Clothahump:Just don’t lose sight of the fact that Al Franken is as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
The two websites you linked to in an attempt to back up that statement don’t amount to very much, though. They challenge maybe a couple dozen of Franken’s statements overall, and not all of those challenges are very well supported. (Check out this thread on AlFrankenWeb.com for refutations of most of the accusations.)
As I said at the start of this thread, Franken certainly isn’t 100% accurate, but your “full of shit as a Christmas goose” claim is a pretty wild exaggeration. A dozen or so inaccurate statements in an entire book puts Franken nowhere near the dishonesty level of someone like Coulter.
(Bear in mind also, as a poster in my link pointed out, that most of the “Al Franken is a liar” claims are not actually refuting anything Franken wrote about the lies and inaccuracy of right-wing pundits. So even if Franken makes some mistakes or lies of his own, that doesn’t make him “full of shit” when it comes to debunking the lies of others. Anti-Franken sites like the ones you linked to seem to be mostly nitpicking his remarks in order to distract attention from their inability to defend the credibility of the right-wingers he criticizes. Tu quoque is not a refutation.)
What a stupid site that “Frankenlies” thing is. A lot of the stuff isn’t really “lies” but just whining about how Franken characterized something. For example, Franken says in his book that his father switched to the Democrats after Johnson signed the civil rights act. The crying, pussy author on that website complains that the CRA couldn’t have passed without Republican votes. So the fuck what? How is that a “lie” on the part of Al Franken?
There are a couple of trivial factual errors. Franken makes a joke about Sam Houston being “killed by terrorists” at the Alamo. Houston didn’t die at the Alamo. It’s a mistake, but so what. It was just a joke anyway. In another instance, Franken mistakenly said that Max Cleland had three limbs blown off by a “VC grenade.” It wasn’t a VC grenade it was a friendly grenade which had been dropped by another soldier. Another minor mistake but not exactly a relevant one.
The site doesn’t actually identify any genuine “lies” (especially as compared to the shit that gets churned out by the likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or even Michael Moore) and doesn’t seem to be able to defend the many, many lies that Franken correctly identifies on the part of prominent conservatives in his book.
The author of that web page is clearly a raving partisan and an incredibly whiny one at that.
Excalibre - My user name is my user name. I didn’t select/not select based on any desire/lack thereof to announce my gender. If folks guess wrong, I correct, not on the basis of being annoyed, but rather 'cause I don’t want folks to think I’m intentionally hiding my gender. It’s a non issue for me. I clarified the status for ScottPlaid 'cause in my experience folks would prefer to not get that wrong here. YMMV. WRT - proportions of male/females on message boards, I’d wager it depends mightily on which message board you be talking - one I used to visit all the time was about 98% female for example. a World WIde Wrestling Federation? Probably more male than female would be my guess. This one? I dunno, seems to me to be more of a slightly left leaning, slightly more educated than not, so, what would that make it? 51/49? so I went with general # instead. Sue me.
Scott - written medium and all - the tone I got from your reply about the gender thing was something like “I do it this way so there” which I got from the fact that you defended your position, vs. saying, something like “ok, thanks” or “oops, sorry”. I don’t give a shit why you choose assigning automatic male, was merely pointing out that in that particular case you were wrong. Wasn’t looking for a defense of your strategy at all.
wrt: the other conversation - Criminey. all I did was point out that sometimes it can get disjointed and difficult to follow a thread if you have two simultaneous conversations going on (now three) as we do here. I don’t really give a shit - it just seemed to me that for those few folks who were really into that narrow little bit of the OP’s statement, that y’all could mosey on over to (wasn’t it your?) the other thread devoted specifically to that topic? Forget I mentioned it if it ties you up in defensive positions.
do what you wish. no need to continue this particular side trip. If you wish to have a final word, go for it, I’m done w/both of these issues.
now, back to joking w/Airman about his recent transformation. I suspect that it’s made you all the more handsome to your lovely wife as well, right?
It is well that those of us who are impaired by testosterone poisoning are mindful of the admonitions and persuasions of those who incarnate the Goddess. Were it not so, we would spend all our time running naked through the woods, peeing on trees. Which would be bad thing. Yes, dear.
So, fair kudos to Throbbin’ Robin, but the Rarin’ Aaron should not be overlooked. There’s something about the word “Dad” that causes one some very deep reflection.
What’s sickening is that Franken’s claim that Cleland’s courage was questioned in an ad by his opponent (in which pics of Saddam H. and Osama bin Laden were layered over his own, implying he was friendly to them) was absolutely true.
It is to me. Especially since this is a world in which if I don’t like what Employer A is offering me, I can pick my ass up and go work for Employer B who will gladly pay me nearly double my current salary to steal me from Employer A.
I don’t need a man telling me that I’m losing in the ‘pursuit of feeling like just as much of a human being as the next guy’, like some condescending papa reminding me that my place is among the disadvantaged. I get enough of that crap thrown at me from Gloria Steinem and her buddies.
I am not disadvantaged.
As for mistakenly calling me ‘he’, no big deal. It happens all the time. Just don’t assume that your default pronoun also makes me a man who doesn’t know how ‘hard women have it.’ I’m not a man, and I don’t think women have it that hard.
I really liked that book and felt that it had a number of great facts both in refutation of other books on the market and policy ideas by the Republican party. the only time I didn’t enjoy the book was when he was being hypocrtical such as his views of the booing of republican party members during Paul Wellstone’s funeral. I’ve never really argued against you in debates Airman, but I’m glad you thought the book was thought provoking.
catsix:I don’t need a man telling me that I’m losing in the ‘pursuit of feeling like just as much of a human being as the next guy’, like some condescending papa reminding me that my place is among the disadvantaged.
That kind of sounds as though you’re claiming that a man doesn’t have a right to express an opinion on sexism, at least if his opinion differs from yours.
Surely Scott is entitled to his opinion that sexism in the US is a problem, even if you disagree with him. Why get all huffy about it, to the extent of comparing him to a “condescending papa” no less? I have to say, that sounds like exactly the sort of “victimization whining” about male behavior that I thought you were opposed to.
Thank you Kimstu. I also recall when I defended affirmative action in the past, and furthermore said that if it did not exist, then people would in fact be dismissing the job applications of members of minorities out of hand. I was really attacked on the issue, and treated like the worst, most condescending person in the world. I can only conclude that it is a sore point, and that my defending myself sounds to others like I am putting down their position, due to an imperfect writing style.
“Affirmative action is no longer necessary” is much like “We live in an overly-litigious society.” There are certain viewpoints that have been so heavily pushed by the propagandamakers that, regardless of the quality of your argument or the data you bring in, you cannot successfully argue against here. People are not willing to hear certain viewpoints, or at least not willing to discuss them honestly.
I have. Since I got a job and started paying taxes in an appreciable amount, I’ve gained a lot of respect for conservative ideals like a balanced budget, a simplified tax code, and reducing government expenditures. Since I’ve started thinking about buying a home, I have gained a greater appreciation for the importance of upholding personal property.
You could argue that I’ve just realigned my politics to match my own self-interest at this point in my life. You might be right.
But I’ve also gained a new appreciation for the states’ rights and an inclination against judicial activism (and, yes, I know what judicial activism means. I think Lochner v. NY and Roe v. Wade were both bad decisions). While I remain in complete support of gay marriage, I really wish there were a better way to bring it about than through judicial edict.
Here’s a fairly lengthy thread in which frankenlies.com is discussed at great length.
Oh, and this thread does definitely answer one long-standing SDMB-oriented question, namely, “why do we even bother having all these arguments? does anyone ever listen to anyone else?”
Sorry, that was a poorly chosen example. I’m uneasy about establishing a right to marry against great popular opposition and without the rock-hard Constitutional support that analogous cases (e.g. Loving v. Virginia) were decided on. But I don’t know enough about the Massachusetts decision to know whether it was correctly decided. If it really was based on solid language in the Mass Constitution, then I’m all for it. But if it was based on a flaky interpretation, then I’m not totally convinced the ends justify the means. Given that decision, however, I hope that a marriage in one state will be rightly deemed legal in all under the “full faith and credit” clause by SCOTUS.
An oversimplification is that in Massachusetts the state constitution allowed for even more of a guarantee of happiness and freedom then the national constitution, and since a recently written anti-gay marriage law was recently the courts, when asked to rule on the legality of the law, decided that such discriminatory wording interfered with the equal rights, and the happiness of married couples. (How can you be happy if you can’t visit your spouse in the hospital, after all.) The court gave the bigots half a year to come up with some sort of rational reason why the state should be enforcing a discriminatory law, and when all they came up with was “Recorded history says gay people are weird!” the courts struck down the anti-gay marriage law. “Why not have things stay the same as before the anti-gay marriage law?”, people asked, and were told when there is no reason not to do something, and a million reasons why, you shouldn’t just be silent and let injustice happen.
In a tidbit related to the OP, I’ll just mention that Mr. Franken will be a host for the Operation Truth Benefit Concert in New York City this Saturday, a fundraiser for Iraq war veterans.
Bwahahahaha! My diabolical plan to turn Airman liberal is succeeding…
Seriously, I can’t claim that much credit. We do discuss politics and all, but I haven’t consciously tried to change his mind about anything. Now that he’s been in the world for a while, he isn’t as sheltered as he used to be.
And I have to say, his political shift is quite the turn-on. It’s a shame I’m in Texas and he’s in PA.
