Of course given that it’s Harry Reid, it’s completely littered with lies.
We’re going to focus on just one sentence from his “facts” because it is my belief that every word is a lie, with the possible exception of pronouns.
Here’s the sentence: “The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads.”
That gives you a nice visual of Charles and David Koch writing a check for over $400 million dollars. However when you actually click on the source for Harry’s “fact” you’ll find this on really unbiased (sarcasm) “Republic Report.”
We should also note that only nine of the 17 groups filed taxes. Soon the other eight will file and Harry can further inflate his lie. Awesome!
Now that we have some information, let’s go and look at Harry’s claim, “The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads.”
Is every word in this sentence a lie?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
First “The Kochs.” It’s not “The Kochs”, it’s a combination of 17 conservative groups that the Koch brothers are affiliated with in some way.
Two. The word “spent.” That’s not what the sentence says at all. The network raised at least $407 million. It clearly says “raised.” Spent and raised are two different things.
Three. “$400 Million.” The way they get to this number is so insulting to your intelligence you’re not going to believe it. They took every donation from every donor from all across America to all of these 17 organizations and credited them all to the Koch Brothers.
For example, one of these organizations is Americans for Prosperity. They alone have 90,000 donors. Harry Reid is giving credit for every dime donated by all donors to all these organizations to two people, the Koch Brothers.
To be fair, our unbiased source Republic Report notes that the Koch spending is Pac, individual, and outside spending. In this context, outside spending apparently means the spending of every single person in America who agrees with the Koch brothers.
Four. “Ads.” Actually they didn’t spend all of this money on ads. Some of it went to salaries and overhead but also as The New York Times points out: “Americans for Prosperity spent tens of millions of dollars in political advertising….while investing equally large sums to build a national grass-roots organization.”
So if you can believe The New York Times, which I admit is a stretch, it’s probably around half or less that actually went to ads.
Number five. “Misleading attacks.” Were those ads misleading attacks?
Congratulations you picked our video daily double. Here’s a sampling of ads that Koch related organizations ran during the election.
Certainly registering people to vote is not a misleading attack ad.
So, “Koch Brothers” is a lie. “Spent” is a lie. “$400 million” is a lie. “Misleading attacks” is a lie. “Ads” is a lie.
What’s left of this sentence is just “on.”
When we translate Harry’s original sentence from his native language of “Evnilian” to English it looks very different.
“The Kochs spent $400 million on misleading attack ads” is translated to “Seventeen conservative and or libertarian organizations that have similar beliefs to the Koch Brothers raised $407 million from hundreds of thousands of donors who have similar beliefs to the Koch Brothers of which they spent probably around half on ads some portion of which were attacking and an even smaller portion of which were misleading depending on your political views. Also the fact that I posted this is a violation of Senate Rules and I’m equal parts evil and senile. I am evnile.”
That sentence makes for a terrible attack website. But that’s what happens when you’re honest in translating Harry Reid’s Lies.
In his evnility, Harry must have also forgotten all about how the Koch Brothers donated to some of his close buddies like co-author of Obamacare, Max Baucus-Democrat, Mark Pryor-Democrat, John Dingell-Democrat, Tom Harkin-Democrat, Mary Landrieu-Democrat, Diane Feinstein-Democrat, Chuck Schumer-Democrat, Hillary Clinton-Democrat, Joe Biden-Democrat, Barack Obama—Democrat.
You’ve probably seen the play My Fair Lady or have at least heard of the film with Audrey Hepburn, right? Delightful musical.
If you haven’t seen it, I’m sure Glenn Beck has.
He loves the theatre.
The famous playwright George Bernard Shaw won an Oscar for the screen play “Pygmalion” which “My Fair Lady” is based on.
Georgey is a really popular guy. Just look on social media and you’ll find countless people who have made a hero out of the playwright George Bernard Shaw. Why? Because he sure had a lot of cute sayings. Like this one:
“A happy family is but an earlier heaven.” Adorable.
You can tell how much he loves people. I found some other quotes from George Bernard Shaw that aren’t as well know. Like this one:
“A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
I told you he loves people. Oddly enough, no one has bothered to pin that one on Pinterest. Hmm.
I mean sure, George Bernard Shaw was an avowed Fabian socialist who LOVED eugenics and yeah, he believed everyone should have to justify their existence. You probably remember this classic:
Sure not everything Georgey said was so flowery and beautiful but he did have such a magical way with words.
Who wouldn’t want to celebrate such a wonderful, wonderful man who also said this:
“I appeal to the chemists to discover a human gas that will kill instantly and painlessly. Deadly by all means, but humane not cruel.”
See, he’s so nice he wants the mass murder to be done in a humane way.
In 1934 he also wrote:
“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way.”
Again… kill them in a decent, human way.
Sure this might be a little creepy, but let me lighten things up with this GBS classic:
“The Nazi movement is in many respects one which has my warmest sympathy.”
Yeah the same guy our education system says is a genius was pretty much a fanboy of Hitler.
The New York Times wrote about his admiration in 1933. In the article, George Bernard Shaw describes Hitler as “a very remarkable, very able man,” and was a genius to realize “Germany had been kicked long enough.”
In fact, he sang Hitler’s praises every chance he could.
And he really didn’t care for the people Hitler was treating harshly. He had some choice words for them.
“Stop being Jews and start being human beings.”
To be fair later on, he did start to question Hitler a little bit.
“Instead of exterminating the Jews, he (Hitler) should have said, I will tolerate Jews to any extent as long as no Jew marries a Jewess. That is how he could build up a strong, solid German people.”
And by the way, he wasn’t just a fan of Hitler, George Bernard Shaw had a solid man crush on Stalin. He visited Russia and wrote:
“There is not a more interesting country in the world today to visit than Soviet Russia, and I find traveling there perfectly safe and pleasant…Tomorrow I leave this land of hope and return to our Western countries of despair.”
He even recounted how generously he was fed by his hosts saying, “Starvation? Why, I’ve never eaten so wonderfully!” Mind you, his visit was during Stalin’s great famine when millions were dying of hunger.
Let’s not forget George Bernard Shaw’s love for another great Dictator: Mussolini! Shaw was such a fan he could imitate the dictator on the spot. You gotta watch his Mussolini impersonation:
He loved these despicable dictators because he thought they had the right ideas.
I would agree with George, that yes, they do, do things. They killed people. I’m pretty sure that’s what he liked about them.
George Bernard Shaw sure did hate people, but he loved animals! He was a staunch vegetarian.
He is often quoted by PETA as saying:
“The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity.”
I never went to college so I missed out on all the keg parties and, apparently, a surplus of good grades.
Contrary to the concept of school as you knew it growing up, A’s are pretty easy to come by these days. In fact the only thing you have to work really hard to get are D’s and F’s. In college today, an A is over four times as common as a D or an F combined.
It’s a drastic change from the 15% of students who received A’s in 1960.
And this sort of makes sense if you think about it. No one wants to pay $40,000 a year to hear that they’re dumb.
College is one of the rare businesses in which you pay them and at the end of the experience they tell you how well they did. If you’re a parent and you send your kids to school and they get A’s you feel good about the purchase. But if your kids get F’s you feel like they wasted your money.
And amazingly these institutions of higher learning, that do little other than indoctrinate kids against the evils of capitalism, sure do understand incentives.
It may be hard to get into an Ivy League school, but according to Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, that’s where the hardship ends.
According to his research, our 1.1 trillion dollars in college debt is sure buying some awesome grades at some high brand schools.
Take Brown University for instance. Two-thirds of all letter grades given at Brown University are A’s.
At Harvard, fifty percent of all grades were either A or A-. And 91 percent of seniors graduated with honors.
I’ve got news for you if 91 percent of people are graduating with honors, it’s not honors.
Eighty percent of the grades given at the University of Illinois are A’s and B’s.
At Columbia University, fifty percent of students are on the Dean’s list. I’ve got news for ya if 50% of students are on the Deans list, it’s not the Deans list. It’s just a list of half of the school.
And how about Stanford? Only 6 percent of student grades at Stanford were a C or below.
That’s true, in one quarter of American businesses. And yes, if you want to be a neurosurgeon, you should probably have a piece of paper that says neurosurgeon on it. But six figure debt and the freshman 15 only gets you an advantage at one quarter of American businesses?
This is the type of scam that makes Bernie Madoff shudder with jealously.
Oh and by the way, a huge chunk of your tax dollars are going to pay for it.
How is the Obama Administration dealing with this? They’re trying to create more incentives to inflate grades by offering more cash to colleges that graduate students on Pell Grants.
Pretty soon this is going to be Zimbabwe. Their inflation got so bad that everyone in the entire country was a trillionaire but no one had any real money.
We’re becoming a country where everyone is on the honor roll but nobody knows what they hell they’re doing.
Remember: When playing baseball, make your outs count.
Lately, there has been a lot of crazy sports highlights going viral (like this incredible ping pongvideo and the craziest end to a high school basketball game you’ll ever see or the one where a normal baseball game turns into a high contact sport ) which reminded me of a classic game played by former LA Dodgers and Oakland A’s player Jason Grabowski when he was in the minors. Two outs, three collisions, and one catcher who was really, really sore the next day. Watch the amazing clip below:
First of all, let me say that unlike almost every conservative on Earth right now, I don’t think Nate Silver is a hack.
I think he’s actually a really smart numbers geek. He writes the blog FiveThirtyEight, which is now hosted by the New York Times (though I’ve been reading his stuff long before it was part of the Times.) The reason he is controversial to conservatives right now and why liberals think he is a saint, is because he is predicting that Obama has a 78.4% chance of winning reelection. To a lot of people, that sounds completely insane.
Two quick things before we delve into the accuracy of that claim:
1) I would describe Nate Silver as an admitted liberal, with a soft spot for markets. He is strangely libertarian on some things, which I like, even though I don’t usually agree with him on policy.
2) He was one of the first people that I remember who predicted Republicans had a good chance at taking the House back after the ’08 election. This is during the time when most liberals (and some conservatives) were saying the Republican Party was about to become a regional party with no hope of ever winning another election. He also was recently yelled at by holier than thou ‘scientist’ Michael Mann about global warming. So, he can’t be all bad.
So, what about Nate Silver’s model as it stands right now? In my opinion, I think he is significantly overstating the chances of an Obama win, with a few caveats.
For example, his own model says that if he has predicted 0.8% of voters’ choices incorrectly, Romney would win the popular vote. If that were to happen (again, by his own model) Romney would almost certainly win the electoral college as well. (A Romney win in the popular vote and a loss in the electoral college has only a 5.1% chance of happening, according to Silver.)
Look, if you get 0.8% of voters wrong and your prediction falls apart—you probably aren’t 80% sure of it.
I don’t think Silver is intentionally making it look like Obama is a sure thing because he’s liberal. I just think he’s a tad too cocky on this one. That’s not the worst thing in the world. Wall Street stat geeks were too sure of themselves with the algorithms that led to the financial collapse.
One of the features of Silver’s model is that when the race remains static, and the election gets closer, whoever is ahead becomes more of a sure thing. That’s why his model seems to absurdly show Romney’s chances to be only slightly better than they were before the first debate.
Basically, to him, a 2 point lead that’s confirmed by numerous polls is incredibly convincing. That’s about what’s happening in Ohio, and if Romney loses Ohio, it’s going to be pretty difficult for him to win. I’d say Romney’s chances probably are about one in five if he loses Ohio, so it’s not completely ridiculous if you really trust the polls.
Many of the polls however, just look sketchy. They show samples that are more optimistic for Democrats than the electorate was in 2008. If more Democrats come out to vote than did in 2008, than yeah—Mitt Romney is losing. But, does anyone actually believe that’s reality? 2008 was a historic election for Democrats. Barack Obama is simply not going to repeat that enthusiasm again. It is not happening.
On the other side, while a 78% win seems like a sure thing– let’s put it in football terms. Essentially, Silver is saying the Boston Romney’s have the football, down by a field goal to the Chicago Obama’s with 2 minutes left in the game. First and ten from their own 31. Romney could get a field goal to send it to overtime, or score a TD and grab a win. Or they could go three and out and lose. I can’t say that sounds THAT far off from what is happening in the election, yet, an NFL team in that situation has only a 22% chance of winning.
To me, the data says Romney’s chances are about twice as good as Silver says. That still puts him as a slight underdog. Beyond that, I’m depending on divine providence, hanging chads, or the Koch Brothers hacking electronic voting machines with the help of Grover Norquist or something.
The bottom line is that if Obama wins, everyone is going to think Silver is a genius. If Romney wins, his credibility will be destroyed. Neither is fair, but both are painfully unavoidable.
If you’ve been watching the Glenn Beck Program for the past week now, you may have seen some idiot dressed up in a goofy costume each night trying desperately to make a serious point about the Obama administration’s failed policies and the upcoming election.
Unfortunately, said idiot is me. Just another perk of working for Glenn Beck, I guess.
One topic we covered last week was some of the numbers on the auto-bailout while I was wearing a “Chuck the Dump Truck” costume. Clever, right?
Not as clever as Obama spinning the auto-bailout , though.
In the face of an election less than 3 weeks away, Obama is clinging to his praise for the auto-bailout. I give you the numbers that the Obama Administration doesn’t want you to see before November 6—in a stupid costume nonetheless. Watch here:
To see me dressed in other idiotic costumes, check out the past segments of By the Numbers:
I woke up this morning with an odd and unfamiliar feeling. That feeling was optimism.
After Romney’s slaying in the debate last night, I’m starting to think he might actually have a shot at this thing.
Even the liberal media had no choice but to admit that Romney clenched the first debate by a long shot.
Chris Matthews in his typical unintelligible fashion, had an angry meltdown and implored the president to “Watch MSNBC, you’ll learn something every night.”
Michael Moore tweeted “This is what you get when you pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”
And Van Jones said Romney “out Obama’ed Obama” and won the debate last night. Van Jones, people. Van. Freaking. Jones.
There is a poll out from CNN that is also contributing to my optimistic state of mind. Now I usually don’t think these debates affect the polls very much, but this time is different.
In CNN’s post debate polling, 67% thought Romney did the best job in the debate.
That is a phenomenal stat, but it gets even better when you put it in perspective. Let’s looks at this poll from a historical standpoint.
In the last debate of 2008, John McCain lost to Obama by 27. You read that right…McCain -27. Last night, it was Romney +42.
That lead is almost absolutely unheard of in presidential debates, a 69 point swing from the last time Obama took the debate stage.
Going back to Reagan, only Bill Clinton ever won a debate by 42 points, but that was in 1992 with a third party splitting his opposition.
In that debate, Clinton had 58% saying he won, over Bush’s 16% and Ross Perot’s 15%.
Romney is also the only Republican to acquire such a large lead in this poll. In fact, his lead was three and a half times as big as any other republican since 1980, including Reagan.
Bush won the second debate by 12 over Gore, Reagan had a mere 3 point lead over Mondale in 1984.
Historically, a +42 for a Republicans is completely uncharted territory. It was a horror show for Barack Obama. The downside is that debates have traditionally only moved the polls by a maximum of around three points. The upside is—this is one of the widest victories of all time.