groverat you're usually level headed I am surprised. Pick up a Bill O'Lielly or Ann Coulter book and we'll talk about garbage.
I give you... the second paragraph of the thread:
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.
What I didn't like:
- Operation Chickenhawk is not funny past the first page; it is way too long and way too self-indulgent.
- The entire "Operation Ignore" chapter is just too transparent to discuss at length, because it's based entirely on the premise that Clinton was the role model for anti-terror presidency. Which is, of course, not true.
- Perpetually sucking Bill Clinton's balls.
- Hypocrisy. Even if it's acknowledged hypocrisy, it's still hypocrisy. He attacks inadequate sourcing and then makes grand statements, like Bill Clinton doing everything right WRT terrorism.
The harping in Operation Ignore and to an extent the end of Chickenhawk got boring. Too much numbers. I have to admit I am getting ahead of my self, I'll finish the book before I comment anymore. That Colmes thing is funny though! Except to Colmes probably...I bet Hannity gets a kick out of it. Saw them on the Daily Show together once, it was...interesting. But can we at least agree this book is not garbage and see it for what it is, in its genre? Facts should always be correct but the conclusions drawn thereof by nature can and likely will be contentious. Al's done so in a funny and rather fair way, for example he seems to glorify Clinton but besides his personal life his job was outstanding, and meanwhile we have Strom havin' a black baby, and Rush popping OxyContin, and none of this even made it in to the book. He's not "sucking Clinton's balls" he just wants to illustrate all the good he did. Here is an example of NOT ball sucking on p334: "To be totally honest, I wish the Clinton admin had done more address the pig shit problem. But at least he was pushing in the right direction. Toward the end of his admin, the EPA issued stringent new CAFO regulations, requiring hog factories to take responsibility for their waste and initiating suits against some of the violators." On that same page and in this chapter are some of my favorite quotes like "Small farmers are learning that you can't beat Big Meat." The next chapter about Barbara Bush looks real fun. Anyway, the bad thing Clinton did, many prominent conservatives have replicated, and yet the "liberal media" isn't lambasting them as much. Rush even went back on air. I want to hear his first show some time. What does he say?
The biggest point the book would probably be the way "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer." I was just wondering, does anyone support Bush giving more than half the tax cut to 1% of America and what is your reasoning?
I am for capitalist democracy but surely there should be limits and a useful thing I think would a huge "reset" every 100 years or so where everyone starts back at stage 0 with the same amount of money. Or something like that. The Estate Tax is the next best thing, and Bush's pushing of his "death tax" abolition is just nuts, the GOP whined and lied about "small farmers" losing their barns but there are already exemptions for them and the estate tax is clearly only for the very rich. I guess it makes sense that Fox News has the talking heads blathering for tax cuts for the rich while Fox has Paris Hilton frolicking in Arkansas in the Simple Life and being all cavalier and "appreciating what she has" while spending the money she earned thanks to Hannity and co deceiving Americans and buying 5,000 fur hats and such (yes she can't stand dead animals, like the roadkill they apparently see for the first time, or the chicken they're asked to prepare. Yea, I got sucked in to watching the show once. It's like roadkill in a way, you don't want to look, but you can't stop looking!)
But can we at least agree this book is not garbage and see it for what it is, in its genre?
No, it's garbage. It's genre is crap so it is crap. The top of the shitpile is still shit. And I wouldn't even put this book at the top of the pile. Franken relies on sarcastic humor and picking easy targets, it makes for an entertaining day's read but it's fluff.
The absolute nanosecond he gets away from pointing out lies and making his own commentary it completely falls to shit. It becomes pandering and over-dramatic.
Quote:
He's not "sucking Clinton's balls" he just wants to illustrate all the good he did. Here is an example of NOT ball sucking on p334: "To be totally honest, I wish the Clinton admin had done more address the pig shit problem...
Oh wow, how amazingly fair. It's a Clinton blowjob, if you want to acknowledge that fact or not. Throwing in a little bit about that versus calling him the savior re:terrorism is nothing. It's like saying Jesus had ugly toes.
It's funny, but it's garbage. You obviously have a massive hard-on for that type of thing (like my father has for O'Reilly) so more power to you.
Pro-clinton is what I was thinking when I read it, too. I remember him bringing up clinton's good deeds when he didn't need to. That's actually been my main criticism of the book as well.
But that doesn't make anything related to Operation Ignore factually incorrect.
I never said anything was factually incorrect, but he certainly was manipulative in his presentation of the facts.
I'm sure you've had chicken before but if I were to say "giant eats cock" you would protest (maybe).
Franken completely ignores Clinton's inability to actually DO anything of substance and lambasts Bush's inability to actually DO anything pre-9/11. He acts as if Bush was ignoring an issue (homeland security department) Clinton thought was top-priority when Clinton never made any real moves on it. It's not about a Bush v. Clinton argument, it's about presenting honest analysis, which Franken is obviously not doing. "Operation Ignore" gets transparent about two pages in.
wasn't he also one of the ones who said if Bush was president he'd leave the country and move to Canada? dunno why anyone would think someone like that would write a decent book on politics.
Comments
groverat you're usually level headed I am surprised. Pick up a Bill O'Lielly or Ann Coulter book and we'll talk about garbage.
I give you... the second paragraph of the thread:
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.
What I didn't like:
- Operation Chickenhawk is not funny past the first page; it is way too long and way too self-indulgent.
- The entire "Operation Ignore" chapter is just too transparent to discuss at length, because it's based entirely on the premise that Clinton was the role model for anti-terror presidency. Which is, of course, not true.
- Perpetually sucking Bill Clinton's balls.
- Hypocrisy. Even if it's acknowledged hypocrisy, it's still hypocrisy. He attacks inadequate sourcing and then makes grand statements, like Bill Clinton doing everything right WRT terrorism.
- Blind partisan agenda. BOO!
What I liked:
- Supply-Side Jesus is hilarious, however.
- Lawyer & Waitress.
- Failed invasion of Bob Jones U.
- Skewering right-wing talkingheads (O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter)
- Colmes
- He's funny.
The biggest point the book would probably be the way "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer." I was just wondering, does anyone support Bush giving more than half the tax cut to 1% of America and what is your reasoning?
I am for capitalist democracy but surely there should be limits and a useful thing I think would a huge "reset" every 100 years or so where everyone starts back at stage 0 with the same amount of money. Or something like that. The Estate Tax is the next best thing, and Bush's pushing of his "death tax" abolition is just nuts, the GOP whined and lied about "small farmers" losing their barns but there are already exemptions for them and the estate tax is clearly only for the very rich. I guess it makes sense that Fox News has the talking heads blathering for tax cuts for the rich while Fox has Paris Hilton frolicking in Arkansas in the Simple Life and being all cavalier and "appreciating what she has" while spending the money she earned thanks to Hannity and co deceiving Americans and buying 5,000 fur hats and such (yes she can't stand dead animals, like the roadkill they apparently see for the first time, or the chicken they're asked to prepare. Yea, I got sucked in to watching the show once. It's like roadkill in a way, you don't want to look, but you can't stop looking!)
But can we at least agree this book is not garbage and see it for what it is, in its genre?
No, it's garbage. It's genre is crap so it is crap. The top of the shitpile is still shit. And I wouldn't even put this book at the top of the pile. Franken relies on sarcastic humor and picking easy targets, it makes for an entertaining day's read but it's fluff.
The absolute nanosecond he gets away from pointing out lies and making his own commentary it completely falls to shit. It becomes pandering and over-dramatic.
He's not "sucking Clinton's balls" he just wants to illustrate all the good he did. Here is an example of NOT ball sucking on p334: "To be totally honest, I wish the Clinton admin had done more address the pig shit problem...
Oh wow, how amazingly fair. It's a Clinton blowjob, if you want to acknowledge that fact or not. Throwing in a little bit about that versus calling him the savior re:terrorism is nothing. It's like saying Jesus had ugly toes.
It's funny, but it's garbage. You obviously have a massive hard-on for that type of thing (like my father has for O'Reilly) so more power to you.
But that doesn't make anything related to Operation Ignore factually incorrect.
I'm sure you've had chicken before but if I were to say "giant eats cock" you would protest (maybe).
Franken completely ignores Clinton's inability to actually DO anything of substance and lambasts Bush's inability to actually DO anything pre-9/11. He acts as if Bush was ignoring an issue (homeland security department) Clinton thought was top-priority when Clinton never made any real moves on it. It's not about a Bush v. Clinton argument, it's about presenting honest analysis, which Franken is obviously not doing. "Operation Ignore" gets transparent about two pages in.