the hyperbole is vintage limbaugh.his rhetorical strategy is to raise the pitch a couple notes higher than what he really means to convey. he's going to communicate a key and infuriates liberals, which is fun but just fine. and when the high notes again find an acceptable acceptable public discourse than most drugs and passes it off as satire. indeed it's not always easy to distinguish them up hyperbole from parodies on "the daily show." for instance khmers jon stewart's take on the schoolbus assault. because barack obama is president it is open white season on white children and black people are not allowed to hit them. there are two important differences between the both hyperbole of stewart's parody. one, stewart is funny. two, stewart exaggerates the highlight for us in baja's emphasis back on some of the worst person the world when you really mean he's just a big fat liar. so what does limbaugh did he suggest that obama wanted to pass by children into their own best artist in the windows. he meant the obama admini

be a new definition because it's fraud to to the degree of fraud fraud to the fraud it's a new hyperbolic fraud. it's called tangible charitable fraud. yes they've been able to securitize your fraud and you are flawed and of course. this is the argument you hear all the time they say we can't bring any accounting regulatory counted regulatory accountability to these firms because otherwise they'd go out of business let's suppose you have a thousand houses in the suburb of chicago which is the story that i'm quoting a terrible offhand but you have see every thousand houses in the suburb of chicago of which. one particular bank wrote the mortgages on the majority of them securitized sold the mortgages off to secure twice trusts and to securitize trusts allegedly owns the mortgage you still have this foreclosure for fraud closure issue of assignment but let's say they actually do on these mortgages. the houses are have dropped in value to close to zero if not negative due to incumbrances from the city taxes fines etc so you have you know three hundred million dollars worth of mortgages. let'

representing our employee groups vilified the grand jury for using numbers that they claimed were hyperbolic, where a doomsday scenario. that in no way would be correct. well, to some extent, they were right. the numbers the grand jury you were wrong, but rather than being inflated, they were deflated. the grand jury did not state the number accurately because they used the retirement system numbers, and the retirement system did not get the number right. they were actually too low. next year's contribution is going to be at least $30 million more. and we ran a couple of scenarios of the retirement system earlier this morning. a sitting massive investment gains over the next few years, no matter how mass of our investment gains are, that number in the next three years will go up to 26%, 26% of payroll. it will be the equivalent of seven two san francisco general hospital budgets on our books. that is $657 million on the books, where just five years ago, it was 0, so to a lot of the naysayers said the grand jury was using numbers that were exaggerated, not even close. they were using numbers

racist and get what they deserve make that segregated prison buses for white schoolchildren and the hyperbole the rhetorical strategy is to raise the pitch higher than what he really means to convey with a piercing of sharp the exaggerates shane in periods liberals which suits him just fine and when the high notes of public discourse he just shrugs and passes it off as satire it is not always easy to distinguish the hyperbole from parity of the day of the show. here is jon stewart's take. because barack obama is president, it is now white season that is open and black people are allowed to hit them. but there are too important differences number one, stewart is funny and number two he exaggerates the highlight of absurdity for rhetorical emphasis by calling someone a worse person in the world meeting he is just a big fat liar so what does he mean? he meant the obama administration discriminates against whites the way races states government used to discriminate against blacks say they can distribute their parents' wealth meeting obama was to take money from middle-class white people and give

this gets reduced on the northern end and so this is a hyperbolic -- for the encroachment area.his is similar to what they have proposed with respect to their encroachment. thank you. >> are you finished with your presentation? >> yes. >> i am prepared to answer any questions for the arborist. given the location of your proposed door centered on these trees, the trees would have to be pruned significantly? >> they would not have to be pruned except the secondary branches. this would be a normal pruning. the root pruning would be limited to a cut for the driveway and the height of the occurred at about 6 inches and it a triangle of 6 inches. >> we will move into rebuttal. we did call these two items together so if you have comments you want to make about your request, you might want to include it in now. >> i am the designer. i just wanted to raise a point that the design proposals that claims that they would be raising the wall by 12 inches. they do have the situation and they would be raising this at a wall height by at least 21 inches or 3 7 inch steps. it would change the ent

[applause] >> if that ain't hyperbolic. >> i can't help it. for more than 20 years, benjamin bratt has successfully spanned a career in both film and television, including two critically acclaimed films for which he received a screen actors guild award. he is best recognized as detective ray curtis on nbc's "law and order." please welcome benjamin bratt. [applause] >> we thought it was very important tonight to recognize the work that both you and your brother did by making such an incredible film that honored the community. i know supervisor campos was incredibly impressed and thankful to have something that brought attention to his district and to all of our communities, for those of us who live in the mission. peter bratt -- [applause] thank you. peter bratt was the director of this film, "la mission." we couldn't be more proud of their accomplishment. [cheers and applause] his first film, "follow me home" premiered at the sundance film festival in official competition in 1996. it's an exploration of the journey to redemption and the ultima

the hyperbole is vintage limbaugh.his rhetorical strategy is to raise his pitch a couple of notes higher than what he really means to convey singing a piercing f-sharp to communicate a shrill e. the exaggeration entertains his audience and infuriates liberals, and when those high notes across the line of of acceptable public discourse, limbaugh just shrugs and patses it off as satire. indead, it's not always -- indeed, it's not always easy to distinguish limbaugh's parities from the jon stewart show. because barack obama is president, it is now open white season on white children, and black people are now allowed to hit them. but there are two important differences between limbaugh's hyperbole and stewart's parity. one, stewart is funny. two, he exaggerates the highlighted absurdity whereas limbaugh everyone -- does it for emphasis. what did he mean when he suggested obama wanted to pack white children onto their own bus with bars on the window? he meant that the obama administration discriminates against whites the wa

i have never seen such hysteria, histrionics, and hyperbole as that which surrounds government budgeting. if you take a look at our fiscal commission proposal for example, the growth rate in government spending, the plan is for government spending to grow 5% a year for the next ten years. the commission proposal has it growing 4% a year instead of 5%. yet you see words like draconian, cut, slash, hurting every constituency you can think of. i've never seen anything like it. i don't know how people down here get their jobs done with this kind of yelling and screaming going on. >> reporter: david cote, c.e.o. of honeywell, thank you. >> tom: the republican effort to repeal health care reform is on hold due to the tragic shootings in tuscon last weekend. still, the implementation of the health care law continues. alan miller is the chairman and chief executive officer of universal health services. u.h.s. runs more than 100 hospitals and medical facilities. he joins us from philadelphia. welcome to "nightly business report", nice to see you. >> thank you, tom. >> tom: so far health care refo

partisanship was the order of the day, so was hyperbole. >> it is misleading to call madison the father of the constitution, as may be conventional, maybe contentious, but hear me out. even his own notetaking, his own rendering of the philadelphia convention in 1787, he does not come across as its victor or hero, at the convention. if anyone deserves to turn bm-25 will be roger sherman of tiny connecticut, whose manner of address was described as laughable and grotesque but who effectively stood in the way of virginia, nation. madison the virginia plan hammered out in private over many months was mostly rejected. is most sought after provision will shut down. he wanted the u.s. senate to be granted an absolute negative in all cases whatsoever. madison's words, overstate the national legislation. he would have had, had this in as an intellectual elite. more or less supplant the supreme court in lecturing to states as to what legislation made sense and what did not. madison had no patience for mediocrity. what he and alec sent hamilton had in common was that neither particularly care for

. >> people come in and want to hyperbole with a derek. some very good, well organized questions. it took me five or six minutes with her before i actually told her the truth. >> this is true. >> and just have to see which angles she was coming from. a lot of people tried to come right a book. they look for the negatives. the same as the "wall street journal" reporter. negative because it was on the front page. so to a her part of that she did her research and her homework. >> i do want to say that it is easy to find the negatives in this business, and that and not trying to hide the miner. i think it is part of the history of the place, but i feel like a lot of people focus a lot on the negatives and remiss what actually works about the industry. at think that especially now when we look get what has happened with the derivatives business and things it is important to go back inside for history about what worked in history. larry snyder. can i ask you a question? you started -- when you started it was also the 60's. >> i started working as a runner in 1967. 110 north franklin. ho

this is not hyperbole. in the second year of his presidency, we saw a debt level almost equal to that. on the books it says $1.29 trillion in debt. that does not include $200 billion that was spent on freddie in fannie. . . that is what the government has to cash -- our labour -- in order to cash those checks. already we will have the amount going into social security, and consider at the same time that medicare is scheduled to go flat broke by 2017. six years from now medicare is scheduled to be flat broke. we are running deficits. we are at the point where we have 60% debt to gdp ratio, increase was at 90%. i did not come here to do press you on a friday night during a snowstorm. it is one of our own making. they did not see we would be a nation that would be filled completely with an entitlement mentality. they saw this would be a nation of individual personal responsibility, and now it is something that has changed. he said he wanted to appeal to us to bear in mind that the it is with you that decisions

this is not hyperbole. this is fact behind it. in the second year of his presidency, we saw a debt level almost equal to that. in fact, it is even more. on the books is says $1.29 trillion in debt. it was $1.40 trillion in the first year of barack obama's presidency. that does not include the $200 billion we spend on fannie mae and freddie mac. my youngest daughter is 16 years old. by the time she reaches maturity, we will have seen social security running in the red for years. last year was the first time a security -- social security began spending more money than it was taking in. we have and i know you account for the social security trust fund -- an iou for the social security trust fund. it is filled with iou's. why? because congress took all of that out and spend it. made out those iou's of demo our labor. shortly, we will have the specter of having to increase the amount that government is taking out of social security if we want to continue putting out checks at the same level. consider at the same time, medicare is sched

that on and on this basis, on the issues, and talk about what the impact will be an nine given to hyperbole we seem like death panels, which just is not true. guest: i think crystals points are well taken. there's a huge difference of opinion between conservatives and liberals. a huge difference of opinion between republicans and democrats. i do think that we're going have this clash of wills between the differing sides in this congress. i do think that for a better compromise to get done, it has to be conducted on the basis of civility. i think that is what the president was saying in a speech. n't cause this necessarily. it didn't cause it at all. but let's take this as an excuse to act more civilly towards one another. >> more from the president last wednesday evening in tucson, arizona. >> let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame. let's use this occasion to expand a moral imagination, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instinct for empa thy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopse and dreams are bou

. >> we all indulge in hyperbole. but to refer to cleansing will be deeply offensive to people who witnessed ethnic cleanses in other parts of the world. no, what we are doing is saying people who receive housing benefits, people who receive housing benefits, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to say it won't hand out more in housing benefits that people who go out to work, pay their taxes, play i bithe rules will do when they look for housing themselves. we suggest there should be a cut for family homes or four bedrooms of 400 pounds a week 21,000 pounds a year. does he really think it's wrong? does he think it's wrong for people who can't afford to live privately in those areas that the state should subsidize people to the tune of more than 21,000 pounds? i don't think so. >> and then there was the impact on council services. town halls across england face cuts in 2011 of almost 20% in their core central government funding. the biggest reductions for a generation. unions have warned that will mean thousan

in moments like that you say a lot of this political fragmentation and polarization and hyperbolic vitriol that attends the political process starts to boil away and you have a very clear view of what is really important as embodied in a president or any of the political leaders once you get away from the rhetoric. to me it is regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another without a willingness to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. i think debate is essential. and strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. that is good stuff. that is in keeping with the american tradition and if you go back in terms of american history to even the founding of our country and look things like the federalist papers you understand that the founding fathers for of their rebellion against the british were also pretty rebellious on an interview abases with each other about what our country would be and the direction it was going. obviously we had a civil war in this country. so we know internal division. this is in our first. but for the

>> we all indulge in a bit of hyperbole. have to say, quite seriously, the cleansing would be deeply offensive to people who have witnessed ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world. it is an outrageous way of describing it. i will tell you exactly what we're doing. what we're doing is saying to people who receive housing benefits, it is perfectly reasonable for the government to say that it won't hand out more in housing benefits then people will go out to work, pay their taxes, played by the rules, and look for housing themselves. we are suggesting there should be capped for family homes of four bedrooms or 400 pounds per week. does he really think it is wrong? does he think it is wrong for people who cannot afford to live privately in those areas that the state to subsidize people to the tune of more than 21,000 pounds? i don't think so. >> there was the impact on council services. town halls across england face cuts in 2011 of almost 10%. it is the biggest reduction for generations. unions have warned that will mean t

there is not a lot of hyperbole in that.in the senate brings something special about them. i will never forget having privately criticized the senator when i was there the first year. i was sitting with the previous leader. he was an incredible die. the tilt -- he was an incredible guy. i tell them about a particular senator railing against something i thought was particularly important. he went on to tell me that every member of the senate represented something in the eyes of their state that was special and represented a piece of their state. if there was ever a senator who was the embodiment of his state, if there was ever a senator to, in fact, reflected in his state, it was robert c. byrd. the fact of the matter is, the sweet sound of the federal, dinners in the spring, county fairs in the summer, the beauty of the laurels in the mountain, the rush of the rapids to the valley -- these things not only describe west virginia, but from itoutsider's point of view, seems to me they defined a way of life. it is more than just

i think that's more hyperbole. i think the memory of what happened in 2008, when we went to $150 for crude and $4.11 for gasoline, and then went into the greatest economic recession of our lifetime, is too fresh. so i think we'll get into the up per threes. people will be talking about it. it will be apocalyptic. but it's not going to be as bad as it was in 2008. >> you talked about the economy. could these oil prices -- anded economy is doing better. could these high gas prices rein in a recovery in the economy? >> yeah, they already are to some extent. you talk about the consumer level and people who live from pay check to pay check it really hurts. you're talking about the average person uses about 600 gallons of gas a year. a dollar more for that is about $600. so it has an impact on consumption, and it's even more than the actual expenses. people feel bad when they see the high price of gas, because it's in their face every day. >> other than cutting back on using gas for consumers, is there anything consumers

it is at least for now hyperbole to think of china overtaking america. the world's sole superpower changed, but at the same time, i don't view it as a 0-sum game. china's rise doesn't necessarily mean the decline of america, and a strong china can and should provide security opportunities through which it's possible to pursue shared interests in a mew chiewl benefit. sure, there are troubling trends. china increased spending. china's gdp will pass ours in 2030. students in shanghai topped not just those in new york, but those in the most successful educational systems. the $900 billion of u.s. treasuries presents a growing challenge to our independence. what matters is whether we measure china not in terms that are relative, but sloit. in reality our budget is 4.5 times china and invest 6 times in r and d. our higher education system in my view remains the envoy of the world, and we still manufacture more than china despite the trade imbalance and perception of the average american. the trade debt is a critical challenge for us. we have neither quick nor

histrionics and hyperbole. when you go back 20 years ago, when the japanese bought rockefeller center, and the outcry that you saw in the press and politicians and others, because they had the audacity to by rockefeller center, and what a threat that was to the u.s.. now, you only have to take a moment to think about, how big is this threat? what are they going to do with it? ticket to japan? nothing. -- take it to japan? now you have the land and the money. greater trade ties, keeping a commercial discussion rather than a military discussion. i believe this can do a lot, and just kind of person in michael's point a bit on how we do the a lot of strength, we do, but when i think about the three h's, it seems that democracies are uniquely suited to putting of the traffic light after the fourth accident. we have already seen the first accident. and as people start screaming and getting attention, i swear, it is tough to move a democracy, and unless we can start using some of these three h's, i do not know if we c

moments like that you say, a lot of this political fragmentation, a lot of the polarization and hyperbolic but jim that it tends the political process and start to boil away and you have a very clear view of what's really important as embodied, listening to president or any political leaders once you get them away from the rhetoric. to me it's regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another, without a willingness to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. now i think debate is absolutely essential. and i think strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. i think that's good stuff. that's in keeping with the american tradition. if you go back in terms of american history and go back to the founding of our country that things like the federalist papers, you understand that the founding fathers with all their rebellion against the british were pretty rebellious on an intramural basis with each other about what our country would be in the direction were going. obviously we've had a civil war in this country, was a way no inter

moments like that you say, a lot of this political fragmentation, a lot of the polarization and hyperbolicbut jim that it tends the political process and start to boil away and you have a very cr view of what's really important as embodied, listening to president or any political leaders once you get them away from the rhetoric. to me it's regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another, without a willingness to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. now i think debate is absolutely essential. and i think strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. i think that's good stuff. that's in keeping with the american tradition. if you go back in terms of american history and go back to the founding of our country that things like the federalist papers, you understand that the founding fathers with all their rebellion against the british were pretty rebellious on an intramural basis with each other about what our country would be in the direction were going. obviously we've had a civil war in ths country, was a way no internal d

. >> and really talk about what the impact will be, and not get into the hyperbole we have seen beforepanels, which just is not true peer yen gues guest: i think we will have a clash of wills between the different sides in this congress, and i do think that for better compromise to get done, this debate has to be conducted with stability, and i think that is one of the things the president was saying in his speech, that disability did not cause this necessarily. but let's take this as an excuse to add more civility toward one another. t wednesday evening in tucson, arizona. >> let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame. let's use this occasion to expand a moral imagination, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instinct for empa thy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopse and dreams are bound together. >> we've been talking about what happened in tuscon over the last eight days. but where does the political dialogue and debate go from here? >> it goes to the debate we've started on health care and the