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.

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.

Then why for the love of noodles is he on television? And on CNN no less?

The difference being that Olberman is far more likely to admit it and issue a retraction. Beck, not so much.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.’

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.