations.* It’s a pattern, therefore, it goes to intent.
*plus his smug condescension.
Me: “Yes, and probably means better than 50%…”
Duros: “Really? Is that true? I thought ‘probably’ was a vaguer than that, like ’several.’”
Yep. It has to be more probable than not, hence more than 50%.
Tough talk? What tough talk? I dropped an F-bomb, how is that tough?
Calling me a “piece of shit” qualifies. The F bombs and crap is fine, but descending into that kind of trash is just cowardly and completely unnecessary.
If you think I am asking for too much evidence, explain why.
Because I made a general statement (”But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”) and you went off the deep end. “PROVE YOUR CLAIM!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!” I mean give me a break. What I said was generic statement about the state of such shows and their hosts. Part of the reason why I don’t watch those shows and only watch C-Span is because these people are so poorly informed – liberals and conservatives both. My statement came from years of experience of watching all of that nonsense. It was good stuff between the ages of 24-28. Predictable between the ages of 29-33. Useless since. I’ll be 38 in August.
Oliver merely described it as bullshit, which doesn’t imply intent.
Media Matters said Beck “falsely claimed” which means they’re accusing him of lying. Now, are you saying that you don’t agree with what Media Matters had written? Others as well? Don’t you agree there’s a difference between saying somebody “falsely claimed” and somebody “mistakenly claimed.”?
And there’s a difference between being mistaken and purposely lying, neither of which has the same effect on credibility. If a person is constantly mistaken (like Paul Krugman for example), it just means they’re sloppy and prone to not fully researching what they’re talking about (and merely believing they comprehend an issue). If they just lie a lot (like Keith Olbermann), then they’re purposely distorting the truth. The former is bad enough. The latter is far worse.
Because I made a general statement (”But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”)
Jay, I see your point. FWIW, he’s worse. but if you are unfamiliar with an issue or a punidt’s CV, it’s okay to say you are unfamiliar and therefore can’t make a judgment.
Given Glenn Beck’s track record, I don’t think it is unfair (to him) to say he “falsely claimed” something. As I said earlier, he’s getting really good at it.
If he told me it was daytime, I would need some corroboration.
If a person is constantly mistaken (like Paul Krugman for example), it just means they’re sloppy and prone to not fully researching what they’re talking about (and merely believing they comprehend an issue).
Paul Krugman, Bill Kristol, Glenn Easterbrooks, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Michael “Shitstain of a human being” Savage, Jonah Goldberg, Bill O’Reilly, Paul Wolfowitz,
etc.
If they just lie a lot (like Keith Olbermann), then they’re purposely distorting the truth.
See above.
Me: “Tough talk? What tough talk? I dropped an F-bomb, how is that tough?”
Jay: “Calling me a “piece of shit” qualifies. The F bombs and crap is fine, but descending into that kind of trash is just cowardly and completely unnecessary.”
And calling me a dumbass is fine?
This seems like a very strange definition for “tough talk.” Almost arbitrary. I’m sure you think it makes sense, but I doubt you’d be able (or willing) to explain it in a logical way.
“Because I made a general statement (”But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”) and you went off the deep end.”
So you made a claim you had no intention of backing up. Good to know. Good to know that at least some of your posts here are admittedly worthless.
If you are unable or unwilling to back up your claim, then shut up.
And this is a major claim. The idea that both side are equal is a lie. In the majority of conflicts, one side is right and the other is wrong. (Or at the very least, one side is more right and less wrong than the other.)
“Media Matters said Beck ‘falsely claimed’ which means they’re accusing him of lying.”
No. They said his claim was false, which is it. This is not a matter of dispute. This is not something that can be questioned.
I find it amazing that your claim is a mere generality that require no evidence, and that merely asking for evidence is akin to going off the deep end. Yet you think “falsely claimed” is a obviously an accusation of deliberate lying. Which is very similar to the complaint you have against us in this thread.
Have you ever considered the possibility that is is a problem you have? You are projecting onto liberals the problems you find in yourself?
“Don’t you agree there’s a difference between saying somebody ‘falsely claimed’ and somebody ‘mistakenly claimed.’?”
Yes. “Falsely claimed” is neutral on the matter of intent while “mistakenly claimed” is not . The latter implies that there was no negative intent and it was merely a mistake.
“If a person is constantly mistaken (like Paul Krugman for example)”
Prove it. Prove Paul Krugman is constantly mistaken.
“If they just lie a lot (like Keith Olbermann)”
Prove it. Prove Keith Olbermann lies a lot.
You do this a lot, Jay. You make claims that you have no intention of backing up, but you act like they should be taken as fact. It’s like you think, ‘Jay Caruso said it, therefore it is the truth.’
Jay: “If a person is constantly mistaken (like Paul Krugman for example), it just means they’re sloppy and prone to not fully researching what they’re talking about (and merely believing they comprehend an issue).”
Duros: “Paul Krugman, Bill Kristol, Glenn Easterbrooks, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Michael “Shitstain of a human being” Savage, Jonah Goldberg, Bill O’Reilly, Paul Wolfowitz,”
Two questions…
1.) How can you put Paul Krugman in that list?
2.) Do you mean Gregg Easterbrook?
Sorry, I was thinking of somebody else…
Not Paul Krugman. Yes, Gregg Easterbunny.
And this is a major claim. The idea that both side are equal is a lie. In the majority of conflicts, one side is right and the other is wrong.
We’re not talking about conflicts! Again, let me repeat myself. Again. Again. Again. Again:
“But he’s probably no better or no worse than any other pundit, liberal or conservative.”
The comment was made in the context of making mistakes. It’s not about two sides discussing an issue (ie conflict). If Glenn Beck makes a mistake on his show and Keith Olbermann makes a mistake on his show, they can be about totally different subjects. So therefore (which you have you get through your thick head), I did not make some outrageous claim that requires evidence to support it. Any fact checking organization can look at any pundit on television and find them making mistakes. It happens. And there’s no side that has a monopoly on it. Even Media Matters which is a conservative media watchdog has a section on their website for corrections. They too make mistakes. Is it possible for you to comprehend this in any way shape or form? IS IT?
No. They said his claim was false, which is it.
No that is NOT what they said. Christ, read the excerpt Oliver posted! It’s there plain as day. “Glenn Beck falsely claimed…”
“Falsely claimed” is neutral on the matter of intent
Horseshit. “Falsely claimed” implies the intent to deceive. If they had said “Incorrectly claimed” that would be neutral. Just give it up already.
As for proving stuff, once you prove that in your words, “Glenn Beck has a history of making ‘mistakes’ that always seem to favor his side” I’ll show you proof of Krugman’s constant mistakes and Olbermann’s host of lies. And don’t come back with, “Not until you prove your claim first!.” I didn’t make a claim. I made a generalization and it’s one that doesn’t need to be supported with evidence. And person with common sense would see it as a reasonable observation.
Oh and using your strict standards, since you say that Beck has a “history” of doing this, I want to see examples from his first show all the way through his last. After all, you said HISTORY and so therefore, if you cannot PROVE it, then you’re just a liar!!!
Game over. I’m through. I’m the Celtics. You’re the Lakers. I’m the Red Wings, you’re the Penguins. Go home. Lick your wounds and try another day.
“Falsely claimed” implies the intent to deceive
Apparently someone slept during English class. Saying someone “falsely claimed” is a clear descriptor of what happened. Had I written it I would say “Glenn Beck made some shit up and said it on tv”. “Falsely claimed” is about the most charitable thing one could say about what Beck and the other cons do.
Here’s a history of Beck’s false claims, lies, exaggerations, etc. from his first show to date.
I was charitable and limited the search to the bull he’s said on CNN and excluded the radio show.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see Glenn selling himself as a legit newsman. We don’t seem to have many Beck fans on the thread, but for the uninformed he regularly denigrates his own credentials. He doesn’t pretend he isn’t selling a world view, nor does he generally seem to feign expertise; in some ways he’s sort of a blog on television, or maybe a conservative daily show (although the quality of Stewart’s interviews surpasses Glenn’s by a mile).
The real problem isn’t Glenn; it’s people (read:voters) taking the guy too seriously and basing their own world view on things said by him and guys like Rush or Hannity.
Horseshit. “Falsely claimed” implies the intent to deceive.
What, are you claiming that Oliver suggested that Beck might, just might, be a fucking liar???
Perish the thought!
Go home. Lick your wounds and try another day.
It’s a new day today.
And guess what! Glenn Beck is still a fucking liar!
I feel like I ought to clarify that comparison of Beck to blogs. I’m of course not saying that NO bloggers have ethical standards about facts and such; only that we can all probably name ten bloggers off the top of our heads who (it can be politely said) have a shaky grasp on reality.
Me: “And this is a major claim. The idea that both side are equal is a lie. In the majority of conflicts, one side is right and the other is wrong.”
Jay: “We’re not talking about conflicts!”
Shall I add conflict to the list of words you don’t know the definition to? Yes I shall…
onelook.com/?w=conflict&ls=a (number seven)
“If Glenn Beck makes a mistake on his show and Keith Olbermann makes a mistake on his show, they can be about totally different subjects. So therefore (which you have you get through your thick head), I did not make some outrageous claim that requires evidence to support it.”
Hey Jay, did you miss a step in your logic here? You’ve never proven they make mistakes at the same rate; you’ve never given any evidence that even suggests that. But you are acting like it is an indisputable fact.
You made a claim, you must supply the evidence.
Me: “‘Falsely claimed’ is neutral on the matter of intent”
Jay: “Horseshit. ‘Falsely claimed’ implies the intent to deceive.
Wrong. This is wrong.
encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861610379
The first two agree with me. The third is not applicable in this case. Four and five agree with you. Six and seven are not applicable.
It is neutral on intent.
Jay: “If they had said ‘Incorrectly claimed’ that would be neutral. Just give it up already.”
Incorrectly claimed would also be neutral. However, you previously said ‘mistakenly claimed’ so you are changing your claim.
Thank you for admitting you were wrong.
Jay: “As for proving stuff, once you prove that in your words, “Glenn Beck has a history of making ‘mistakes’ that always seem to favor his side” I’ll show you proof of Krugman’s constant mistakes and Olbermann’s host of lies.”
I already made you my final offer on that. I will supply the proof when you replay to my previous posts that you’ve ignored. After all, why should I do more work when you didn’t bother to respond to the previous work.
Jay: “And don’t come back with, “Not until you prove your claim first!.” I didn’t make a claim. I made a generalization…”
You made a claim in the form of a generalization. However, it is still a claim.
Jay: “And person with common sense would see it as a reasonable observation.”
Jay, you have no common sense. Nothing you say can be accepted as fact without confirmation.
Jay: “Oh and using your strict standards, since you say that Beck has a ‘history’ of doing this, I want to see examples from his first show all the way through his last. After all, you said HISTORY and so therefore, if you cannot PROVE it, then you’re just a liar!!!”
Adding ‘history’ to the list of words you don’t know the meaning of. In this context, ‘history’ means an individuals past experiences and events. I would merely have to show a pattern, which would take more than a few examples, but I wouldn’t need to show it happened from the very first show to his last. That is an unreasonable level of evidence.
Jay: “Game over. I’m through. I’m the Celtics. You’re the Lakers. I’m the Red Wings, you’re the Penguins. Go home. Lick your wounds and try another day.”
You are amazingly delusional.
“He doesn’t pretend he isn’t selling a world view, nor does he generally seem to feign expertise;”
I disagree with that last part. He makes claims he has no business making, which makes him a liar.
If I claim that the Volkswagen Jetta has better fuel efficiency than the Pontiac Pursuit, I would be lying, even if it turns out I am correct.
You see, I have no fucking clue what car has better fuel efficiency, so by making that claim I am intentionally misrepresenting my expertise in that area.
Sure, Glenn Beck will say things like, ‘I’m not an expect’ but he is clearly trying to persuade people. Additionally, his target audience have been trained to distrusts experts.
If Glenn Beck makes a mistake on his show and Keith Olbermann makes a mistake on his show, they can be about totally different subjects.
The difference being that Olberman is far more likely to admit it and issue a retraction. Beck, not so much.
he regularly denigrates his own credentials. He doesn’t pretend he isn’t selling a world view, nor does he generally seem to feign expertise; in some ways he’s sort of a blog on television,
Then why for the love of noodles is he on television? And on CNN no less?
Sure, Glenn Beck will say things like, ‘I’m not an expe[r]t’ but he is clearly trying to persuade people. Additionally, his target audience have been trained to distrust experts.
This is true. The conservative voice of the Northwest, Lars Larsen, once said on the air ‘I’ll take the common sense of a trucker over the experts anyday.’ This should give any rational person pause – do you want a trucker doing your heart surgery, or would you prefer a heart surgeon? – and Glenn has expressed similar disdain for ‘experts.’ Durn good point.
You see, I have no fucking clue what car has better fuel efficiency, so by making that claim I am intentionally misrepresenting my expertise in that area.
I’ll respond to this and Duros simultaneously, but in short – you’re absolutely right, but I think principle is more important than fact to Glenn’s fans, and expertise is secondary to beliefs.
Then why for the love of noodles is he on television? And on CNN no less?
Love of noodles… you make me laugh out loud daily, sir.
Well I have a theory, and it’s going to sound unbearably snotty, but I’ll take my chances. For much of Glenn’s audience (and much of the conservative voting base in this country) I believe their own morals/principles supercede pragmatic problem-solving and factual data. So if Glenn makes a wild claim about gajillions and bazillions of barrels of oil in ANWR, the inflation of the number is less important to them than the principle that we ought to be using our own resources.
When it’s self-evidently obvious to most data-oriented people that some form of single-payer health care (perhaps mirrored by a much smaller private system, as in Australia) greatly improves the median quality of life in a country, Glenn’s principle-oriented audience says ‘people shouldn’t be paying for other people’s health care,’ and if some wild claims are made in support of this general principle, so be it.
In short, as long as he keeps selling the principles he sells, I don’t think he has to worry about having an audience large enough to draw serious ad revenue.
Jay: “If Glenn Beck makes a mistake on his show and Keith Olbermann makes a mistake on his show, they can be about totally different subjects.”
Duros: “The difference being that Olberman is far more likely to admit it and issue a retraction. Beck, not so much.”
I’ve yet to see any evidence that Olbermann makes the same number of mistakes as Glenn Beck does.