[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Do you think if something is unconstitutional it is akin to breaking the law, even if done in good faith?



You have a right to oppose it but would you exercise that right? If so it seems you're saying it's okay to get involved if you oppose socialism but not if you advocate it. How is that not picking and choosing?

Point one- yes it is still breaking the law- but would be likened to the difference between 1st degree murder and 3rd degree involuntary manslaughter.

I am not saying it is wrong to advocate for sociailsm- that is hwat free speech is all about. So I will gladly defend the young socialist democrats right to rant all they want to about socialism for America while I strongly oppose their beliefs.

Quote from Beck: "Do you know in the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs,"

That doesn't sound like he's saying "we are including scolarships for vets" to me (though, of course, scolarships for vetrenarians is what is actually in the bill).

I don't know what he did or did not say on the TV show you are thinking of. In his radio program on Nov. 12, 2009 he said that the healthcare bill included "insurance for dogs". That claim is categorically wrong... giving one of many examples of false claims of fact (which you asked for).

Well Jerry I don't know if you can tell teh difference betweeen sarcastic humour and the ttruth or if you even have a sense of humour. But I know on his TV show he used over exaggeration just like this in sarcastic humour to point out foolish things in teh health care bill. Maybe I am thivk as a brisk but I got that he was being sarcastic and strestchuing th etruth to prove a point.

Like I said I don't know what that form of speech is called- I know I use it so I recognize it well, especially when I see the facial changes and the changes in tone of voice- just getting a statemetn off poltifact. com doesn't give the whole context.

But I would agree with you if he said that in seriousness- it would be a case where he said soemthing 100% false.

Did the Secretary of state suddenly stop being an official? Because he makes a point of using her as a comparison to show that that includes officials.

He was making a comparison between how many times stern saw the president versus hillary at that point.

Your claims are false. I'd ask you to support, but I know you have none.

It is absoluetly normal in writing about problems and solutions to cover even ones which you do not endorse (indeed rail against). This is something I do regularly as part of my own job. I've very often had conversations where I've said "I don't recommend it but one option is...". A research paper (and I've written a few of those in my own college days) even more so.

I do have proof-- its rioght after Vanderboegh.


Well maybe for you its normal to offere solutions you don't believe in- but most people don't do that.
But he wasn't writing a term paper or having a conversation- he was co author of a text book. If he wrote _ I do not endorse any of these ideas- tehn case is closed.

So he has made statements of fact which contradict one another? That alone proves he gets his facts wrong.

No it just means he doesn't go through the whole litany every time he says something about a topic he has already spoken on in depth. I know he researches things out for better thasn you do. He spends over $120,000 paying 3 o guys to research out his stuff. He has challenged people both on his radio show and ev show if he got things factually wrong- send him teh proof and he would lead with that correction the very next show. He has even done bits where people tried to correct stuff- and then showed why they only brought p[artial truths or forgot other things that made their "correction" wrong.

I notice you've failed to argue or concede the claim the vetrenary care would be in the health bill. Why is that?
Same question with Chilie's economy.

Well give me the context. In differing contexts- Americas economy could be called number1 or further down the line depending what criteria you are using to measure. So what criteria was he using to measure Chiles economy.

"Franklin Roosevelt never allocated more than 12 percent of GDP to federal spending, while the percentage for Barack Obama is not projected to drop below 22.8 percent." - Glen Beck : in fact FDR spent 43.6% in both 1943 and 1944. So again false.

Well I caught your very subtle but as usual insidious lie here> Here is th elink:

President Obama's Unsustainable Budgets - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

He was comparing the non war years of FDR with Obamas. So you r charge against Beck is false. I remember this show and he even pointed out that during the war years te numbers went way up.

"Chile ranks third internationally in economic freedom, while the U.S. ranks 17th." - Glenn Beck. In no study did Chilie rank 3rd. In the cato study where it ranked 5th, the US ranked 6th (the cato study is also the one Beck alluded to in the same speech where Chili had ranked 72nd).

When did he sayithis-
I know Chile ranks #1 for all Central and South America in one study.

[nolidad]

"Chile ranks third internationally in economic freedom, while the U.S. ranks 17th." - Glenn Beck. In no study did Chilie rank 3rd. In the cato study where it ranked 5th, the US ranked 6th (the cato study is also the one Beck alluded to in the same speech where Chili had ranked 72nd).

Well First I will point out your strringing facts in a false manner. I found politifact check. In the cato study- they had reported that Chile had ranked as low as 72nd in teh past but was no w 5th.

In an Americas study- Chile was ranked 3rd for all the Americas (#1 for Central and South.

So it seems Beck got some facts messed up. Now whether he was lying or just confusing stuff (as most of his show is not teleprompted during htese monologue type talks). I don't know.

I would suggest as he has issued a challenge to prove him wroing and he would lead with the correction, why don't you e-mail him and show him teh stuff. Tehn lwet us all see if after acknowledging receipt of your e-mail he will correct his eroor or show why he said what he said.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I am not saying it is wrong to advocate for sociailsm- that is hwat free speech is all about. So I will gladly defend the young socialist democrats right to rant all they want to about socialism for America while I strongly oppose their beliefs.

Actually, the right is ranting about socialism. It's a scare-tactic.

Well Jerry I don't know if you can tell teh difference betweeen sarcastic humour and the ttruth or if you even have a sense of humour. But I know on his TV show he used over exaggeration just like this in sarcastic humour to point out foolish things in teh health care bill. Maybe I am thivk as a brisk but I got that he was being sarcastic and strestchuing th etruth to prove a point.

So you didn't hear the quote in question: but you are sure that, since it's wrong, it must have been sarcasam.

So to make sure I understand: you will assert any true fact is serious, and any false fact is "exageration" or "sarcasam". Meaning that it would be completely impossible for Beck, no matter what he actually says, to say anything false.

I could prove the devil himself was always truthful the same way. It makes your question dishonest and insincere.

To recap. He lied about who was visiting the white hose (I've watched the show in question: he never makes a single caviat), he lied about FDR's spending (I did a search on the cite you gave: the word "war" does not appear in the transcript), he lied about what's in the healthcare bill, he lied about holdren, he lied about Chilie (yes, citing two different rankings from two different studies with two different scopes is a lie), etc. etc.

You can call it "carelessly wrong" if it spares you indignation.

Well maybe for you its normal to offere solutions you don't believe in- but most people don't do that.

Please provide your statistic for "most people". In particular: make sure that the statistic is composed of people authoring scenerio papers. I somehow doubt the people who authored the US military plan for invading Canada actually advocated invading Canada... but I could be wrong there.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Point one- yes it is still breaking the law- but would be likened to the difference between 1st degree murder and 3rd degree involuntary manslaughter.

So you actually think it is immoral? Or am I misreading?

I am not saying it is wrong to advocate for sociailsm- that is hwat free speech is all about. So I will gladly defend the young socialist democrats right to rant all they want to about socialism for America while I strongly oppose their beliefs.

Fair enough. But almost no one is really advocating socialism (only a handful of countries—China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.—are what you could seriously call socialist). What they seem to want is a mixed economy in the western European style.

[nolidad]

Actually, the right is ranting about socialism. It's a scare-tactic.

Well let me see--Venezuala, Cuba, North Korea, Teh old USSR, China, yeah I think we should be afraid of socialism. Teh more powewr people and the states cede to the fed the less we are able to keep teh fed in check. All it will take is one man to ruin the great experiment called America.

So you didn't hear the quote in question: but you are sure that, since it's wrong, it must have been sarcasam.

Well to repeat myself- I caught the qoute on teh TV show- not teh radio and diffentiated.

So to make sure I understand: you will assert any true fact is serious, and any false fact is "exageration" or "sarcasam". Meaning that it would be completely impossible for Beck, no matter what he actually says, to say anything false.

No- just teh vet one- I can attest to that because I saw it! Others will have to be handled on a case by case basis.

To recap. He lied about who was visiting the white hose (I've watched the show in question: he never makes a single caviat), he lied about FDR's spending (I did a search on the cite you gave: the word "war" does not appear in the transcript), he lied about what's in the healthcare bill, he lied about holdren, he lied about Chilie (yes, citing two different rankings from two different studies with two different scopes is a lie), etc. etc.

About teh white house- No- he was the most frequently invited visitor to the white house. He was invited to visit Obama more than anyone else. Others were all either invited less or if in teh white house more- were part and parcel of teh executive branch by their job description.

As to FDR- look at teh site again he was comparing the non war years (and even said so in a show- whether th esame show or a differetn show I cannot say). Those FDR numbers are even in his book arguing with idiots.

As to teh Chile thing- I told you there is an apparent problem- I will not say the man is lying--YET. There could be many explanations
1. He is lying
2. He confused facts ( Many do that- though you may not)
3. He simply got the numbers wrong when qouting them
4. Tehre is a report that bears these out that is not talked on.
5. Several other reasons.

If they are a source of irritation fo ryou- email him- he has promised to deal with these things--IF ONE DEALS POLITELY! So if you do try to be nice.

You can call it "carelessly wrong" if it spares you indignation.

Well in teh USA we have a principle of a person is innocent until proven guilty. I am not ready to throw in the towel yet, if you wish to call him a liar- that is your perogative.

Even politifact.com said though Beck flubbed the numbers badly about Chile and the U.S. he was right in saying Chile was advancing in economic freedom while th eUS was declining. That was the main point of that part of his show anyway. Teh other part is merely strainign at gnats while forgetting the camel.

I somehow doubt the people who authored the US military plan for invading Canada actually advocated invading Canada... but I could be wrong there

.

Totally different scenario-- Military war plans are scenarios should they become necessary- but we still have no assertion from Holdren that he never endorsed what he endorsed in his book.


From slap J.

So you actually think it is immoral? Or am I misreading?

I do not know if I would go so far as immoral.It is a matter of degree. Illegal , absolutely- breaking a law is breaking a law. But even if one breaks a law for a good reason- they must be willing to pay for it.Even proverbs says the same.

Fair enough. But almost no one is really advocating socialism (only a handful of countries—China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.—are what you could seriously call socialist). What they seem to want is a mixed economy in the western European style.

Have you seen teh basket case teh EU is right now?? As bad off as we are- Europe is in far worse shape than us.

Attributed to Ben Franklin:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17, 1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:

To give up our liberty to gain cradle to grave health care, education, and jobs by the govt. leads to a loss of both.
I am not for anarchy- but I am also agains t th eunconstitutional form our federal govt. has taken on in many areas.

America grew to the enormous powewrhouse we were because of limited govt. and freedom to tink, dream and act on those dreams.

Europe does not have teh same problem with illegal imimigrants teh US does. Nor do they allow in as many legal immigrants by country as teh US does. People flock to America for teh promise it holds for freedom to become. Treh more we become like Europe the less we be teh worlds engine of prosperity and growth. We may have already lost that position.

[nolidad]

well here is teh video of Beck qouting the rankings of Chile and the US. While he messed up Chile does outrank teh US in economic freedom now.

PolitiFact | Beck says Chile easily tops U.S. in "economic freedom" rankings

On teh right you can link to teh Beck talk.

For the sake of journaistic integrity yes Beck should announce he messed up --but teh main point still remains--teh 1980 Chile which ranked 71 out of 72 now outranks the US in eco-freedom. The moved up while we seem to be sliding down. This is alittle more worrisome than his mixing some rankings up- unless that is part of some nefarious conspiracy which has yet to be proved.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well let me see--Venezuala, Cuba, North Korea, Teh old USSR, China, yeah I think we should be afraid of socialism.

Those are countries. Beck's use of the scare-word "socialism" is as part of an accusation that the US will become "socialist" to a bunch of people, like you, who don't even know what the word means. We are not discussing other countries.

Well to repeat myself- I caught the qoute on teh TV show- not teh radio and diffentiated.

Well, on the radio show where I cited him lying he did not. The fact that he was correct somewhere does nothing at all about being incorrect elsewhere.

No- just teh vet one- I can attest to that because I saw it! Others will have to be handled on a case by case basis.

Since one cannot "see" a radio show: you are simply lying.

About teh white house- No- he was the most frequently invited visitor to the white house. He was invited to visit Obama more than anyone else. Others were all either invited less or if in teh white house more- were part and parcel of teh executive branch by their job description.

"22 times in the white house. 22 visits. More than anyone else. I think Hillary Clinton visited the white-house 4 times"

YouTube - Glenn Beck SEIU Union's ANDY STERN has OBAMA'S EAR 22 TIMES in WHITE HOUSE Fox News 11-17-09

There's plenty of show on both sides for context. No "invited" (which you just made up, as there's no record of invites), no "non-cabinet" (and, indeed, attempt to show that it's more than cabinet members by comparing to one).

You are lying noli.

As to FDR- look at teh site again he was comparing the non war years (and even said so in a show- whether th esame show or a differetn show I cannot say). Those FDR numbers are even in his book arguing with idiots.

*you* linked to the transcript. He says no such thing as "non war years" (nor anything to that effect as far as I can see).

As to teh Chile thing- I told you there is an apparent problem- I will not say the man is lying--YET. There could be many explanations
1. He is lying
2. He confused facts ( Many do that- though you may not)
3. He simply got the numbers wrong when qouting them
4. Tehre is a report that bears these out that is not talked on.
5. Several other reasons.

Great now let's go back to your original statement:

"He is an in your face opinion guy. He is politically incorrect- but where is he wrong in his facts? Not his opinions but his facts."

As I said: his facts are wrong when he says that UHC provides insurance for your dog. His facts are wrong when he says Stern visited the white-house the most. His facts are wrong when he says that Obama's budget is a higher percentage of GDP than FDR ever had. His facts are wrong when he accuses Holder of advocating forced sterilization, and as you have admitted: his facts are wrong when he lists Chilie as 1st in a survey where the US is 70-something.

Similarly, he doesn't seem to know what "socialism" actually means... so his facts are wrong basically every time he utters that word.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I do not know if I would go so far as immoral.

If they're acting in good faith is it immoral? Or only if they know it's wrong? For instance, politicians that continue to support Medicare if they wouldn't have voted for it in the first place.

But even if one breaks a law for a good reason

That's not what I'm asking.

Have you seen teh basket case teh EU is right now?? As bad off as we are- Europe is in far worse shape than us.

I'm not arguing the merits of a western European economy. I'm just saying that this is what most mainstream American liberals want. Not actual socialism.

[nolidad]

Those are countries. Beck's use of the scare-word "socialism" is as part of an accusation that the US will become "socialist" to a bunch of people, like you, who don't even know what the word means. We are not discussing other countries.

Well given teh fact that our current president is movong us in that direction and that his czars, advisers, ans cabinet folk are for the most part very left wing and some even openly avowed socialists- I think yeah- he is trying to scare people awake! To bring this country back to governing by th econstitution, not by ever expanding ferderal powers.

Well, on the radio show where I cited him lying he did not. The fact that he was correct somewhere does nothing at all about being incorrect elsewhere.

Tehn email him and find out why he screwed up so badly !

Since one cannot "see" a radio show: you are simply lying.

This is so fitting of your nitpickiness: Matthew 23:24

"22 times in the white house. 22 visits. More than anyone else. I think Hillary Clinton visited the white-house 4 times"

YouTube - Glenn Beck SEIU Union's ANDY STERN has OBAMA'S EAR 22 TIMES in WHITE HOUSE Fox News 11-17-09

There's plenty of show on both sides for context. No "invited" (which you just made up, as there's no record of invites), no "non-cabinet" (and, indeed, attempt to show that it's more than cabinet members by comparing to one).

You are lying noli.

Well gop look up other mentions and find out the context that he doesn't repeat everytime and just stop being so nasty. I know what he said and I will not apologize for him that politifact and u-tube only pull one time he said this among many times. But that is okay- any excuse fo ryou to smear someone and resort to name calling.


From slap J:

If they're acting in good faith is it immoral? Or only if they know it's wrong? For instance, politicians that continue to support Medicare if they wouldn't have voted for it in the first place.

Well the only way I can answer this hopefully to your satisfaction is by example- if a nurse mistakes one injection for another and gives a patient the wrong meds and they die-- they did wrong and killed someone. Did they mean to?? No! But the person is still dead because of wrong thinkng that produced wrong actions. Immoral?

By this definition:

immoral adjective /ɪˈmɒr.əl//-ˈmɑːr-/ adj
not within society's standards of acceptable, honest and moral behaviour; morally wrong

I would have to say no- but wrong? yes! in what category? unconstitutionality!

I'm not arguing the merits of a western European economy. I'm just saying that this is what most mainstream American liberals want. Not actual socialism.

Well I would agree with you here-- but teh problem lies in that power corrupts- and absolute power corrupts absolutely- teh larger we allow the fed to expand beyongd th erestrictions imposed upon it by the constitution- teh more power they usurp from states, towns, individuals.

Our founders were wise in keeping th erole of the federal government restricted to just th eenumerated powers given and allowing only for greatrer power by the amendmetn process which takes super majorities by both houses and the states. If it truly is a good for the nation- then the nation givesd teh fed the authority to taker that power.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well given teh fact that our current president is movong us in that direction and that his czars, advisers, ans cabinet folk are for the most part very left wing and some even openly avowed socialists- I think yeah- he is trying to scare people awake! To bring this country back to governing by th econstitution, not by ever expanding ferderal powers.

Bush had more czars. Would that be left-wingers like SoD Gates? Which socialist?

Tehn email him and find out why he screwed up so badly !

How is that a useful use of my time. I set out to prove he puts up wrong facts. I proved it. In doing so, I proved your charicature wrong. My mission is accomplished.

This is so fitting of your nitpickiness: Matthew 23:24

So fitting your dishonesty Exodus 20:16

Well gop look up other mentions and find out the context that he doesn't repeat everytime and just stop being so nasty. I know what he said and I will not apologize for him that politifact and u-tube only pull one time he said this among many times. But that is okay- any excuse fo ryou to smear someone and resort to name calling.

I don't care if he said other things that were not lies. When he said that he was saying something not true. You can call him wrong or dishonest: but either way I've made my case.