Wait... is this saying it was a good speech or a bad speech? Because the whole point of the clip your showing is that Kane was loudly applauding a horrible performance as an act of spite toward the rest of the audience.
Basically what happens is that he marries a lounge singer with fantasies of being an opera diva. He spends millions of his own dollars building an opera house, creating an opera company with all the best singers from around the world, get her the very best vocal coaches, and then make her the star. On opening night, she's terrible and Kane ends up looking like a laughing stock.
At the end of the performance, he makes sure every single person in the audience sees him applauding as loudly as he can (notice the guy right behind him is only doing a sort of golf clap thing).
Never seen Citizen Kane? Get thee to the video store immediately. If you thought Avatar was amazing film-making, you must see what Welles did without CGI.
Speaking of Avatar, I finally went and saw it, at an I-MAX. For those of you who have never indulged in a psychedelic substance (as I did in my mis-spent youth) - that film is as close as you can get.
People--usually progressives--object to Mr. Beck, and criticize his presentation. If they only listened to the content. Unfortunately, his critics are largely godless communists, so they will poo-poo spirituality, and do anything to stop his message of individual liberty and God-given rights, to be spread. I suspect they are critical, but were not present to hear the speech.
So let me see if I have this straight...I am chided on here for lumping you classic liberals into a group with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and now you...cheer on Beck at the CPAC conference? What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
The Citizen Kane reference is a good one though but not for the reason you think. In the opening segment, we see newsreels of describing Kane as a communist and then....as a fascist. How little has changed..
I don't particularly care who said the words in this case, it was a helluva speech.
Well, in the cult of personality that Mark seems to believe in, who said something is just as important as what was actually said. Heck, otherwise you might be like MLK Jr and quote Thomas Jefferson approvingly - and what a terrible thing that would be. – Delete – Edit – Moderate
>>What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
What's *fascinating* is that Marxy can't find a distinction between ignorance and lies, finding only equivalance in the false outcome, and similiarity in the partisan motivation.
but accept anything and everything that comes out of Michael Moore.
Wrong. I have stated many times that his demonization of the word "capitalism" is no different than yours of "socialism." I think his attack on Heston was in very poor taste. Mainly, though, he has a very naive view of the world when it comes to foreign policy--a very large fault of many on the left. He and I would also part ways there as well. Of course, people that invade the wrong country also have a naive view of the world ;)
Hey, no prob if you like Glenn Beck now. I guess that means that any criticisms regarding "known liars" will henceforth be completely hollow. And isn't it interesting that Beck admits not checking facts and Moore devotes pages to it factual back up on his web site?
You know how we keep harping on how ignorant you are?
Continuing to do something you've been corrected on - repeatedly (and if you doubted us, could easily verify on your own - if you knew how) demonstrates that.
What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
No, that's not "interesting", and no, you don't get it.
We call Michael Moore a liar, and then demonstrate what he lied about (and even in a few cases, what he's admitted to lying about - such as getting a interview with Roger Smith, which totally derailed the entire thesis of his first movie.) We don't chide him. We call him out for his outright lies and deception. You, on the other hand, try and defend him even when it's easily proven he's a liar. But that does not mean that automatically Moore's a liar. (It's just the way to bet.)
Kevin praised what Beck said.
The fact you cannot divorce yourself from your constant logical fallacies, even when you're being directly challenged on them is a telling one.
Wrong. I have stated many times that his demonization of the word "capitalism" is no different than yours of "socialism."
I've never, not once, seen that from you. And you demonize the word (what it means, not your "definition of the minute" bullshit) "capitalism" on a regular basis.
UJ, What does that poll mean? Broken? By what measure? Are our elected officials largely disobeying the laws the formed the government (the Constitution)? Or is the design of our government broken (as in throw away the Constitution and start over)? Both seem to be plausible responses to that question, which pretty much makes it meaningless. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
As others have noted, the government is reported to be "broken" on a fairly regular basis.
Every time the Left gets their hands on the levers of power and STILL can't push their agenda through Congress. I'm with George Will on this: Gridlock isn't an American problem, it's an American achievement.
It was a multiple-point jab, at the media Mark worships, the educational system, etc.
The poll came back with 86 %. That's, technically a "majority". But when it's things that the press wants to pump up, they'd use superlatives. Like "Overwhelmingly. 86% Almost everybody polled".
It's indicative of how people can phrase things, like Moore. "Majority..." well, yes. But that's not _really_ what happened. But if you don't click through the headline and _READ THE ACTUAL REPORT_, and synthesize an opinion, then you're not _really_ informed.
When Mark uses Daily Kos as evidence, we should all ignore the source because of what was actually said. But when Glenn Back says something, it doesn't matter what it was cos it's Glenn Beck.
I know and that actually disturbs me. (You cannot imagine how much that pleases me. - Ed.) In watching Beck's speech, I was reminded of speeches given by Jim Jones in the 1970s. When you think of the folks at CPAC within the framework of a cult, it really makes sense. (Interesting, that's how I see the "Progressives." - Ed.) The whole "movement" is one...right down to the fact that they think people who don't think like them (me) are in a cult themselves. (See! - Ed.)
Mistatements of fact...well, we can start with the fact that he says that he doesn't use a teleprompter and speaks from the heart. He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show.
well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer.
I was watching it and in the middle I said, because I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time
Hmmm...
He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Beck stated that "progressives" are going to destroy the Constitution when, in fact, progressive movements helped establish things like the 19th Amendment.
He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce.
Beck states that the ONLY job of the Constitution is to protect us from bad guys when, in fact, it actually reads...
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I can go on if you like.
Every time the Left gets their hands on the levers of power and STILL can't push their agenda through Congress.
Wait. I thought that the "Left" had taken over our lives and were now enjoying their Orwellian-like power. What happened?
He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce.
Exactly *how* much LSD *have* you done, and do you only post here when you're having flashbacks?
Marxajackass:"Mistatements of fact...well, we can start with the fact that he says that he doesn't use a teleprompter and speaks from the heart. He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show."
which is a comment about Kevin's statement:
Kevin:"It was an EXCELLENT speech. And not a teleprompter to be seen, either."
Now, what do we have here?
Ah, yes, we have your usual lack of reading comprehension, as well as your usual refusal and/or inability to simply scroll back up and fact check your own statement. Kevin did NOT state, nor did he imply, that Beck never uses a teleprompter. His statement was that there was not a teleprompter in sight as Beck gave his speech to CPAC. Well, Kevin's statement is factually correctly. Beck did not use a teleprompter to make his speech at CPAC.
This is also your standard hypocrisy, which is one of your defining character traits, as you complain about Kevin misstating a fact even as your statement about him was a misstatement of fact.
Goddamn, little boy, but this Retort of the Moment behavior of yours really fucks you up, doesn't it?
It is also your usual Standard Response #6, in which you deliberately miss the truth of Kevin's statement and lay on yet another straw man.
Finally, you noted that he used a notebook for his speech. The proper response to this is, "Yeah? So?"
Beck referred to a three-ring notebook now and then. We may deduce from this that he carefully planned and thought out his speech (quite unlike your usual comments, liar boy; you ought to take notes here). What is also notable is that, now and then, he pulled an index card from that notebook and read a quote of someone else's words verbatim (you remember the word verbatim, don'tcha, teacher boy?) so as to get the quote right (something you really don't quite understand, dooya teacher boy?).
What Beck did is deliver a speech, as opposed to simply reading a speech off a teleprompter. Now, this is noteworthy on two levels. The first is that our illustrious President, he whom you think so magically about, comes to a full stop if and when the Teleprompter of the United States fails. It has happened, liar boy, several times. We've seen it, and we've pointed it out to you. ("Corpse-man?" Markaphasia? More than once? - Ed.) The second is that you have made sport of the miscorrect unpronounciation of words by President Bush even when he read speeches from a teleprompter, and yet now you simply cannot admit that Beck did a marvelously good job of delivering a speech without using one.
You fool no one, you pathetic little boy. You just keep on making a jackass of yourself.
Marxy:"He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show."
Do you know the difference between a notebook and a teleprompter? Or are those additional words for the Muddled Meanings list? Here's a hint: THEY'RE NOT THE SAME! You can't even use the same way. Teleprompter = word for word. Notebook = outline (at most).
Beck:"well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer."
…and from the article you linked:
Beck:"I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time"
from time to time
from time to time
I don't watch his show. But I have seen clips from it from time to time. I'm sure you have too.
Do you understand how a teleprompter works? It gives a word-for-word script to the speaker. But on those clips I've seen—even the monologues—there is no way that he can normally use a teleprompter. The format just doesn't allow it. When he's arguing with a guest, or just having a discussion with a guest, those discussions just can't be scripted. Period. It's just not possible. And in his monologues, I've seen him change direction on a dime if something occurs to him. Given that he can hold his own in a completely freewheeling debate without stumbling, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that he doesn't need a teleprompter for the monologues.
It's perfectly reasonable for him to use a teleprompter is when he's doing something pre-scripted, such as a public service announcement, or commercial, or something like that. That's normal in television. His point was that he doesn't (can't) rely on a teleprompter for his show. His statement from the page you linked—specifically the from time to time portion—does not contradict his
Do you have E V I D E N C E that he does use a teleprompter for the majority of his show? Or even a significant minority?
"when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
I'm really not sure how to respond to this. If you post a link to what you think is evidence supporting what you write, you should be darn sure that it says what you think it says. Did you really think one of us wouldn't check your link?
Here's what the 2nd spreadsheet on that page ("Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2015") actually says about Reagan's deficits:
In case you couldn't read that correctly, that's a high (or low, if you prefer) of a 6.0% deficit during his third year in office. That's 6 POINT 0. By the end of his term, it was pushed down to a 2.8% deficit. Still not where it should be, but in a totally different galaxy from your claim.
And now we have The Won in office with a supermajority control of Congress (as in total control by the progressives) and here's what we have:
2009-9.9
2010-10.6(estimated)
In fact, I thought it might be instructive to have Excel produce a chart of that data (since the White House was so nice to make it available in that format, and all…)
Now that we have a government under the control of "progressives", we've certainly got spending progressing…
Well in MarkadelphiaWorld, any link that he uses is proof positive his argument is correct - hell I thought this was tied to one of his standard responses.
Anyway, whatever doubt I may have had about his sanity has been completely erased by his latest foray into how his local gas company is abusing him. I rather imagine that within the next few years, particularly if Obamessiah loses his reelection bid, a sad story of a teacher in Minnesota who snapped will be in the news.
"Beck stated that "progressives" are going to destroy the Constitution when, in fact, progressive movements helped establish things like the 19th Amendment."
Since when does a single (arguable) data point counter a full blown trend? Furthermore, that particular statement by Beck was OPINION/CONCLUSION, not fact. If it had already happened, then it would be a fact.
"He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce."
You know, I could have sworn that Beck talked about WHY they're having to lay people off. The memory black hole strikes again.
I have a friend who owns an excavating business. A few weeks ago I asked him how things are going. He has exactly ONEsmall job lined up for the spring. It turns out that companies are AFRAID to invest in improvements/expansions. Quite simply, they would make more money if they could expand their businesses, provided the risk of losing everything was low. The problem is that risk is very, very high right now. We have tax increases on their customers on the horizon (the expiring Bush tax cuts), talks of taxing business owners ($250,000+) and businesses, plus the looming health "plan" that threatens major financial upheavals. So all these businesses are sitting tight and hunkering down to weather the storm.
Quite simply, from the basis of a risk/reward analysis, the storm is "Progressives" in total control of the Federal Government. I guarantee you that my friend would LOVE to have a bunch of people working for him. But because of the "Progressive" policies, he CANNOT. Period.
"He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Teacher boy, the depths of your lack of understanding of the simplest economic matters is revealed by this statement. Ed has shown you your error; he did so while I was busy responding to my own error.
I do not retract my statement
"Goddamn, little boy, but this Retort of the Moment behavior of yours really fucks you up, doesn't it?"
because it is dead on point.
How the hell could you assert that a deficit for one year could be as much as half the Gross Domestic Product for that year? Yes, that thought is implicit in your statement that "Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP". Did you stop to think at all before hitting "Post"?
Here is my challenge to you: The deficit acccumulates each year to become the National Debt. Go find how big the National Debt is compared to the Gross Domestic Product, and then come tell us. Then answer the two questions I asked the previous paragraph.
Okay, not really "mental problem" per say, but certainly not a "just the facts, Ma'am" kinda' guy. 'Course, that's not going to cause any of us to suddenly become AGW believers. We'll just have to disagree with Glenn because he's wrong about this.
But wait, Marxy says we're a "cult"… What kind of "cult" allows its members to disagree with its leadership?
I also noted this from the article:
"Republicans sold the American people out," Beck says. "I've always said I was a Reagan-style conservative. But I don't think Reagan was a real Republican. He just maintained some shared values."
I'm reminded of a story my older brother is fond of telling.
It concerns a man who opened a steak house. The steaks were good and he was successful. It was in a small town, so, as might be expected, the local newspaper asked to interview him for a feature story.
During the interview, the reporter asked him for the secret of his success. He answered, "Well, y'see, we buy good steaks for one dollar each, and we sell 'em for four dollars each, and we're real happy with that three percent."
...and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
This is wonderfully illustrative of the difference between you and me, Mark. To me, if an opinion show host like Beck or Olbermann or whoever openly says he's not fact checking, that's a refusal to babysit his audience. That's a statement that if you want the facts, go fact check it yourself, like grownups do.
To me, that's a positive. To you, it is apparently a negative.
On the other hand if Beck or Olbermann claims to have fact checked something and therefore tries to claim his opinions are indeed facts, I want access to his data and sourcing, and if he declines to provide them that's a negative. We'll see whether or not his providing them is a positive after I check up after him and agree that his "facts" are indeed factual.
You, on the other hand, appear to look to see if it is "fact checked" and then accept or reject such fact checking based on whether or not you agree with the conclusion, rather than actually following the sourcing. In other words, if you like the result and you can say it's been fact checked, it doesn't matter whether or not the facts were actually, you know, factual.
" That's 6 POINT 0."
"Ed has shown you your error"
I was referring to the table in 7.1 which shows the Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP from the years 1940-present. I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part. But I am glad that Ed put up the deficit portion of the historicals. Look at how high the deficit was during WWII and compare it to today. Did I miss our country being consumed by an apocalypse? Note that Regan's deficit more than doubled than it was under Carter. And note how it went steadily down under Clinton. So does that mean that you think that Clinton/Carter was a better president, financially speaking, than Reagan? Since Ed brought up estimated numbers, I see projected deficit reduction over the Obama administration as well. In looking at the debt, however, we see a projected rise to 100 percent.
My point in bringing all this up is not to say that the rise in deficit or debt under President Obama is necessarily a good thing. It's to say that we've had it before (WWII) and we survived. And Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit high and yet he is considered by Glenn Beck to be A-OK. So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
Again, Ed..missing the point. I'm not saying that the federal debt, projected or otherwise, is a good or bad thing. I am simply stating that we had it much higher in WWII and we did not have an economic apocalypse. Did we have one, Ed, yes or no?
In addition, Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit quite high. Why, then, does Beck rip Obama for both debt and deficit when his hero did the same thing?
"So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
Yet again, you spout your OPINION and state it as a fact. Your statement, and Beck's statement, can be only be your respective opinions, because both are predictions about the future. Predictions about the future are not facts, they are opinions.
Now, guess what the difference is between Beck's opinion and yours, deficit boy. Y'see, Beck has credibility, and you don't.
Look at how high the deficit was during WWII and compare it to today. Did I miss our country being consumed by an apocalypse?
Yes, a world war where we rationed everything is exactly the same as now. No problem.
Note that Regan's deficit more than doubled than it was under Carter. And note how it went steadily down under Clinton. So does that mean that you think that Clinton [Strike thru]Carter [/strike] was a better president, financially speaking, than Reagan?
This is where your lack of understanding of HOW THINGS WORK - and your inability to learn factors in.
We've discussed the Clinton finances before. How in large part they were so "Sound" because he was spending the "peace dividend" and divesting in the military - largely with big projects like logistics, which had implications when we had to deal with Afghanistan *and* besiege Iraq plus everything else.
Carter... I'd have to delve into that more than it's worth to try and explain to you the whole 'malaise' behind Carter - and at the end, you still wouldn't understand.
I'm glad you can read a graph. But there's context that you're (intentionally) leaving out.
And orders of MAGNITUDE that you're now glossing over.
"I was referring to the table in 7.1 which shows the Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP from the years 1940-present. I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part."
Mercy me, an admission of significant error by you. That is a first, as far as I know.
But, is it believable?
Your statement was:
"... he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Now, subsutite the word debts for the word deficits and read it again:
"... he failed to mention that Reagan ran record debts of over 50 percent of GDP."
That is a quite bizarre statement, both grammatically and economically. There is only one debt, and it grows over time.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you were thinking of the debt, but I also believe you weren't thinking.
"Why, then, does Beck rip Obama for both debt and deficit when his hero did the same thing?"
Reagan's policies cut tax rates by a whopping large amount, fostered a very nice economic recovery from a recession, and left the economy better off than he found it. Obama's policies continue to bury the economic anchor even deeper, fostering uncertanties of the future that cause businesses to not risk expanding, and the prospect is more and more and more borrowing at hugely unprecedented levels, both in real dollars and in terms of the GDP.
As an aside, GDP is a weak number to use. It's based on a number of assumptions that play out differently at different times, like factoring in cleanup from natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina produced a lot of economic activity, but it was activity of the broken window variety and not actual economic growth.
It is, at best, a quick shorthand account of perceived economic activity that the government likes to use and not something solid, like the Avogadro constant.
"By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. By regarding the economy as something that exists in the real world, mainstream economists reach a bizarre conclusion that what is good for individuals might not be good for the economy, and vice versa. Since the economy cannot have a life of its own without individuals, obviously what is good for individuals cannot be bad for the economy.
The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption.
...
We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world. Notwithstanding this, the GDP framework is in big demand by governments and central bank officials since it provides justification for their interference with businesses. It also provides an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials." -- Frank Shostak
Plus, when you add in a monetary system that is at best a pale reflection of actual market price signals, you end up with a skewed measurement. And one that ends up creating false correlations in time.
I agree with this point but only from the view of staying competitive in the world. We had to do this for reasons of national security. Reagan fostered a desperately needed surge in innovation. The downside to all of this was further stratification of our culture (the haves and have nots) but we may not have had a culture had we gone the other route.
Obama's policies continue to bury the economic anchor even deeper, fostering uncertanties of the future that cause businesses to not risk expanding, and the prospect is more and more and more borrowing at hugely unprecedented levels, both in real dollars and in terms of the GDP.
Yeah, the banks not lending and the financial services sector still trading in the high risk instruments that they always have been have nothing to do with it. I remember being told that Obama was going to destroy the stock market. Now, it's back above 10K. Ah, the cult...
Russell, good points. That is another reason why I don't listen to the cult when they tell me that we are going to experience an economic apocalypse.
Teacher boy, you still jump to conclusions, don't you?
You probably won't believe this, but it's true: The only time I have ever heard Beck speak is that CPAC speech. I know almost nothing about him. I have never otherwise read what he has written and I have never watched him on television.
Cult, you say?
To quote Kevin, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
The man made SENSE in that speech. He has not proved himself to be a jackass with no credibility, but you have, over and over and over again. You fool no one.
Me:"... left the economy better off than he found it ..."
Markxafoolsomemore:"I agree with this point but only from the view of staying competitive in the world."
You just cannot admit that someone else is correct can you? Instead, you vomit up in the vein of, "Well, you're right, but for the wrong reasons." That won't fool a first grade teacher, little boy.
Reagan left office with tax rates lower but with tax revenues higher and the economy humming along much better than when he took office. You'd choke on your own spittle before you would admit that, wouldn't you?
Here's a simple question, cult boy: How badly will Obama have to fail before you will admit he's failed at all?
You talk about cults. Well, here is the definition that applies:
cult
n.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing
That describes YOU, liberal boy, regarding Obama. But you'll never admit it, will you?
and at the end, you still wouldn't understand. Ditto.
Ditto?
Ditto?
Definitions of ditto on the Web:
repeat an action or statement; "The next speaker dittoed her argument"ditto mark: a mark used to indicate the word above it should be repeated Ah, the cult....
So I tell you you wouldn't understand, and to "refute" me, you misuse the word "ditto"? Because "Ah, the cult" makes no sense as a retort to that.
Unless of course I was right in the first place.
And you want to tell *us* we're not able to judge the educational system?
Especially since I'VE NEVER SEEN MORE THAN 15 SECONDS OF GLEN BECK. Haven't even seen the CPAC speech!
But you - oh, you've proven your absolute incompetence many times over. And your membership in a number of cults, including most obviously the Cargo Cult.
You can't understand basic English. Basic logic. You can't even keep your same argument consistent IN THE SAME SENTENCE quite often - and expanding your context to a paragraph finds you refuting yourself on a regular basis.
And it's "the cult" to think that you wouldn't understand a concept of inflation/deflation/stagnation and the resulting contextual issues around the numbers for Carter?
Hell, Mark, *I* don't understand that and it's highly possible I'm entirely wrong about the whole thing and I could get schooled by someone who understands it better. The difference is I don't prove my inability to do anything than cut and paste and - yes - FOLLOW A CULT. You repeat the cultish sayings without regard to how they sound, what the logic is, and have absolutely no problem repeating conflicting mantras.
Sorry, Kevin. I meant when you said "fuck him and the horse he rode in on." I say that as I cannot imagine a horse that would willingly bear him, the poor brute has suffered enough.
Let's put a fine spin on it, shall we, teacher boy?
Ed issued a challenge to you, viz:
"Can you point to any misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)"
A definition is in order. You remember definitions, from the dictionary, right? This one is:
misstatement
tr. v.
To state wrongly or falsely
Your response to Ed's challenge was, in part:
"He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Epic failure, teacher boy:
Failure #1: Beck not mentioning anything at all about Reagan and deficits (or debts) is not a misstatement of fact. Now read this carefully: To not state something is not to state something wrongly or falsely. The former is an absence of statement, the latter is a statement in error. And to think a teacher doesn't understand the difference ...
Failure #2: Your statement that "Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP" is itself a misstatement of fact, as it is false.
After some (ahem) discussion, in which the error of your statement was clearly shown, you clarified your statement with:
"I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part."
This mitigates your failure #2, to the extent it is real, but it in no way mitigates your failure #1.
Then you stated further:
"My point in bringing all this up is not to say that the rise in deficit or debt under President Obama is necessarily a good thing. It's to say that we've had it before (WWII) and we survived. And Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit high and yet he is considered by Glenn Beck to be A-OK. So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
Epic failure again, teacher boy.
Failure #3: Beck's statement that Obama's debt (it's curious that you attribute it to Obama, isn't it?) will bring about an "economic apocalypse" is not a statement of fact. It is a prediction about the future, thus it might or might not be correct; it is a statement of OPINION, not a statement of fact. Ed specifically challenged you to to point out "misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)" Yet again, a teacher doesn't understand the difference ...
Now, what else did you come up with regarding "misstatements of fact" in Beck's speech?
Well, lessee now ...
You claim that he uses teleprompters now and then, and admits it. That's really important isn't it? His performance without a teleprompter in that speech was impressive, but it has no bearing on the content of the speech itself.
And, you make this astounding statement:
"Beck states that the ONLY job of the Constitution is to protect us from bad guys ..."
Teacher boy, the Constitution does not have a job. Regardless of what Beck said or meant by his actual statement, a bit of clear thinking would do you a lot of good.
So, you haven't found any "misstatements of fact" that really have any significance, have you? Golly. Beck gave a hell of speech, then, didn't he?
Now, what is the nature of your responses otherwise? Nothing surprising, just your Standard Response #5, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet more straw men about cults, and your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, in which you complain of cult behavior in others when you exhibit it yourself in spades,and have for several years.
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced a new report estimating that the $862 billion stimulus has thus far saved or created 1.5 million jobs. Yet the CBO’s calculations are not based on actually observing the economy’s recent performance. Rather, they used an economic model that was programmed to assume that stimulus spending automatically creates jobs — thus guaranteeing their result.
Logicians call this the begging-the-question fallacy. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove."
"Russell, good points. That is another reason why I don't listen to the cult when they tell me that we are going to experience an economic apocalypse."
Gah, did you read what I wrote? Did you follow the single link in there? I'm guessing no.
To recap my recap: The GDP is a flawed model. The model doesn't match the real world market. The government uses the GDP to justify its meddling.
Furthermore, the meddling is based on Keynesian monetary policies (Neo-Keynesian, sure, but it still has the same basic problems as classical). They will use this flawed model to increase meddling. Keynesian policies lead to economic apocalypses.
If you use GDP, use it to compare apples to apples, or economic models that are close enough to be compared. Use it based on percentages and rates of change. It's not a good number, but it works well enough for simple comparisons. Sure, it's a shell game, but you have an indication of how much you are going to get screwed over. Since the government is gaming the GDP and they are obscuring the amount of debt we are actually in, so the answer would be 'a lot'.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-watched-glenn-becks-cpac-speech.html (67 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
You're constipated and it gave you the clap???
That was a well-spent hour.
Anybody think the message got through to some folks who needed it?
Doubtful. They seem heavily insulated against reality.
Wait... is this saying it was a good speech or a bad speech? Because the whole point of the clip your showing is that Kane was loudly applauding a horrible performance as an act of spite toward the rest of the audience.
I'll confess, I've never seen Citizen Kane so I didn't know that.
It was an EXCELLENT speech.
And not a teleprompter to be seen, either.
Basically what happens is that he marries a lounge singer with fantasies of being an opera diva. He spends millions of his own dollars building an opera house, creating an opera company with all the best singers from around the world, get her the very best vocal coaches, and then make her the star. On opening night, she's terrible and Kane ends up looking like a laughing stock.
At the end of the performance, he makes sure every single person in the audience sees him applauding as loudly as he can (notice the guy right behind him is only doing a sort of golf clap thing).
Never seen Citizen Kane? Get thee to the video store immediately. If you thought Avatar was amazing film-making, you must see what Welles did without CGI.
Speaking of Avatar, I finally went and saw it, at an I-MAX. For those of you who have never indulged in a psychedelic substance (as I did in my mis-spent youth) - that film is as close as you can get.
People--usually progressives--object to Mr. Beck, and criticize his presentation. If they only listened to the content. Unfortunately, his critics are largely godless communists, so they will poo-poo spirituality, and do anything to stop his message of individual liberty and God-given rights, to be spread. I suspect they are critical, but were not present to hear the speech.
So let me see if I have this straight...I am chided on here for lumping you classic liberals into a group with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and now you...cheer on Beck at the CPAC conference? What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
The Citizen Kane reference is a good one though but not for the reason you think. In the opening segment, we see newsreels of describing Kane as a communist and then....as a fascist. How little has changed..
Pot? Meet kettle.
You reject anything and everything that comes out of Michelle Malkin, but accept anything and everything that comes out of Michael Moore.
I don't particularly care who said the words in this case, it was a helluva speech.
I don't particularly care who said the words in this case, it was a helluva speech.
Well, in the cult of personality that Mark seems to believe in, who said something is just as important as what was actually said. Heck, otherwise you might be like MLK Jr and quote Thomas Jefferson approvingly - and what a terrible thing that would be.
– Delete – Edit – Moderate
>>What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
What's *fascinating* is that Marxy can't find a distinction between ignorance and lies, finding only equivalance in the false outcome, and similiarity in the partisan motivation.
"How little has changed.."
Yup. You ignored the contents of the speech. Kevin is right; it was a magnificent speech. I can see how you might want to ignore it.
One line in that speech reminds me of you, sack boy: "They're running out of names!"
He wouldn't know how to use a fact even if it came with instructions and he sure can't contextualize a fact even if he does find one.
but accept anything and everything that comes out of Michael Moore.
Wrong. I have stated many times that his demonization of the word "capitalism" is no different than yours of "socialism." I think his attack on Heston was in very poor taste. Mainly, though, he has a very naive view of the world when it comes to foreign policy--a very large fault of many on the left. He and I would also part ways there as well. Of course, people that invade the wrong country also have a naive view of the world ;)
Hey, no prob if you like Glenn Beck now. I guess that means that any criticisms regarding "known liars" will henceforth be completely hollow. And isn't it interesting that Beck admits not checking facts and Moore devotes pages to it factual back up on his web site?
"Moore devotes pages to it factual back up on his web site?"
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
"I guess that means that any criticisms regarding "known liars" will henceforth be completely hollow."
Not even in your best wet dreams, liar boy.
George Will gave a pretty good sequel:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/21/video-best-speech-at-cpac-delivered-by-george-will/
For me, the best thought he delivered was:
"Ladies and Gentlement, American gridlock is an achievement. ... We have far more to fear from swift than from torpid government."
I agree. Glenn Beck's speech was good, but George Will's was better.
Mark:
You know how we keep harping on how ignorant you are?
Continuing to do something you've been corrected on - repeatedly (and if you doubted us, could easily verify on your own - if you knew how) demonstrates that.
What's more interesting is you chide someone like Michael Moore for being a "liar" and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
No, that's not "interesting", and no, you don't get it.
We call Michael Moore a liar, and then demonstrate what he lied about (and even in a few cases, what he's admitted to lying about - such as getting a interview with Roger Smith, which totally derailed the entire thesis of his first movie.) We don't chide him. We call him out for his outright lies and deception. You, on the other hand, try and defend him even when it's easily proven he's a liar. But that does not mean that automatically Moore's a liar. (It's just the way to bet.)
Kevin praised what Beck said.
The fact you cannot divorce yourself from your constant logical fallacies, even when you're being directly challenged on them is a telling one.
Wrong. I have stated many times that his demonization of the word "capitalism" is no different than yours of "socialism."
I've never, not once, seen that from you. And you demonize the word (what it means, not your "definition of the minute" bullshit) "capitalism" on a regular basis.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/94287/
"NN POLL: Majority Think Government Is Broken. By “majority,” they mean “86 percent.”
Yeah, nothing to see here, move along.
And isn't it interesting that Beck admits not checking facts and Moore devotes pages to it factual back up on his web site?
Nope. And we've dealt with this before with you. It wasn't "interesting" then, either.
Can you walk into a bank and walk out with a rifle, Mark? Can you?
That would be "interesting" - if you answered that instead of emulating Brave Sir Robin. (Again.)
You keep using words you don't mean, and then get mad when we have the audacity to REMEMBER THAT YOU CAN'T LEARN WHAT WORDS MEAN.
UJ, What does that poll mean? Broken? By what measure? Are our elected officials largely disobeying the laws the formed the government (the Constitution)? Or is the design of our government broken (as in throw away the Constitution and start over)? Both seem to be plausible responses to that question, which pretty much makes it meaningless. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.
As others have noted, the government is reported to be "broken" on a fairly regular basis.
Every time the Left gets their hands on the levers of power and STILL can't push their agenda through Congress. I'm with George Will on this: Gridlock isn't an American problem, it's an American achievement.
Kevin,
Do you have a link to that speech?
You can find it on Beck's web site at http://www.glenbeck.com/
Nevermind. Found it.
"Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all."
Kevin expressed admiration of the speech. Can you point to any misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)
Ed:
It was a multiple-point jab, at the media Mark worships, the educational system, etc.
The poll came back with 86 %. That's, technically a "majority". But when it's things that the press wants to pump up, they'd use superlatives. Like "Overwhelmingly. 86% Almost everybody polled".
It's indicative of how people can phrase things, like Moore. "Majority..." well, yes. But that's not _really_ what happened. But if you don't click through the headline and _READ THE ACTUAL REPORT_, and synthesize an opinion, then you're not _really_ informed.
So there you have it folks.
When Mark uses Daily Kos as evidence, we should all ignore the source because of what was actually said. But when Glenn Back says something, it doesn't matter what it was cos it's Glenn Beck.
'Nuff said. I'm sad to say this is no surprise.
It's called hypocrisy.
"That's what he does! It's all he does! You can't stop him!" -- Kyle Reese, from the MOOVEE
...and Moore devotes pages to it factual back up on his web site?
Ah yes, the ever popular "but it was thoroughly fact-checked!". How's that workin out for the IPCC, by the way?
But Grumpy, the fact check section of his website contains links to web pages. If it is on the internet, it must be true.
Kevin expressed admiration of the speech.
I know and that actually disturbs me. (You cannot imagine how much that pleases me. - Ed.) In watching Beck's speech, I was reminded of speeches given by Jim Jones in the 1970s. When you think of the folks at CPAC within the framework of a cult, it really makes sense. (Interesting, that's how I see the "Progressives." - Ed.) The whole "movement" is one...right down to the fact that they think people who don't think like them (me) are in a cult themselves. (See! - Ed.)
Mistatements of fact...well, we can start with the fact that he says that he doesn't use a teleprompter and speaks from the heart. He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/23188/
well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer.
I was watching it and in the middle I said, because I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time
Hmmm...
He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Beck stated that "progressives" are going to destroy the Constitution when, in fact, progressive movements helped establish things like the 19th Amendment.
He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce.
Beck states that the ONLY job of the Constitution is to protect us from bad guys when, in fact, it actually reads...
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I can go on if you like.
Every time the Left gets their hands on the levers of power and STILL can't push their agenda through Congress.
Wait. I thought that the "Left" had taken over our lives and were now enjoying their Orwellian-like power. What happened?
"I can go on if you like."
You can GO, and we'd like.
"Wait. I thought that the "Left" had taken over our lives and were now enjoying their Orwellian-like power. What happened?"
Yet again, it's your Standard Response #6, with a double helping of hyperbole. Same old shit, different day.
He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce.
Exactly *how* much LSD *have* you done, and do you only post here when you're having flashbacks?
I know people who have done a LOT of LSD; even when tripping they are more coherent and attached to reality than Markadelphia is.
Marxajackass: "Mistatements of fact...well, we can start with the fact that he says that he doesn't use a teleprompter and speaks from the heart. He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show."
which is a comment about Kevin's statement:
Kevin: "It was an EXCELLENT speech. And not a teleprompter to be seen, either."
Now, what do we have here?
Ah, yes, we have your usual lack of reading comprehension, as well as your usual refusal and/or inability to simply scroll back up and fact check your own statement. Kevin did NOT state, nor did he imply, that Beck never uses a teleprompter. His statement was that there was not a teleprompter in sight as Beck gave his speech to CPAC. Well, Kevin's statement is factually correctly. Beck did not use a teleprompter to make his speech at CPAC.
This is also your standard hypocrisy, which is one of your defining character traits, as you complain about Kevin misstating a fact even as your statement about him was a misstatement of fact.
Goddamn, little boy, but this Retort of the Moment behavior of yours really fucks you up, doesn't it?
It is also your usual Standard Response #6, in which you deliberately miss the truth of Kevin's statement and lay on yet another straw man.
Finally, you noted that he used a notebook for his speech. The proper response to this is, "Yeah? So?"
Beck referred to a three-ring notebook now and then. We may deduce from this that he carefully planned and thought out his speech (quite unlike your usual comments, liar boy; you ought to take notes here). What is also notable is that, now and then, he pulled an index card from that notebook and read a quote of someone else's words verbatim (you remember the word verbatim, don'tcha, teacher boy?) so as to get the quote right (something you really don't quite understand, dooya teacher boy?).
What Beck did is deliver a speech, as opposed to simply reading a speech off a teleprompter. Now, this is noteworthy on two levels. The first is that our illustrious President, he whom you think so magically about, comes to a full stop if and when the Teleprompter of the United States fails. It has happened, liar boy, several times. We've seen it, and we've pointed it out to you. ("Corpse-man?" Markaphasia? More than once? - Ed.) The second is that you have made sport of the miscorrect unpronounciation of words by President Bush even when he read speeches from a teleprompter, and yet now you simply cannot admit that Beck did a marvelously good job of delivering a speech without using one.
You fool no one, you pathetic little boy. You just keep on making a jackass of yourself.
DJ, I challenged him to fact check Beck, not Kevin. That's what he did. He got the facts wrong (see my other post), but he did get the person right.
"DJ, I challenged him to fact check Beck, not Kevin. That's what he did. He got the facts wrong (see my other post), but he did get the person right."
Ed, your challenge to him was (emphasis added):
"Kevin expressed admiration of the speech. Can you point to any misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)"
Yup. You're right, I missed that.
Markadelphia, I apologize.
I read throught these comments, and I saw Ed's challenge, but I missed what your comment was in response to. Mea maxima culpa.
WaitAMinit… I thought we were the ones that never admitted being wrong!
Oh well, I guess Marxy is wrong again. :-E
Marxy: "He used a notebook for his speech and uses a teleprompter on his show."
Do you know the difference between a notebook and a teleprompter? Or are those additional words for the Muddled Meanings list? Here's a hint: THEY'RE NOT THE SAME! You can't even use the same way. Teleprompter = word for word. Notebook = outline (at most).
Beck: "well, I got news for you, gang. I do three hours a day without a TelePrompTer."
…and from the article you linked:
Beck: "I know a little bit about TelePrompTers because on television I do use a TelePrompTer from time to time"
from time to time
from time to time
I don't watch his show. But I have seen clips from it from time to time. I'm sure you have too.
Do you understand how a teleprompter works? It gives a word-for-word script to the speaker. But on those clips I've seen—even the monologues—there is no way that he can normally use a teleprompter. The format just doesn't allow it. When he's arguing with a guest, or just having a discussion with a guest, those discussions just can't be scripted. Period. It's just not possible. And in his monologues, I've seen him change direction on a dime if something occurs to him. Given that he can hold his own in a completely freewheeling debate without stumbling, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that he doesn't need a teleprompter for the monologues.
It's perfectly reasonable for him to use a teleprompter is when he's doing something pre-scripted, such as a public service announcement, or commercial, or something like that. That's normal in television. His point was that he doesn't (can't) rely on a teleprompter for his show. His statement from the page you linked—specifically the from time to time portion—does not contradict his
Do you have E V I D E N C E that he does use a teleprompter for the majority of his show? Or even a significant minority?
"when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
I'm really not sure how to respond to this. If you post a link to what you think is evidence supporting what you write, you should be darn sure that it says what you think it says. Did you really think one of us wouldn't check your link?
Here's what the 2nd spreadsheet on that page ("Table 1.2—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) as Percentages of GDP: 1930–2015") actually says about Reagan's deficits:
1981 -2.6
1982 -4.0
1983 -6.0
1984 -4.8
1985 -5.1
1986 -5.0
1987 -3.2
1988 -3.1
1989 -2.8
In case you couldn't read that correctly, that's a high (or low, if you prefer) of a 6.0% deficit during his third year in office. That's 6 POINT 0. By the end of his term, it was pushed down to a 2.8% deficit. Still not where it should be, but in a totally different galaxy from your claim.
And now we have The Won in office with a supermajority control of Congress (as in total control by the progressives) and here's what we have:
2009 -9.9
2010 -10.6 (estimated)
In fact, I thought it might be instructive to have Excel produce a chart of that data (since the White House was so nice to make it available in that format, and all…)
Now that we have a government under the control of "progressives", we've certainly got spending progressing…
Well in MarkadelphiaWorld, any link that he uses is proof positive his argument is correct - hell I thought this was tied to one of his standard responses.
Anyway, whatever doubt I may have had about his sanity has been completely erased by his latest foray into how his local gas company is abusing him. I rather imagine that within the next few years, particularly if Obamessiah loses his reelection bid, a sad story of a teacher in Minnesota who snapped will be in the news.
"Beck stated that "progressives" are going to destroy the Constitution when, in fact, progressive movements helped establish things like the 19th Amendment."
Since when does a single (arguable) data point counter a full blown trend? Furthermore, that particular statement by Beck was OPINION/CONCLUSION, not fact. If it had already happened, then it would be a fact.
"He also state that businesses were trying to save jobs when the majority of the 8 million people that have lost their jobs in the last year have been because corporations have been cutting back their workforce."
You know, I could have sworn that Beck talked about WHY they're having to lay people off. The memory black hole strikes again.
I have a friend who owns an excavating business. A few weeks ago I asked him how things are going. He has exactly ONE small job lined up for the spring. It turns out that companies are AFRAID to invest in improvements/expansions. Quite simply, they would make more money if they could expand their businesses, provided the risk of losing everything was low. The problem is that risk is very, very high right now. We have tax increases on their customers on the horizon (the expiring Bush tax cuts), talks of taxing business owners ($250,000+) and businesses, plus the looming health "plan" that threatens major financial upheavals. So all these businesses are sitting tight and hunkering down to weather the storm.
Quite simply, from the basis of a risk/reward analysis, the storm is "Progressives" in total control of the Federal Government. I guarantee you that my friend would LOVE to have a bunch of people working for him. But because of the "Progressive" policies, he CANNOT. Period.
Now, let's look at a stand-alone comment:
"He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Teacher boy, the depths of your lack of understanding of the simplest economic matters is revealed by this statement. Ed has shown you your error; he did so while I was busy responding to my own error.
I do not retract my statement
"Goddamn, little boy, but this Retort of the Moment behavior of yours really fucks you up, doesn't it?"
because it is dead on point.
How the hell could you assert that a deficit for one year could be as much as half the Gross Domestic Product for that year? Yes, that thought is implicit in your statement that "Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP". Did you stop to think at all before hitting "Post"?
Here is my challenge to you: The deficit acccumulates each year to become the National Debt. Go find how big the National Debt is compared to the Gross Domestic Product, and then come tell us. Then answer the two questions I asked the previous paragraph.
I LOVE you guys! (In a completely platonic way!)
Apparently Beck is having some mental problems:
Meet kinder, gentler Glenn Beck: New 'global warming' believer
Okay, not really "mental problem" per say, but certainly not a "just the facts, Ma'am" kinda' guy. 'Course, that's not going to cause any of us to suddenly become AGW believers. We'll just have to disagree with Glenn because he's wrong about this.
But wait, Marxy says we're a "cult"… What kind of "cult" allows its members to disagree with its leadership?
I also noted this from the article:
"Republicans sold the American people out," Beck says. "I've always said I was a Reagan-style conservative. But I don't think Reagan was a real Republican. He just maintained some shared values."
I'm reminded of a story my older brother is fond of telling.
It concerns a man who opened a steak house. The steaks were good and he was successful. It was in a small town, so, as might be expected, the local newspaper asked to interview him for a feature story.
During the interview, the reporter asked him for the secret of his success. He answered, "Well, y'see, we buy good steaks for one dollar each, and we sell 'em for four dollars each, and we're real happy with that three percent."
...and yet accept Beck, a man who has admitted to not checking facts at all.
This is wonderfully illustrative of the difference between you and me, Mark. To me, if an opinion show host like Beck or Olbermann or whoever openly says he's not fact checking, that's a refusal to babysit his audience. That's a statement that if you want the facts, go fact check it yourself, like grownups do.
To me, that's a positive. To you, it is apparently a negative.
On the other hand if Beck or Olbermann claims to have fact checked something and therefore tries to claim his opinions are indeed facts, I want access to his data and sourcing, and if he declines to provide them that's a negative. We'll see whether or not his providing them is a positive after I check up after him and agree that his "facts" are indeed factual.
You, on the other hand, appear to look to see if it is "fact checked" and then accept or reject such fact checking based on whether or not you agree with the conclusion, rather than actually following the sourcing. In other words, if you like the result and you can say it's been fact checked, it doesn't matter whether or not the facts were actually, you know, factual.
How's that workin out for the IPCC again?
" That's 6 POINT 0."
"Ed has shown you your error"
I was referring to the table in 7.1 which shows the Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP from the years 1940-present. I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part. But I am glad that Ed put up the deficit portion of the historicals. Look at how high the deficit was during WWII and compare it to today. Did I miss our country being consumed by an apocalypse? Note that Regan's deficit more than doubled than it was under Carter. And note how it went steadily down under Clinton. So does that mean that you think that Clinton/Carter was a better president, financially speaking, than Reagan? Since Ed brought up estimated numbers, I see projected deficit reduction over the Obama administration as well. In looking at the debt, however, we see a projected rise to 100 percent.
My point in bringing all this up is not to say that the rise in deficit or debt under President Obama is necessarily a good thing. It's to say that we've had it before (WWII) and we survived. And Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit high and yet he is considered by Glenn Beck to be A-OK. So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
And, since we can do images now...
What a wonderfully selective chart. Fortunately, I had already generated a complete chart.
Wait, what's that spike at the end?
More analysis to follow when I have time.
Again, Ed..missing the point. I'm not saying that the federal debt, projected or otherwise, is a good or bad thing. I am simply stating that we had it much higher in WWII and we did not have an economic apocalypse. Did we have one, Ed, yes or no?
In addition, Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit quite high. Why, then, does Beck rip Obama for both debt and deficit when his hero did the same thing?
"So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
Yet again, you spout your OPINION and state it as a fact. Your statement, and Beck's statement, can be only be your respective opinions, because both are predictions about the future. Predictions about the future are not facts, they are opinions.
Now, guess what the difference is between Beck's opinion and yours, deficit boy. Y'see, Beck has credibility, and you don't.
Mark:
I thought you "had to run"?
Look at how high the deficit was during WWII and compare it to today. Did I miss our country being consumed by an apocalypse?
Yes, a world war where we rationed everything is exactly the same as now. No problem.
Note that Regan's deficit more than doubled than it was under Carter. And note how it went steadily down under Clinton. So does that mean that you think that Clinton [Strike thru]Carter [/strike] was a better president, financially speaking, than Reagan?
This is where your lack of understanding of HOW THINGS WORK - and your inability to learn factors in.
We've discussed the Clinton finances before. How in large part they were so "Sound" because he was spending the "peace dividend" and divesting in the military - largely with big projects like logistics, which had implications when we had to deal with Afghanistan *and* besiege Iraq plus everything else.
Carter... I'd have to delve into that more than it's worth to try and explain to you the whole 'malaise' behind Carter - and at the end, you still wouldn't understand.
I'm glad you can read a graph. But there's context that you're (intentionally) leaving out.
And orders of MAGNITUDE that you're now glossing over.
"I was referring to the table in 7.1 which shows the Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP from the years 1940-present. I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part."
Mercy me, an admission of significant error by you. That is a first, as far as I know.
But, is it believable?
Your statement was:
"... he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Now, subsutite the word debts for the word deficits and read it again:
"... he failed to mention that Reagan ran record debts of over 50 percent of GDP."
That is a quite bizarre statement, both grammatically and economically. There is only one debt, and it grows over time.
But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I believe you were thinking of the debt, but I also believe you weren't thinking.
"Why, then, does Beck rip Obama for both debt and deficit when his hero did the same thing?"
Reagan's policies cut tax rates by a whopping large amount, fostered a very nice economic recovery from a recession, and left the economy better off than he found it. Obama's policies continue to bury the economic anchor even deeper, fostering uncertanties of the future that cause businesses to not risk expanding, and the prospect is more and more and more borrowing at hugely unprecedented levels, both in real dollars and in terms of the GDP.
As an aside, GDP is a weak number to use. It's based on a number of assumptions that play out differently at different times, like factoring in cleanup from natural disasters. Hurricane Katrina produced a lot of economic activity, but it was activity of the broken window variety and not actual economic growth.
It is, at best, a quick shorthand account of perceived economic activity that the government likes to use and not something solid, like the Avogadro constant.
"By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. By regarding the economy as something that exists in the real world, mainstream economists reach a bizarre conclusion that what is good for individuals might not be good for the economy, and vice versa. Since the economy cannot have a life of its own without individuals, obviously what is good for individuals cannot be bad for the economy.
The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption.
...
We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world. Notwithstanding this, the GDP framework is in big demand by governments and central bank officials since it provides justification for their interference with businesses. It also provides an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials." -- Frank Shostak
Plus, when you add in a monetary system that is at best a pale reflection of actual market price signals, you end up with a skewed measurement. And one that ends up creating false correlations in time.
Beck has credibility
Ah, the cult....
and at the end, you still wouldn't understand.
Ditto.
left the economy better off than he found it
I agree with this point but only from the view of staying competitive in the world. We had to do this for reasons of national security. Reagan fostered a desperately needed surge in innovation. The downside to all of this was further stratification of our culture (the haves and have nots) but we may not have had a culture had we gone the other route.
Obama's policies continue to bury the economic anchor even deeper, fostering uncertanties of the future that cause businesses to not risk expanding, and the prospect is more and more and more borrowing at hugely unprecedented levels, both in real dollars and in terms of the GDP.
Yeah, the banks not lending and the financial services sector still trading in the high risk instruments that they always have been have nothing to do with it. I remember being told that Obama was going to destroy the stock market. Now, it's back above 10K. Ah, the cult...
Russell, good points. That is another reason why I don't listen to the cult when they tell me that we are going to experience an economic apocalypse.
Me: "Beck has credibility"
Marxapredicablefool: "Ah, the cult...."
Teacher boy, you still jump to conclusions, don't you?
You probably won't believe this, but it's true: The only time I have ever heard Beck speak is that CPAC speech. I know almost nothing about him. I have never otherwise read what he has written and I have never watched him on television.
Cult, you say?
To quote Kevin, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on."
The man made SENSE in that speech. He has not proved himself to be a jackass with no credibility, but you have, over and over and over again. You fool no one.
Me: "... left the economy better off than he found it ..."
Markxafoolsomemore: "I agree with this point but only from the view of staying competitive in the world."
You just cannot admit that someone else is correct can you? Instead, you vomit up in the vein of, "Well, you're right, but for the wrong reasons." That won't fool a first grade teacher, little boy.
Reagan left office with tax rates lower but with tax revenues higher and the economy humming along much better than when he took office. You'd choke on your own spittle before you would admit that, wouldn't you?
Here's a simple question, cult boy: How badly will Obama have to fail before you will admit he's failed at all?
You talk about cults. Well, here is the definition that applies:
cult
n.
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing
That describes YOU, liberal boy, regarding Obama. But you'll never admit it, will you?
Here's another piece of the puzzle:
A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
More to come as I have time.
and at the end, you still wouldn't understand.
Ditto.
Ditto?
Ditto?
Definitions of ditto on the Web:
repeat an action or statement; "The next speaker dittoed her argument"ditto mark: a mark used to indicate the word above it should be repeated Ah, the cult....
So I tell you you wouldn't understand, and to "refute" me, you misuse the word "ditto"? Because "Ah, the cult" makes no sense as a retort to that.
Unless of course I was right in the first place.
And you want to tell *us* we're not able to judge the educational system?
*sigh*
Echo sucks. So it kinda-quasi-embedded the HTML that it then stripped out (from the cut and paste).
Luckily, I planned for it failing.
Anyway. Ditto makes NO SENSE AS A REPLY THERE.
Especially since I'VE NEVER SEEN MORE THAN 15 SECONDS OF GLEN BECK. Haven't even seen the CPAC speech!
But you - oh, you've proven your absolute incompetence many times over. And your membership in a number of cults, including most obviously the Cargo Cult.
You can't understand basic English. Basic logic. You can't even keep your same argument consistent IN THE SAME SENTENCE quite often - and expanding your context to a paragraph finds you refuting yourself on a regular basis.
And it's "the cult" to think that you wouldn't understand a concept of inflation/deflation/stagnation and the resulting contextual issues around the numbers for Carter?
Hell, Mark, *I* don't understand that and it's highly possible I'm entirely wrong about the whole thing and I could get schooled by someone who understands it better. The difference is I don't prove my inability to do anything than cut and paste and - yes - FOLLOW A CULT. You repeat the cultish sayings without regard to how they sound, what the logic is, and have absolutely no problem repeating conflicting mantras.
Ahem. Ditto. Verbatim.
Again I must disagree (again, with the utmost respect) with our esteemed host.
Kevin, you are being awfully tough on the poor horse.
You didn't care for the speech?
Sorry, Kevin. I meant when you said "fuck him and the horse he rode in on." I say that as I cannot imagine a horse that would willingly bear him, the poor brute has suffered enough.
Let's put a fine spin on it, shall we, teacher boy?
Ed issued a challenge to you, viz:
"Can you point to any misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)"
A definition is in order. You remember definitions, from the dictionary, right? This one is:
misstatement
tr. v.
To state wrongly or falsely
Your response to Ed's challenge was, in part:
"He also made coments about his hero, Ronald Reagan and how he gave us all hope. Yet, when Beck mentioned that the federal deficit was going to cause an economic holocaust, he failed to mention that Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP."
Epic failure, teacher boy:
Failure #1: Beck not mentioning anything at all about Reagan and deficits (or debts) is not a misstatement of fact. Now read this carefully: To not state something is not to state something wrongly or falsely. The former is an absence of statement, the latter is a statement in error. And to think a teacher doesn't understand the difference ...
Failure #2: Your statement that "Reagan ran record deficits of over 50 percent of GDP" is itself a misstatement of fact, as it is false.
After some (ahem) discussion, in which the error of your statement was clearly shown, you clarified your statement with:
"I did mean debt, not deficit so that was an error on my part."
This mitigates your failure #2, to the extent it is real, but it in no way mitigates your failure #1.
Then you stated further:
"My point in bringing all this up is not to say that the rise in deficit or debt under President Obama is necessarily a good thing. It's to say that we've had it before (WWII) and we survived. And Ronald Reagan ran both the debt and deficit high and yet he is considered by Glenn Beck to be A-OK. So Beck is factually WRONG when he says that Obama's debt will bring about an "economic apocalypse."
Epic failure again, teacher boy.
Failure #3: Beck's statement that Obama's debt (it's curious that you attribute it to Obama, isn't it?) will bring about an "economic apocalypse" is not a statement of fact. It is a prediction about the future, thus it might or might not be correct; it is a statement of OPINION, not a statement of fact. Ed specifically challenged you to to point out "misstatements of fact in that speech? (Not conclusions, not opinions, F. A. C. T. S.)" Yet again, a teacher doesn't understand the difference ...
Now, what else did you come up with regarding "misstatements of fact" in Beck's speech?
Well, lessee now ...
You claim that he uses teleprompters now and then, and admits it. That's really important isn't it? His performance without a teleprompter in that speech was impressive, but it has no bearing on the content of the speech itself.
And, you make this astounding statement:
"Beck states that the ONLY job of the Constitution is to protect us from bad guys ..."
Teacher boy, the Constitution does not have a job. Regardless of what Beck said or meant by his actual statement, a bit of clear thinking would do you a lot of good.
So, you haven't found any "misstatements of fact" that really have any significance, have you? Golly. Beck gave a hell of speech, then, didn't he?
Now, what is the nature of your responses otherwise? Nothing surprising, just your Standard Response #5, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on yet more straw men about cults, and your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, in which you complain of cult behavior in others when you exhibit it yourself in spades,and have for several years.
Yet again, you fool no one.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWVjZTI0Yzg5MTg2YjQ3NDEyYzQ3OTNmNWQ2N2EzN2Y=
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has produced a new report estimating that the $862 billion stimulus has thus far saved or created 1.5 million jobs. Yet the CBO’s calculations are not based on actually observing the economy’s recent performance. Rather, they used an economic model that was programmed to assume that stimulus spending automatically creates jobs — thus guaranteeing their result.
Logicians call this the begging-the-question fallacy. Mathematicians call it assuming what you are trying to prove."
We call it Marxy 101.
"Russell, good points. That is another reason why I don't listen to the cult when they tell me that we are going to experience an economic apocalypse."
Gah, did you read what I wrote? Did you follow the single link in there? I'm guessing no.
To recap my recap: The GDP is a flawed model. The model doesn't match the real world market. The government uses the GDP to justify its meddling.
Furthermore, the meddling is based on Keynesian monetary policies (Neo-Keynesian, sure, but it still has the same basic problems as classical). They will use this flawed model to increase meddling. Keynesian policies lead to economic apocalypses.
If you use GDP, use it to compare apples to apples, or economic models that are close enough to be compared. Use it based on percentages and rates of change. It's not a good number, but it works well enough for simple comparisons. Sure, it's a shell game, but you have an indication of how much you are going to get screwed over. Since the government is gaming the GDP and they are obscuring the amount of debt we are actually in, so the answer would be 'a lot'.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>