Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Me: Hume said x, and x is wrong.

B.: Hume also said y, and y is correct.

Let me save you some trouble before you go looking for other accurate things Hume has said in an effort to drive his batting average up: I will stipulate that Hume has, in his career, said a large number of accurate statements.

Nevertheless, he's a hack.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Hank can't read pages of crap to respond to FDR quotes or SS reallocation- I wade it in on the more basic. I really would like to see Ty's timeslips one week, I cannot see how he does it.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Name 3 things Bush has done you think are good-

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Ty: "Hume said X."

Bilmore: Actually, Hume said "Y". Here's a quote:"

Hume. "Y."

Ty: "He's a hack."

I'll simply bow to your better knowledge of Hume.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

(1) Laura - producing (2) Jenna and (3) Barbara.

S_A_M

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Mine was shorter and easier to understand. You need to stop hanging around with so many lawyers.

Note I am not claiming you were too stupid/prejudiced to recognize we were saying the same thing. In hopes that's not true.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

That's easy. Think of all the countries he hasn't invaded yet.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994)

Think, then post, Hank, Think, then post.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

OK. So's he's the kind of hack who unwittingly passes on inaccurate, partisan crap, rather than the kind of hack who bothers to learn why what he's saying is wrong. He's still a hack.

Me, too. That's why I read a blog post making that point, and posted it. What baffles me is why you and bilmore would waste time defending Brit Hume by saying things that have no basis. In bilmore's case, I suspect he had read a conservative blog that defended Hume, and now either cannot figure out where he saw it, or has realized that Drum got it right.

I think the episide is revealing because it demonstrates what the fight over Social Security is about. You have an ideological movement that wants to end Social Security, and has been plotting to do so at least since 1983. These people understand all to well that the public does not and will not support what they propose if it is debated openly. So you have the Brit Humes of the world pretending that FDR supporting privatization, and you have the Roger Simons of the world pretending that Bill Clinton and Harry Reid supporting private accounts in the late 1990s, and so on. These things are false, but you have a conservative movement which understands that they can pump this crap effectively because smart people like you don't have the time to get to the bottom of it. And the so-called MSM just won't do the work to sort out the competing claims. Even the better reporters will open with the 'both sides are equally mendacious' frame, and we've seen what the Brit Humes do. Hence the joke that if the Bush administration were to claim that the earth is flat, the story leads the following day would be "opinions on shape of earth differ." The advocates of privatization can keep misleading people because it works.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Nothing in life is free, Hank. I thought you knew that.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Ty, RT- someone- make it change- and maybe even flip this one given the abuse of the rule.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

You put me on ignore and missed all those posts, didn't you?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Now that's just pathetic.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

He still said X, and I, for one, appreciate that you are no longer trying to defend the part of his statement that I was posting about. So stop digging.

I didn't put you on ignore, but I suppose it's possible that you posted something I missed. I said this. To which you responded thusly. To which I posted this, including the specific sentence of Hume's which misrepresents FDR:

• In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

A ha. Yes, you posted this, which I missed until now (probably because one minute later I responded to something club said). You said:

I think you are misreading Hume, plain and simple. I agree with your second paragraph. It's been said many times that "Social Security benefits were said to be one leg of a three-legged stool consisting of Social Security, private pensions and savings and investment. The metaphor was intended to convey the idea that all three approaches were needed to provide stable income security in retirement." This idea is often attributed, incorrectly, as it turns out, to FDR, but it is true that these ideas were shared by FDR and others present at the creation. SSA says: "Although President Roosevelt apparently never used the "three-legged stool" metaphor, he clearly had this concept in mind when he created the Social Security program, and he expressed the idea, in other words, several times over the years."

But that's not what Hume said in the sentence to which I objected. Am I reading Hume to be claiming that FDR wanted qualified accounts to completely supplant SS? Yes. Because Hume attributed to FDR the notion that "government funding ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Not supplemented. Supplanted. I.e., replaced.

Note that a little while later that night on FOX, William Bennett said, "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the guy who established Social Security, said that it would be good to have it replaced by private investment over time. Private investment would be the way to really carry this thing through."

But we already know that Bennett's a hack.

And the fact that Hume said something else also does not change that this is wrong.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

What's your beef?