Al Fraken Roasts Ann Coulter IN MP3

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
For your listening pleasure...



On this site:



http://www.kmox.com/programming/show...features.shtml



Is a short mp3 archive(2) of a radio interview between Al Fraken and Ann Coulter. He confronts lies she told in her book and the methods of her lying ways.



Ann should get into cycling. She backpedals very well.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    On most bikes, backpedaling does absolutely nothing but freespin the cogs.
  • Reply 2 of 49
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    hehe I already listened to it! it's awesome!



    She apparently only makes mistakes and paraphrases...



    She had to go... call on the other line... it didn't go well.

    I bet she had her agent ready to call to get her outta trouble if it wasn't going her way.
  • Reply 3 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    On most bikes, backpedaling does absolutely nothing but freespin the cogs.



    really?

  • Reply 4 of 49
    i see, she's not a liar, just a shitty researcher and writer.
  • Reply 5 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    She's so clueless. I love the endnote part. She calls them intentionally deceptive!



    Not only that, but he had twoo endnotes in the entire book, and they were both there to demonstrate how her endnotes are deceptive!
  • Reply 6 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    i see, she's not a liar, just a shitty researcher and writer.



    Isn't it amazing how these people, like 'conservatives' on these boards, always try to hide behind gross incompetence?
  • Reply 7 of 49
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Since Dec. 2000, NOTHING amazes me anymore...
  • Reply 8 of 49
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Haha! I just listened to those... wow. Ann is such a hypocrite! The way she was constantly trying to defend herself by saying that her lies were "simple mistakes" was pretty funny. Either way she's screwed, because if she makes that many errors her credibility is bound to go down.



    I gotta pick up that book!
  • Reply 9 of 49
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    Since Dec. 2000, NOTHING amazes me anymore...



  • Reply 10 of 49
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    ROFL



    love teh bit about maybe getting a better picture of her for teh cover . . . perhaps one of her lying . . .with her mouth open!!!
  • Reply 11 of 49
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    hehe... she didn't even know what to do with that comment... FUNNY!



    And he made the point that her mistakes were the culmination of her topics! her proof ... and they were mistakes! So are he points valid if her proof isn't? ummm... nope.



    And I loved how he asked her about the guy who wrote the Kmart Sighed article... which she claimed proved that the Times was elitist... and she knew exactly where Al was going... the writer is from Alabama... a southerner... not some yankee looking down his nose at southerners.
  • Reply 12 of 49
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I listened to both sections and Franken sounded pathetic. Spinsanity notes that Franken does a worse job documenting his "research" than Coulter does regarding endnotes.



    Spinsanity



    Quote:

    While Franken laces his book with attacks on conservatives, such as facetiously declaring that his next book will be titled "I F*cking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf*ckers!" (p. 107), most of his partisan rhetoric is clearly marked as sarcastic and satirical. That humor, however, often degenerates into name-calling: Ari Fleischer is a "chimp," (p. 341); Karl Rove is "human filth," (p. 151), Ashcroft covered up a statue in the Justice Department because "He didn't like being photographed in front of another boob" (p. 161).



    Other parts of the book blur the line between humor and spin even further. For example, he characterizes Bush's anti-terror efforts prior to September 11 as "Operation Ignore" (this comes just after a chapter rehabilitating Clinton's record on terrorism and skewering conservative pundits for misrepresenting it). One such passage from the chapter of the same title illustrates how Franken hides behind satire to imply things than he can't prove:



    Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike US." The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo. (p. 120)



    Franken is a joke. He uses sarcasm to "prove" what facts cannot. Those recordings consisted of an argument about a paraphrased quote, an argument about on what date an article ran. The part most around here like, well the insult of course.



    Nick
  • Reply 13 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    You post is a joke. The spinsanity piece criticises his use of satire. Well, golly! Keefer's on to something!
  • Reply 14 of 49
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    There is something to be said about the way that Francken calls the kettle black. He critiques talk show hosts for using personal insults but then describes his figures with the same sort of insulting descriptive terms . . . hmmm?!?!



    but, he does it better and out 'fact's them
  • Reply 15 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    There is something to be said about the way that Francken calls the kettle black. He critiques talk show hosts for using personal insults but then describes his figures with the same sort of insulting descriptive terms . . . hmmm?!?!



    but, he does it better and out 'fact's them




    Did you read the book?
  • Reply 16 of 49
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    If you say so...



    Did you read the book?



    I read the spinsanity article and the book...



    The Operation Ignore chapter was satire...



    Conservatives were screaming bloody murder after 9/11 practically blaming Clinton... he was making the point that while Clinton increased anti-terrorism and national security spending... and made many attempts to get Osama... when Bush took office... they didn't get it... didn't think it was a priority... of course the was no Operation Ignore... but he's making a point that there was no concerted effort by the Bush administration to heed the warnings that Clinton, Richard Clarke and others and left with them.



    Franken is not the joke. Ann Coulter is...



    She says she's paraphrasing... when she's taking quotes out of context and distorting their meaning. Or flat out gets her facts wrong. Facts that supposedly prove her weak points.
  • Reply 17 of 49
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka



    Franken is not the joke. Ann Coulter is...







    Coulter is not just a joke, she's clearly insane.
  • Reply 18 of 49
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Did you read the book?



    I must admit I have not . . . but I heard an interview with Francken where this point was brought up and sections of the book were read aloud.

    if he manages to avoid this then I am happy but I would hate to see him drag the Liberal perspective into the gutter with rats
  • Reply 19 of 49
    You should read the book. Its really well written. The main point besides pointing out hypocracy on the right is to tell saner thinking people that to fight the rightwingnuts, we should not use the lies and spin that they do but instead present the facts with lots of humor. Humor being key. The book is hilarious and genius at the same time. Well worth it.



    I think harry truman said it best when he said:







    I never give them Hell. I just tell the truth and they think its Hell!
  • Reply 20 of 49
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    I think everyone's forgetting something here. Ann Coulter never claims to be a satirist or a comedian. She is dead serious about her writings and has a rabid fan base that doesn't care if they're lied to. Al Franken has always been considered a comedian and a satirist and will always deliver his writings wrapped in humor (whether you find him funny or not is irrelevant) which makes it difficult to discern fact from satire. They're passion for all things right and left is all they have in common, but they shouldn't be pitted against each other.



    The proper boxing match would've been Ann Coulter vs. Joe Conason. Both deadly serious authors.
Sign In or Register to comment.