She is not similar to Franken in comedy. Franken is actually funny and he is a professional comedian. She is not funny, and it's not just a matter of sense of humor, she has bitter sarcasm and only the vein of ridicule. And that's not satirical, that's the refuge of someone who wants to express anger and doesn't know how to do it any other way.
Let's at least be honest about everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Franken is a professional comedian; Coulter is angry and audacious enough to draw an audience and looks good enough on TV to keep them interested.
They are both partisan shills, of course.
Well I'll take your word on that. As I mentioned I only have the occasional column to compare to an entire book. I haven't seen any Franken columns or read any Coulter books. I can say that I thought the tone of his book was quite bitter, a word you used to describe both parties. I would consider him to be ridiculing pretty much every target in the book. I'm not claiming your partisan, just that maybe you don't mind those target being whacked quite as much.
I have also seen Coulter on Bill Maher's shows, where she has been repeatedly invited I believe, in part because she is funny. (Bill himself is hilarous on most issues and avoids most of the bitterness that Ann or Franken both fall into in my opinion.)
I'm not claiming your partisan, just that maybe you don't mind those target being whacked quite as much.
I have read quite a large chunk of both Slander and Treason as well as parts of Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot. The only reason I read this one in full is because it was a gift.
I think it's hilarious that Franken calls the Democrats "left", personally, so I even find him unintentionally humorous.
The Democrat shills mesh more with me idealogically because I'm fairly liberal about most things, but that is just as incidental as me agreeing with Hitler on whether or not people should eat food if they want to live. I consider myself someone who thinks about issues, and in these days of the Republican attack-dog politics, I hate them with particular abandon. Democrats are stupid and disorganized, so they are more difficult for me to fix my guns on.
Quote:
I have also seen Coulter on Bill Maher's shows, where she has been repeatedly invited I believe, in part because she is funny. (Bill himself is hilarous on most issues and avoids most of the bitterness that Ann or Franken both fall into in my opinion.)
Coulter is pretty, that's why she's on TeeVee. And she is also an easy target, which is why Maher probably likes her. Maher is much more low-key, and when he gets angry he gets quiet, unlike Coulter and Franken who get shrill when angered. He is the smug prick to their loud and obnoxious pricks. I am much more like Maher.
--
bunge:
Quote:
Didn't the office of Homeland Security get set up after 9/11?
It was created and announced after 9/11, yeah, but it's not like they pulled the entire thing out of their ass in a week. It slowly made the political rounds from the very-late-Clinton era onward.
My fiancee's father thought I might like Al Franken's new book for Christmas. Why he thought I might be intereted in an entire book of partisan bitching I have no idea. (To give you a hint, he gave my fiancee (his daughter) Hillary's book.)
So I'm reading this thing and it's pure crap. Not because it makes fun of Coulter and O'Reilly and such, that's fine, Coulter is a clown and O'Reilly needs serious help, I knew that before this book.
If this is the level of debate the masses engage in then I'm truly frightened. Not only that, but this type is actually a notch above the mass view of the political spectrum.
At least he's funny, I don't know if I could even touch a Coulter or O'Reilly book if someone gave one to me.
And to think, my Amazon wish list sits untouched... ye freaking gods.
Sounds like you've got a tough road ahead -- she's always going to agree with Daddy first, don't you think?
Franken is a pinhead. Thankfully, he isn't very bright (or otherwise successful).
Sounds like you've got a tough road ahead -- she's always going to agree with Daddy first, don't you think?
No, that is not a problem.
Franken's main problem is that he's loyal to a political party. That is where the whole enterprise shoots itself in the foot. If you deem yourself loyal to a political party you have little to no credibility to begin with, because you are pledging allegiance to an entity whose main goal is to acquire power.
Even O'Reilly has the foresight to at least lie and say he's independent.
Didn't the office of Homeland Security get set up after 9/11?
Of course. Groverat doesn't know what he's talking about. For many months Bush opposed the Homeland Security proposal, which was originally the Democrats' bill, until election 2002 rolled around, after which he used it against Dems who opposed it because Republicans put in stuff like liability limits for drug companies and weaker labor rights for security workers.
Personally, I like all the Coulters and Frankens and Limbaughs et al. Political entertainment is much better than Friends or Elimidate.
I do not understand this argument. It is a rationalized "they started it!"
Not really. It's a book mainly piecing apart their lies. It's about what they say. It's not about who 'started it.' Clearly they made the initial statements since the book is about their statements.
Good luck Grove. I spent a similar thread discussing this sort of nonsense. I discussed how Clinton, after having been begged for 8 years signed an executive order lowering arsenic levels that took effect 4 years after he left office.
This made him terrific, and a great guy, and a wonderful environmentalist according to Franken.
Bush put a stay on the order, had new research and ultimately issued an order for the same standards.
This is an extremely manipulative portion of the book. A lot of it is funny, the way he makes fun of GeeDub's incessant vacation-taking, but his "Operation Ignore" stuff rings hollow when he outlines how Clinton (who he is trying to set up as master anti-terrorism guy) moved even more slowly on this issue. It took 8 months for Bush' team to get Homeland Security as an executive office to the fore (before 9/11), but it took 8 years for Clinton to even get the idea started.
Al-qaeda really came into it's own as a severe threat to the US during clinton. While certainly more could have been done (I'm very critical of both parties' behavior in the 90's), Clinton's timeline is not dramatically off. I believe the commission that eventually put out the report was intially formed in 98.
The big problem indeed was with the Bush admin because they were handed a plan and ignored it. Franken is kidding around a bit, but he is kidding on the square. I actually though 'Operation Ignore' summed it up well.
That said, my only big problem with the book was that I felt there were parts that were a bit too pro-clinton. But that doesn't change the fun stream of facts that made the book really good in other parts.
Oh, and in terms of racist republicans, something I found extremely interesting in the book was the bit about the racism at the RNC (from an original article):
Quote:
The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP...
"As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage."
You are the delusional one. You still think that Clinton setting the standard at 5 ppb and Bush setting the standard at 5 ppb is not a "rollback" no matter what partisan manner you care to portray it.
Oh, and in terms of racist republicans, something I found extremely interesting in the book was the bit about the racism at the RNC (from an original article):
You are the delusional one. You still think that Clinton setting the standard at 5 ppb and Bush setting the standard at 5 ppb is not a "rollback" no matter what partisan manner you care to portray it.
5 ppb = 5 ppb = not a rollback.
Nick
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
Dude, I'm taking my kids to the snow and you just can't face reality.
No matter what the number, be it 5, 10 or 20. The point is that leaving the standard the same is not a rollback. You can toss up as much dust as you want but the point is that it isn't a rollback. Bush needed a study, Clinton was sued. They both had to be prompted by outside sources. Clinton had it take affect after he left office, but could have issued it the first year he was in office and had it fully in place when he left 8 years later. Instead he took the cowards path. Not only can you not get over that, you can't get over the fact that Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback when it is what Clinton and Bush both had to use.
Now, I'm going to go throw a snowball probably with some arsenic in it and Franken is still a lying hack, no better than those he condemns.
I thought he was just some comedian guy that showed up once in a while on SNL?
As for O'Reilly, I think he's funny the way he yells at people on his show and since it's HIS show he can do whatever he wants and is always right. Because it's HIS show..heh heh heh...
Normally though, shows like that don't accomplish much other than making the viewers more upset (myslef included) becuase in the end it still feels like nothing was accomplished.
I'm sick of hearing two blowhards yell at each other at the same time for 5 minutes then go to commercial break..
Oh yeah, back to Al Franklin...what does he do anyway??
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.
It is exactly the sort of nonsense to which Franken claims to be ending.
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.)
I scanned every page in that book and read the chapter on the environment. I can't find where Al Franken wrote anything about arsenic in the water. Can anyone corroborate my next claim, that trumptman fabricates lies to prove dull points?
I would appreciate someone citing the alleged passage. I can't find it. Seriously. Where is it mentioned in the book?
I scanned every page in that book and read the chapter on the environment. I can't find where Al Franken wrote anything about arsenic in the water. Can anyone corroborate my next claim, that trumptman fabricates lies to prove dull points?
I would appreciate someone citing the alleged passage. I can't find it. Seriously. Where is it mentioned in the book?
I could find it for you and so you could if Franken had an index. (could you imagine any other author presenting "research" without an index and not getting slammed for it?)
You could also look it up if he documented his endnotes better. (Something he slams Coulter for while doing an even worse job of it himself.)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. Honestly his book should have both if it expects any of the details it presents to be taken seriously even though parts of it are satire.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:
She is not similar to Franken in comedy. Franken is actually funny and he is a professional comedian. She is not funny, and it's not just a matter of sense of humor, she has bitter sarcasm and only the vein of ridicule. And that's not satirical, that's the refuge of someone who wants to express anger and doesn't know how to do it any other way.
Let's at least be honest about everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Franken is a professional comedian; Coulter is angry and audacious enough to draw an audience and looks good enough on TV to keep them interested.
They are both partisan shills, of course.
Well I'll take your word on that. As I mentioned I only have the occasional column to compare to an entire book. I haven't seen any Franken columns or read any Coulter books. I can say that I thought the tone of his book was quite bitter, a word you used to describe both parties. I would consider him to be ridiculing pretty much every target in the book. I'm not claiming your partisan, just that maybe you don't mind those target being whacked quite as much.
I have also seen Coulter on Bill Maher's shows, where she has been repeatedly invited I believe, in part because she is funny. (Bill himself is hilarous on most issues and avoids most of the bitterness that Ann or Franken both fall into in my opinion.)
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
It took 8 months for Bush' team to get Homeland Security as an executive office to the fore (before 9/11)...
Didn't the office of Homeland Security get set up after 9/11?
I'm not claiming your partisan, just that maybe you don't mind those target being whacked quite as much.
I have read quite a large chunk of both Slander and Treason as well as parts of Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot. The only reason I read this one in full is because it was a gift.
I think it's hilarious that Franken calls the Democrats "left", personally, so I even find him unintentionally humorous.
The Democrat shills mesh more with me idealogically because I'm fairly liberal about most things, but that is just as incidental as me agreeing with Hitler on whether or not people should eat food if they want to live. I consider myself someone who thinks about issues, and in these days of the Republican attack-dog politics, I hate them with particular abandon. Democrats are stupid and disorganized, so they are more difficult for me to fix my guns on.
I have also seen Coulter on Bill Maher's shows, where she has been repeatedly invited I believe, in part because she is funny. (Bill himself is hilarous on most issues and avoids most of the bitterness that Ann or Franken both fall into in my opinion.)
Coulter is pretty, that's why she's on TeeVee. And she is also an easy target, which is why Maher probably likes her. Maher is much more low-key, and when he gets angry he gets quiet, unlike Coulter and Franken who get shrill when angered. He is the smug prick to their loud and obnoxious pricks. I am much more like Maher.
--
bunge:
Didn't the office of Homeland Security get set up after 9/11?
It was created and announced after 9/11, yeah, but it's not like they pulled the entire thing out of their ass in a week. It slowly made the political rounds from the very-late-Clinton era onward.
Originally posted by groverat
My fiancee's father thought I might like Al Franken's new book for Christmas. Why he thought I might be intereted in an entire book of partisan bitching I have no idea. (To give you a hint, he gave my fiancee (his daughter) Hillary's book.)
So I'm reading this thing and it's pure crap. Not because it makes fun of Coulter and O'Reilly and such, that's fine, Coulter is a clown and O'Reilly needs serious help, I knew that before this book.
If this is the level of debate the masses engage in then I'm truly frightened. Not only that, but this type is actually a notch above the mass view of the political spectrum.
At least he's funny, I don't know if I could even touch a Coulter or O'Reilly book if someone gave one to me.
And to think, my Amazon wish list sits untouched... ye freaking gods.
Sounds like you've got a tough road ahead -- she's always going to agree with Daddy first, don't you think?
Franken is a pinhead. Thankfully, he isn't very bright (or otherwise successful).
Sounds like you've got a tough road ahead -- she's always going to agree with Daddy first, don't you think?
No, that is not a problem.
Franken's main problem is that he's loyal to a political party. That is where the whole enterprise shoots itself in the foot. If you deem yourself loyal to a political party you have little to no credibility to begin with, because you are pledging allegiance to an entity whose main goal is to acquire power.
Even O'Reilly has the foresight to at least lie and say he's independent.
Originally posted by bunge
Didn't the office of Homeland Security get set up after 9/11?
Of course. Groverat doesn't know what he's talking about. For many months Bush opposed the Homeland Security proposal, which was originally the Democrats' bill, until election 2002 rolled around, after which he used it against Dems who opposed it because Republicans put in stuff like liability limits for drug companies and weaker labor rights for security workers.
Personally, I like all the Coulters and Frankens and Limbaughs et al. Political entertainment is much better than Friends or Elimidate.
I love the fact that Al has sold about 50% more books than O'Reilly and Hillary has sold 3 times as many.
Oh and here's a photo of Al with the USO on a helicopter in Iraq on his way to entertain the troops.
http://alfrankenweb.com/aluso.jpg
Originally posted by groverat
giant:
I do not understand this argument. It is a rationalized "they started it!"
Not really. It's a book mainly piecing apart their lies. It's about what they say. It's not about who 'started it.' Clearly they made the initial statements since the book is about their statements.
Originally posted by trumptman
Good luck Grove. I spent a similar thread discussing this sort of nonsense. I discussed how Clinton, after having been begged for 8 years signed an executive order lowering arsenic levels that took effect 4 years after he left office.
This made him terrific, and a great guy, and a wonderful environmentalist according to Franken.
Bush put a stay on the order, had new research and ultimately issued an order for the same standards.
You so crazy.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...c&pagenumber=1
Originally posted by groverat
This is an extremely manipulative portion of the book. A lot of it is funny, the way he makes fun of GeeDub's incessant vacation-taking, but his "Operation Ignore" stuff rings hollow when he outlines how Clinton (who he is trying to set up as master anti-terrorism guy) moved even more slowly on this issue. It took 8 months for Bush' team to get Homeland Security as an executive office to the fore (before 9/11), but it took 8 years for Clinton to even get the idea started.
Al-qaeda really came into it's own as a severe threat to the US during clinton. While certainly more could have been done (I'm very critical of both parties' behavior in the 90's), Clinton's timeline is not dramatically off. I believe the commission that eventually put out the report was intially formed in 98.
The big problem indeed was with the Bush admin because they were handed a plan and ignored it. Franken is kidding around a bit, but he is kidding on the square.
That said, my only big problem with the book was that I felt there were parts that were a bit too pro-clinton. But that doesn't change the fun stream of facts that made the book really good in other parts.
The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP...
"As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage."
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/4898492.htm
Originally posted by giant
You so crazy.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...c&pagenumber=1
You are the delusional one. You still think that Clinton setting the standard at 5 ppb and Bush setting the standard at 5 ppb is not a "rollback" no matter what partisan manner you care to portray it.
5 ppb = 5 ppb = not a rollback.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Oh, and in terms of racist republicans, something I found extremely interesting in the book was the bit about the racism at the RNC (from an original article):
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/4898492.htm
Yeah it would be so much better if he were the mistress of the Democratic party instead.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You are the delusional one. You still think that Clinton setting the standard at 5 ppb and Bush setting the standard at 5 ppb is not a "rollback" no matter what partisan manner you care to portray it.
5 ppb = 5 ppb = not a rollback.
Nick
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
Originally posted by giant
Doood, you still can't even get the number straight.
Not only that, the bush admin did try to push for 20ppb because 10ppb was considered too costly. Then, a new report came out saying that even 10ppb was too high, and the Bush admin finally accepted the 10ppb.
This is after clinton tried to push for 5ppb, as recommended, and industry pressure bumped it up to 10ppb.
As for the 'took effect 4 years after he left office': earth to trumptman! Not only does the bush order not take effect until 2006, but the reason for that is a practical one. Did you just think they were going to send a genie to all those towns to magically upgrade their water systems in an instant?
Dude, I'm taking my kids to the snow and you just can't face reality.
No matter what the number, be it 5, 10 or 20. The point is that leaving the standard the same is not a rollback. You can toss up as much dust as you want but the point is that it isn't a rollback. Bush needed a study, Clinton was sued. They both had to be prompted by outside sources. Clinton had it take affect after he left office, but could have issued it the first year he was in office and had it fully in place when he left 8 years later. Instead he took the cowards path. Not only can you not get over that, you can't get over the fact that Franken is just a liar for calling the 10 ppb a rollback when it is what Clinton and Bush both had to use.
Now, I'm going to go throw a snowball probably with some arsenic in it and Franken is still a lying hack, no better than those he condemns.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Dude, I'm taking my kids to the snow and you just can't face reality.
Good thing you got the kids to play make-believe with.
I thought he was just some comedian guy that showed up once in a while on SNL?
As for O'Reilly, I think he's funny the way he yells at people on his show and since it's HIS show he can do whatever he wants and is always right. Because it's HIS show..heh heh heh...
Normally though, shows like that don't accomplish much other than making the viewers more upset (myslef included) becuase in the end it still feels like nothing was accomplished.
I'm sick of hearing two blowhards yell at each other at the same time for 5 minutes then go to commercial break..
Oh yeah, back to Al Franklin...what does he do anyway??
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
It is exactly the sort of nonsense to which Franken claims to be ending.
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.)
I scanned every page in that book and read the chapter on the environment. I can't find where Al Franken wrote anything about arsenic in the water. Can anyone corroborate my next claim, that trumptman fabricates lies to prove dull points?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
From the other thread:
I scanned every page in that book and read the chapter on the environment. I can't find where Al Franken wrote anything about arsenic in the water. Can anyone corroborate my next claim, that trumptman fabricates lies to prove dull points?
I could find it for you and so you could if Franken had an index. (could you imagine any other author presenting "research" without an index and not getting slammed for it?)
You could also look it up if he documented his endnotes better. (Something he slams Coulter for while doing an even worse job of it himself.)
I'm not trying to be a jerk about it. Honestly his book should have both if it expects any of the details it presents to be taken seriously even though parts of it are satire.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
Good thing you got the kids to play make-believe with.
I'll tell you what. Find me the adults that consider going from 10 to 10 a rollback.
Nick