I assume he did it because Harvard made him do so.
He wasn’t wrong in soliciting the story from Aschcroft. There is a history of pranksters writing letters to government officials, etc. and publishing the replies (“Letters from a Nut” is one title I remember). Nor does this seem any different than recording and publishing prank calls as the Jerky Boys did.
What he did do that was wrong was use the letterhead, which misrepresented his actions as having the official sanction of Harvard. I’m sure they told him that and hence the apology.
Ah – I see what you’re saying. FTR, while Smalley is far from the most annoying of SNL characters, he’s not my favorite, either. Still, reruns of SNL from the Smalley era are incredibly funnier than later SNL episodes, in which whole skits would be based around the single joke of a scout leader sexually abusing a cub scout, a bunch of kids making fun of a disabled child, and other hystericaly concepts.
But he lied to the American people! Well, ok, actually he lied to an elected representative of the American people, which is really just about as…no, wait, he lied to a representative appointed by someone who was an elected by the American…he lied to a representative appointed by someone who was very nearly elected! By the American people!
The scoundrel! Where do you go to buy tar? And feathers? Walgreens? K-Mart? Oh, look, Shodan already has some! How very convenient.
If you cannot distinguish harmless pranks from right-wing lies that lead to the destruction of democracy worldwide and the deaths of millions of people, you have a serious problem. This is one of the lamest threads I have yet seen on this board (and yes that includes all of december’s threads).
Actually, this is quite close to what he did when he used the Harvard name and insignia on his letterhead.
Which is irrelevant. I doubt that being deceived by a stranger is significantly more or less immoral than by a friend.
Correctly stated. Additionally, he does almost immediately after accusing the Right of using deception to gain their ends. He is, in other words, both a liar and a hypocrite, and worst than those he condemns.
I suggest that you are being excessively charitable in your assumptions as to what Franken was going to do with the information he was attempting fraudulently to obtain. A person who makes personal attacks the titles of several of his books is not likely to be trustworthy in anything he says.
Correct. Or more accurately, he makes his living as a pot, calling the kettles on the Right black.
As I mentioned, a liar and a hypocrite.
And stoutly defended by many who would condemn the same behavior from any Republican.
As I mentioned above, irrelevant.
Which strikes me as a description of what Franken did - i.e., engaged in deception to gain something he hoped to turn into a story. Fortunately, Ashcroft seems (by your standards) a person of higher moral character than Lewinsky. But that would be obvious already, don’t you think?
As I mentioned, I believe the story Franken was trying to obtain was both likely, and intended, to damage Ashcroft in any way Franken thought he could achieve. Read the title of his last few books, and try to keep a straight face when you claim otherwise.
Nice try, ** Shodan, ** but you declaring what isn’t and is not relevant doesn’t make it so.
You can think that Franken is the lowest form of scum imaginable for what he did, that’s your right. But your comparisons of him to those he satrizes and skewers for their lies are deeply flawed, nearly to the point of being nonsensical. Not all lies are the same, period. And I know you know that, cuz I know you aren’t stupid.
"He is, in other words, both a liar and a hypocrite, and worst than those he condemns."
Shodan, I’ll not defend the first 2 charges - he is an admitted liar, and therefore a hypocrite as well. But worse than those he condemns? That’s reaching.
I consider him the left-wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. I don’t ascribe credibility to either of them, and both of them are nasty.
But my major complaint is that neither of them are particularly funny. Both sides need better satirists, IMO.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! Deceiving a friends carries the additional element of betrayal. That is so thunderingly obvious it doesn’t bear further explication.
Utter rot. The persons Franken criticizes are the authors and fervent supporters of policies that lead directly and indirectly to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of persons. You are sore pressed to lay blame for a single casualty at the feet of Al Franken.
Suggest away. But keep in mind that is the limit of your ability, you don’t know what was on his mind beyond his own testimony. Testimony, I hasten to point out, presented as an apology. Just for comparison, can you point out an instance of Rush L., the Orca of the Airwaves, doing any similar thing?
Next time, be sure to load your humor chip before interacting with humanoids. The titles of his books are intended to do precisely what they do: announce that this book is a sarcastic commentary on the veritas-impaired.
Piffle. As I mentioned.
Pure presumption.
Precisely how many American citizens are held in prison without charges or a day in court due to Ms. Lewinsky? At what point in time did Ms. Lewinsky urge Federal prosecutors to renege on plea bargains in order to open the opportunity for a death penalty? In what capacity does Ms. Lewinsky serve an Administration that consistently misleads the American people?
Easily done. Politically, his head is on straight. But he’s not that funny.
An astonishing statement. Its too many for me, I retire.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Additionally, he does almost immediately after accusing the Right of using deception to gain their ends. He is, in other words, both a liar and a hypocrite, and worst than those he condemns.
**
I’m going to hazard a guess that the very idea that Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and their ilk might speak anything but the revealed truth in their public speeches or their publications, or that Al Franken speaks anything but lies and deceptions in his public speeches and publications is completely foreign and alien to you. Nonetheless, if you assume or believe that they are liars and that Franken speaks the truth, the difference between them and Franken is that the conservative commentators broadcast their lies to millions in order to advance the political agenda of a particular group, whereas Franken’s “deception” did not broadcast anything to anyone.
Liar he may be for misrepresenting what book he was trying to publish. Hypocrite? Not quite. Franken accuses conservative commentators of telling lies publicly, not privately. Franken told a private lie in a private communication. I realize that Republicans often have a hard time distinguishing between private and public behavior (as the whole Lewinsky imbroglio clearly demonstrated), but they are different things.
I don’t condone what Franken did, and, given that he used Harvard letterhead, was right to send out an apology, but his attempt to solicit private information from a stranger only equates with Linda Tripp’s actual acquisition and broadcast of private information from a friend in the rather tortured worldview of conservatives.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the desire to justify and excuse those on the Left who lie and deceive in order to further an agenda, and to condemn and attack those on the Right who allegedly do the same, is a more tortured world view than those who simply assert that lying is wrong, even if the liar agrees with you.
No, apparently not, at least in the world view of Al Franken. Lies told by the Right are dreadful and bad. Lies told by the Left are justifiable.
Do you agree?
I hope not. I know you would not agree with the above, because you are not a hypocrite.
Al Franken is.
No. It. Was. A. Fucking. Piece. of. The. Worst. Kind. of. Hypocrisy. And. Exactly. What. Franken. Claimed. To. Object. To. From. His. Political. Opponents. And. You. Are. Attempting. To. Justify. It.
Although I will keep your advice at hand to give back to you the next time you post word one about how Fox News or Rush Limbaugh says something you think is false.
** Shodan, ** are you ever going to even * address * the difference between private lies between individuals and public ones addressed to millions? Lies that embarrass vs. lies that kill? Or are you just going to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “Liar liar pants on fire!”?
An equivalent to what Franken did would be if someone like Rush disguised himself as a member of some liberal group, went to a meeting and asked for anecdotes for a book, and planned to use them in a satirical way.
I doubt anyone in this thread would consider it evil or a betrayal or whatever nonsense you are calling it, no matter which side had done it.