Why conservatives should read...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Al Franken's Book.



Hey... I'm back from vacation and I had to start a thread... have to stretch my liberal muscles after being away from computers for 10 days.





A conservative's review of Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars'



10/17/03

Becky Miller



I must say that only once before in my life have I ever felt as utterly shocked as I am at this moment. The time before was when I first realized that my boss at the time, Bill Sizemore, was greedy and dishonest. The foundations of my universe shook. What has utterly shocked me today is Al Franken's latest book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."



I read the book in one sitting. It is an amazing book, and -- if you're a decent, honest, hard-working, patriotic, true-blue conservative who listens to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and watches Fox News -- an earth-shattering book...





http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary...1961270050.xml
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 54
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    I think it's noble that this person isn't afraid to speak out about their disappointment with the right-wing elite. Unfortunately, neo-cons will easily write this person off as weak or too easily polluted and their statements will systematically be dismissed just as they dismiss Franken.
  • Reply 2 of 54
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    I read the article at the link, and it doesn't really say anything. Should we applaud the writer if she can't say anything?
  • Reply 3 of 54
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    I wonder what was compelling to ol' Becky.



    I scanned/thumbed through this book myself when at Barnes and Noble on Sunday. I found one lie/mischaracterization myself without even looking hard. Franken claimed Bush "rolled back" the arsenic drinking water standards that Clinton had issued which in office. He fails to mention hat he issued them during his last hours in office.



    It is exactly the sort of nonsense to which Franken claims to be ending.



    The Clinton order was issued in the last hours of his presidency. Franken makes it seem like 8 years worth of work undone. The Clinton order was an executive order and wasn't to go into effect until 2004, a full 4 years after he had left office.



    Bush did reverse the order and then issued another one with a faster time line. It didn't demand the 10 ppb that the Clinton order did and instead used "significant lowering" from 40 ppb which had been the standard since 1952 and the full 8 years Clinton was in office.



    Franken is quite the lying liar himself. I found that one and didn't have to even look hard. I can't cite the page since I didn't buy the book. I'm sure someone else will be able to cite the page and paragraph though since Franken would never forget an index in his book or have crappy foot/endnotes in his book. (oh wait he doesn't and does.)





    Nick
  • Reply 4 of 54
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    But . . . its strange that you don't, in any way address teh issue of Arsinic in our drinking water



    not surprising . . as you continue to applaud your own belief in your thoughts . . .
  • Reply 5 of 54
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    That's fuzzy logic.



    How did Al lie? Bush did rescind the order...



    It's quite common practice for presidents to issue rules and orders right before they leave office. Nice how you portray that as being somehow underhanded.



    So... where's the link to the new arsenic rules? how many parts per billion? He probably rescinded the Clinton order so he could come out with his own at a later date and pat himself on the back for being a friend of the environment.
  • Reply 6 of 54
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    It's confirmed Water = Poison.

    Avoid water at any cost, just drink some nice Alcohols
  • Reply 7 of 54
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Trumptman, Trumptman, Trumptman...



    The Clinton change, far from being spontaneous, was the result of a decades long study that actually recommended it be lower. After the Bush admin changed it soon after he took office, another study forced the administration to finally accept the 10 ppb.



    So nice try, but you are only reaffirming that you are either a liar or base your beliefs on falsehoods.



    So what else is new?
  • Reply 8 of 54
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    It's confirmed Water = Poison.

    Avoid water at any cost, just drink some nice Alcohols




    A votre santé!
  • Reply 9 of 54
    Franken barely even wrote the book. He basically just paid a bunch of harvard young-democrat kiss ups to find all sorts of dirt and he put it in a book with his ugly mug on the front.



    Haven't read it. I might give it a look, but I'm not going to buy it. I refuse to support people who think they are smarter than they really are.
  • Reply 10 of 54
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    Bush did reverse the order and then issued another one with a faster time line. It didn't demand the 10 ppb that the Clinton order did and instead used "significant lowering" from 40 ppb which had been the standard since 1952 and the full 8 years Clinton was in office.







    I'm sorry, but I couldn't pass this up.



    1) it was 50 ppb



    2) 50 ppb was established in 1942, not 1952



    3) under the bush admin, the 10 ppb standard goes into effect in 2006



    So add this to what I pointed out above, and you lose even more.



    Sometimes I feel like you just scramble up the word magnets on your fridge to come up with your posts.
  • Reply 11 of 54
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Trumptman, Trumptman, Trumptman...



    The Clinton change, far from being spontaneous, was the result of a decades long study that actually recommended it be lower. After the Bush admin changed it soon after he took office, another study forced the administration to finally accept the 10 ppb.



    So nice try, but you are only reaffirming that you are either a liar or base your beliefs on falsehoods.



    So what else is new?




    The Clinton change, if necessary was issued as a departing executive order which didn't take place for the 8 years he was in office or for 4 years after he was out of office.



    So are you declaring that Clinton advocated you drinking polluted water for 12 years? Because that is what Franken and others declared when Bush rescinded and changed the order.



    Nick
  • Reply 12 of 54
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The Clinton change, if necessary was issued as a departing executive order which didn't take place for the 8 years he was in office or for 4 years after he was out of office.



    That's because the EPA study didn't come out until 2000. And it gives a grace period so that everyone can meet the standards.



    Maybe the EPA wording will help you understand: "public water systems must comply with the 10 ppb standard beginning January 23, 2006."
  • Reply 13 of 54
    I can't believe that someone's complaining about a decision which provides for a lower amount of arsenic in drinking water.
  • Reply 14 of 54
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by audiopollution

    I can't believe that someone's complaining about a decision which provides for a lower amount of arsenic in drinking water.



    Franken could write a whole book just on trumptman. Lying to support the raising of arsenic standards.
  • Reply 15 of 54
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    I'm sorry, but I couldn't pass this up.



    1) it was 50 ppb



    2) 50 ppb was established in 1942, not 1952



    3) under the bush admin, the 10 ppb standard goes into effect in 2006



    So add this to what I pointed out above, and you lose even more.



    Sometimes I feel like you just scramble up the word magnets on your fridge to come up with your posts.




    My link



    You are right that I scambled my numbers a bit while posting quickly during my lunch period. Thank you for correcting them but it doesn't really change the point. It does appear that I switched the 4 and 5 though. I'll make sure that revision goes in before the next press run of my book about lying liars researched by 14 assistants while on fellowship for a year.







    However the real issue is that Franken was portraying Bush as attempting to damage the work Clinton had done on the environment when Clinton did no such thing during his 8 years in office. Issuing an executive order that takes effect 4 years after you leave is the height of hypocracy. If you call that environmental action then Bush can just issue and executive order for 100 mpg CAFE standards as he leaves office decry others for undoing all his "work."



    Come on, giant, if you are going to be an environmentalist, at least be a good one. Clinton did nothing about this. Give the credit where due. If Bush hasn't done enough for you that is fine to criticize but don't call Clinton a "defender" of the environment and Bush the "despoiler" when Clinton did nothing.



    Nick
  • Reply 16 of 54
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    Franken barely even wrote the book. He basically just paid a bunch of harvard young-democrat kiss ups to find all sorts of dirt and he put it in a book with his ugly mug on the front.



    Haven't read it. I might give it a look, but I'm not going to buy it. I refuse to support people who think they are smarter than they really are.




    what a fabulously glib statement! yeah, that's it! haha!



    (for the record, he had 14 harvard grads help research the book. it's pretty much agreed upon that you don't cover up a lie when you have 14 harvard researchers on your tail.)



    but no wait....some other sarcastic bastard wrote the book! bwahahahahah. sigh. i suppose he never really wrote for Saturday Night Live either ...it's all a conspiracy...



    splinemodel...did you really write that post? hmmm
  • Reply 17 of 54
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    My link

    However the real issue is that Franken was portraying Bush as attempting to damage the work Clinton had done on the environment when Clinton did no such thing during his 8 years in office. Issuing an executive order that takes effect 4 years after you leave is the height of hypocracy. If you call that environmental action then Bush can just issue and executive order for 100 mpg CAFE standards as he leaves office decry others for undoing all his "work."



    Come on, giant, if you are going to be an environmentalist, at least be a good one. Clinton did nothing about this. Give the credit where due. If Bush hasn't done enough for you that is fine to criticize but don't call Clinton a "defender" of the environment and Bush the "despoiler" when Clinton did nothing.



    Nick




    hahahahahahhahahaha! oh boy. clinton and bush are miles apart in terms of environmental protection. are you kidding me?
  • Reply 18 of 54
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    However the real issue is that Franken was portraying Bush as attempting to damage the work Clinton had done on the environment when Clinton did no such thing during his 8 years in office. Issuing an executive order that takes effect 4 years after you leave is the height of hypocracy. If you call that environmental action then Bush can just issue and executive order for 100 mpg CAFE standards as he leaves office decry others for undoing all his "work."





    As much as I'm not fond of 'parting gestures', I think you're railing against the wrong one.



    If, in fact, the EPA presented their study in 2000, and Clinton signed this law before he left office, then there is nothing more to be said about it. The time between the study results and Clinton leaving office couldn't have been too long.



    Who was the President when this study began?



    I don't find it odd that the order took effect 4 years later. If Clinton had signed an order which was to take immediate effect, it would be impossible. Time frames are given to allow industries and local governments to implement changes over a period of time.



    If your city council enacted a law which stated that you have to immediately replace all of the copper pipes in your house, as they may have been soldered with a compound which causes cancer, I'm sure you'd be up in arms.



    The compliance periods make implementation easier, financially and organizationally.
  • Reply 19 of 54
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    [Random words]



    Trumptman, why in the world would you think you can get accurate info from that column (or up-to-date for that matter)?



    The fact is, everything you posted is wrong. Plain and simple.



    The EPA report came out in 2000 recommending 5 ppb



    then...



    http://www.epa.gov/safewater/arsenic.html



    [note that the correct year is 2006, not 2004 as your article claimed]



    http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/...1newars10.html



    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=614



    Why do you feel so horribly compelled to lie all of the time? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that: your world view has no positive relationship with reality.



    The Bush admin was forced to adopt the Clinton plan even though by that time we found it even that wasn't as strong as it needs to be.
  • Reply 20 of 54
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    So the Clean Air act and Bush's EPA dismantling of it isn't an issue?



    Al's point was that Bush is so political that he rescinded an order to reduce Arsenic levels just BECAUSE it was issued by Clinton on his way out the door.You're the hypocrit. He rescinded it for no other reason than political motive.



    Al was right.
Sign In or Register to comment.