I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology
Well, depending upon how one looks at it, they both are "flawed and failed" ideologies. "Liberalism" in the sense that you mean it was part of a c18 and c19 critique of Smithian classical capitalism that first emerged as a vigorous kind of Christian charity that took both England and New England in America by storm.
The notion that the state should care for its poorer or weaker elements is something we Americans inherited from/developed alongside England. After the dissolution of the convents and monasteries by Henry VIII, those institutions that had formerly provided relief to individuals in need vanished, and the local and national governments had to pick up the slack. This really gets going in the mid-late c18 and continues through today. What you call "conservatism" we might consider to have origins in "Toryism," which had traditionally allied itself with the monarch/leader and sought to maintain wealth, landholdings, and political power (duh.). It is against this political position that all modern labor movements, and all modern notions of liberalism, find their origins.
Unchecked capitalism in England and America in the c18 and c19 resulted in absolutely deplorable conditions. If you don't believe me, go read some Dickens (preferably Hard Times) or Alger (Ragged Dick). If there was one thing that the c19 showed unequivocally, it was that capitalism needed restraints, and that if it were allowed to exist unchecked, the conditions that resulted were, quite simply, inhumane. If you want a brilliant snapshot of what I'm talking about, take a look at Engels's descriptions of the poor in London (esp. Conditions of the Working Classes). Or Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. Or hell, just about any magazine from the mid-c19.
Everyone understands that the FNC trademark is the big middle finger at mainstream media. Implying that mainstream media is NOT "fair and balanced".
Al Franken's book is political satire... and very well protected under the 1st amendment. It's just not that AL used the trademark on the cover of the book... but HOW he used it.
No one is going to believe that he's trying to fool people into thinking it's a conservative book...
Also... FNC doesn't publish O'Reilly's books so they can't sue AL on any "look and feel" issues because of the design of the cover... which is MOCKING O'Reilly's book.
Your continued insults aside, I am not dismissing your arguments. It is possible Fox will lose based on some of the grounds you pointed out. I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.
But, the evidence is against Franken here. As I said, do you think he would have used the phrase if Fox DID NOT use it? Of course not. The phrase would have no meaning if Fox hadn't popularized it. Franken used it while rather obviously visually referencing Fox News itself, and now he will profit from it. He also may have slandered O'Reilly and others in the process with the sub title.
This has nothing to do with ideology. This is about trying to predict what a court of law will decide, and I think there is a good chance Fox will win the case. Legal context aside, what Franken did was shameless and you know it.
Um, you need thicker skin. I don't think anything in my post was particularly insulting. Challenging, possibly, but not insulting. It was you who first challenged my credentials. It was you who first played the grammer card. I'm _trying_ to get you to actually argue your case.
Courts are not unpredictable. In fact, in almost all cases they are fairly easy to predict because the laws are pretty clear. Good heavens, look at Michael Moore's entire career. This is not at all an unclear area of law.
Of course he wouldn't have used the phrase if Fox didn't use it. He's is specifically criticizing Fox and it's personalities. How do you criticize without referencing them? This lawsuit has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with the law. It is not standard practice to include insults to the defendent in your filing--that was completely PR and not legal manuvering. This was Fox trying to stiffle criticism and political debate. Thank heavens in backfired..
The book came out today - there is no way anyone could think it is anything but a parody. I made a display where I work with O'Reilly's latest on one side and Franken's on the other - Franken's is selling like hotcakes. Franken has been parodying corporate slogans for a long time, I think the first time I saw him on Saturday Night Live it was during a skit making fun of the slogan "Without Chemicals, Life itself would be Impossible." How can anyone even look at a picture of Al Franken and think he is being serious?
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
Then again, no reasonable person would have confused the book "Al Franken is a Buck-Toothed Moron" with Al's book, but for some reason, Al saw fit to try to challenge this in court. Satire is okay if you are liberal only.
Isn't it ironic that the very thing your saying is a lie.
Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...
"Franken may indeed know something about satire; in 1996, his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" was itself parodied by J.P. Mauro (actually two Mauro brothers) in the book "Al Franken Is a Buck-Toothed Moron," which features a doctored Franken photo on the cover. The introduction to the book consists of letters purporting to be from Franken's lawyers, attempting to deny the authors the use of Franken's picture. Later in the book, the letters are described as fictitious."
Isn't it ironic that the very thing your saying is a lie.
Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...
You're playing the game the same way FNC does...
you don't check your facts and try to discredit people.
Damn chewie, you beat me to it. When I first saw this post I started searching for this book and the evidence of Franken fighting it, because that would, indeed, make him a hypocrite and I love irony. Quite quickly I came across the info about it being a fiction.
That seems like a fair journalistic tactic IMHO. Journalists will often lie about what information they have in illiciting information from sources. No different from a cop telling a suspect that there accomplice has already confessed to prompt them into confessing. I'm not sure it even qualifies as this, however, since even Ashcroft should be smart enough to sniff out this prank. Surely, Franken would know that Ashcroft would run this by his lawyers who would at least check with Rice and Bennet.
If it had worked, man that would have been a funny testimonial!
I think the problem is that you just don't understand what satire is... seems alot of conservatives have that problem.
What in your response indicated that it was satire?
And the apology to Ashcroft... do you think Al was REALLY apologizing?
Lets see, coming up with a reply that paraphrased a statement about a book of satire that went ahead and admitted a fact. A bit circular, but if this doesn't fall within your definition of satire, please define the term for us.
Comments
Just preempting the get a room crowd...
Well, regardless of the eventual outcome, this gets Franken tons of publicity so either way he should thank Fox. Hmm...although...
Perhaps Franken could sic the FTC on Fox for false advertising and deceptive trade practices...fair and balanced...pffft.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Then be insulted. I call them like I see them.
Conservative prick.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think liberalism is a totally flawed and failed ideology
Well, depending upon how one looks at it, they both are "flawed and failed" ideologies. "Liberalism" in the sense that you mean it was part of a c18 and c19 critique of Smithian classical capitalism that first emerged as a vigorous kind of Christian charity that took both England and New England in America by storm.
The notion that the state should care for its poorer or weaker elements is something we Americans inherited from/developed alongside England. After the dissolution of the convents and monasteries by Henry VIII, those institutions that had formerly provided relief to individuals in need vanished, and the local and national governments had to pick up the slack. This really gets going in the mid-late c18 and continues through today. What you call "conservatism" we might consider to have origins in "Toryism," which had traditionally allied itself with the monarch/leader and sought to maintain wealth, landholdings, and political power (duh.). It is against this political position that all modern labor movements, and all modern notions of liberalism, find their origins.
Unchecked capitalism in England and America in the c18 and c19 resulted in absolutely deplorable conditions. If you don't believe me, go read some Dickens (preferably Hard Times) or Alger (Ragged Dick). If there was one thing that the c19 showed unequivocally, it was that capitalism needed restraints, and that if it were allowed to exist unchecked, the conditions that resulted were, quite simply, inhumane. If you want a brilliant snapshot of what I'm talking about, take a look at Engels's descriptions of the poor in London (esp. Conditions of the Working Classes). Or Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor. Or hell, just about any magazine from the mid-c19.
Cheers
Scott
Al Franken's book is political satire... and very well protected under the 1st amendment. It's just not that AL used the trademark on the cover of the book... but HOW he used it.
No one is going to believe that he's trying to fool people into thinking it's a conservative book...
Also... FNC doesn't publish O'Reilly's books so they can't sue AL on any "look and feel" issues because of the design of the cover... which is MOCKING O'Reilly's book.
FNC will lose.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your continued insults aside, I am not dismissing your arguments. It is possible Fox will lose based on some of the grounds you pointed out. I also have a fair understanding of copyright law, BTW.
But, the evidence is against Franken here. As I said, do you think he would have used the phrase if Fox DID NOT use it? Of course not. The phrase would have no meaning if Fox hadn't popularized it. Franken used it while rather obviously visually referencing Fox News itself, and now he will profit from it. He also may have slandered O'Reilly and others in the process with the sub title.
This has nothing to do with ideology. This is about trying to predict what a court of law will decide, and I think there is a good chance Fox will win the case. Legal context aside, what Franken did was shameless and you know it.
Um, you need thicker skin. I don't think anything in my post was particularly insulting. Challenging, possibly, but not insulting. It was you who first challenged my credentials. It was you who first played the grammer card. I'm _trying_ to get you to actually argue your case.
Courts are not unpredictable. In fact, in almost all cases they are fairly easy to predict because the laws are pretty clear. Good heavens, look at Michael Moore's entire career. This is not at all an unclear area of law.
Of course he wouldn't have used the phrase if Fox didn't use it. He's is specifically criticizing Fox and it's personalities. How do you criticize without referencing them? This lawsuit has everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with the law. It is not standard practice to include insults to the defendent in your filing--that was completely PR and not legal manuvering. This was Fox trying to stiffle criticism and political debate. Thank heavens in backfired..
how does he get away with this stuff?
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/moyersoreilly.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm
Originally posted by chu_bakka
if anyone should be sued... it should be O'Reilly...
how does he get away with this stuff?
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/moyersoreilly.htm
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm
Hey, they just claim to be Fair and Balanced(TM). Not Honest and Truthful (Patent Pending).
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...+intimidation+
there are certain standards the news media and the Executive Branch should adhere to...
FNC and the current Bush administration don't seem to get it though.
Originally posted by Shawn
Al Franken got away with "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." I'm sure his legal team is up to the task of defending an obvious parody. No reasonable person will confuse Franken's use of "Fair and Balanced" here.
Then again, no reasonable person would have confused the book "Al Franken is a Buck-Toothed Moron" with Al's book, but for some reason, Al saw fit to try to challenge this in court. Satire is okay if you are liberal only.
Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...
"Franken may indeed know something about satire; in 1996, his book "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" was itself parodied by J.P. Mauro (actually two Mauro brothers) in the book "Al Franken Is a Buck-Toothed Moron," which features a doctored Franken photo on the cover. The introduction to the book consists of letters purporting to be from Franken's lawyers, attempting to deny the authors the use of Franken's picture. Later in the book, the letters are described as fictitious."
http://www.latimes.com/features/life...,4846451.story
You're playing the game the same way FNC does...
you don't check your facts and try to discredit people.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Isn't it ironic that the very thing your saying is a lie.
Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...
You're playing the game the same way FNC does...
you don't check your facts and try to discredit people.
You're right, it never happened.
But this did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966836/posts
Gee, I guess I can't even post something about a book in a satirical way without defining it as satire.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Isn't it ironic that the very thing your saying is a lie.
Al Franken didn't try to stop that book... it says in the book that the letters from Al and his lawyers were fictional...
You're playing the game the same way FNC does...
you don't check your facts and try to discredit people.
Damn chewie, you beat me to it. When I first saw this post I started searching for this book and the evidence of Franken fighting it, because that would, indeed, make him a hypocrite and I love irony. Quite quickly I came across the info about it being a fiction.
What in your response indicated that it was satire?
And the apology to Ashcroft... do you think Al was REALLY apologizing?
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
You're right, it never happened.
But this did:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966836/posts
That seems like a fair journalistic tactic IMHO. Journalists will often lie about what information they have in illiciting information from sources. No different from a cop telling a suspect that there accomplice has already confessed to prompt them into confessing. I'm not sure it even qualifies as this, however, since even Ashcroft should be smart enough to sniff out this prank. Surely, Franken would know that Ashcroft would run this by his lawyers who would at least check with Rice and Bennet.
If it had worked, man that would have been a funny testimonial!
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think the problem is that you just don't understand what satire is... seems alot of conservatives have that problem.
What in your response indicated that it was satire?
And the apology to Ashcroft... do you think Al was REALLY apologizing?
Lets see, coming up with a reply that paraphrased a statement about a book of satire that went ahead and admitted a fact. A bit circular, but if this doesn't fall within your definition of satire, please define the term for us.
Basically you tried to get away with something and you got caught. Was the "it's satire is only ok if you are a liberal" the satirical part?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
my definition of satire? try anyones definition.
Basically you tried to get away with something and you got caught. Was the "it's satire is only ok if you are a liberal" the satirical part?
Thank you for defining what I meant.
And I agree, when a person is caught, he should be made to answer for it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966836/posts
When someone tries to get away with something, by all means, nail them to the wall, and be sure no one forgets!