Hmmm...nail this person to a wall..."A tabloid show? it won a Peabody!"I wasn't nailing you... just pointing out your tactics. Dodge and weave... dodge and weave.I don't think anyone expects Al to worry too much about his little "lie".Hey what's 16 little words in a state of the union address anyway...
And continue to do so. We require citizens to constantly point things out. There is no greater duty or drive in the human experience that to critique others.
You have taught me a lesson on the evils of dodging and weaving. Never again will I try to define the term "is". Oops, did I just do it again?
And I agree, when a person is caught, he should be made to answer for it.
But nobody has been "caught" doing anything here.
In his Rush Limbaugh book, Franken responded to Rush's claim that, apart from the military, not a single government program has ever worked. So he contacted a few conservatives and asked them if they could name any government programs that they believed were successful. He wrote (emphasis mine):
Quote:
I spoke personally with each of these very nice conservatives. As you might guess, I didn't tell them that they were contributing to a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Instead, I told them that I was writing "a satire on the breakdown of civility in public discourse," which in a way is true. I also told them I was calling Democrats and asking them to name government programs that don't work. Which, I admit, was a naked lie.
It's quite obvious that, were it not for Franken's concerns for his association with Harvard, he would have voluntarily included all of this content in his book as part of the joke. "Savin' It"?
Gee, I guess I can't even post something about a book in a satirical way without defining it as satire.
Ah, another fine Right wing tactic--when you are caught in a bald faced lie, change the subject. The assertion was not that Frankin was a jerk, but that he was a hypocrit for suing others.
You first post was a LIE, it was not satire. It was designed so that anyone who did not check the facts would believe you. It was not designed to entertain or make anyone laugh. It was presented as a serious argument.
Don't try and change the subject. You were caught red handed.
And continue to do so. We require citizens to constantly point things out. There is no greater duty or drive in the human experience that to critique others.
You have taught me a lesson on the evils of dodging and weaving. Never again will I try to define the term "is". Oops, did I just do it again?
And once again, note the change in subject. "Oh, no. I've dug myself into a huge hole. That's okay, I'll make a joke about Clinton's sex life and no one will pay attention to the real issues."
Man, you should get yourself a talk-radio gig. You've got the shtick down pat.
Ah, another fine Right wing tactic--when you are caught in a bald faced lie, change the subject. The assertion was not that Frankin was a jerk, but that he was a hypocrit for suing others.
You first post was a LIE, it was not satire. It was designed so that anyone who did not check the facts would believe you. It was not designed to entertain or make anyone laugh. It was presented as a serious argument.
Don't try and change the subject. You were caught red handed.
And thank you for explaining my designs. Along with using such loaded terms to create an effect.
Yet again, I have to explain the post.
It was a quick jab of a comment about a fabricated letter in a book of satire about a book of satire which presented a fact about a fabrication that was done as a satire (follow?), and now I am being told I presented this as a - get this! - "serious argument." Most serious arguments I've encountered have backing references, and this comment had none. In fact, where is the backing reference to prove my serious argument? At most, it was designed to HAVE people check into the background of the book it was in!
Everyone: do yourself a favor and research "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron".
And once again, note the change in subject. "Oh, no. I've dug myself into a huge hole. That's okay, I'll make a joke about Clinton's sex life and no one will pay attention to the real issues."
Man, you should get yourself a talk-radio gig. You've got the shtick down pat.
At least this time you get the idea... that there's a joke!
And that joke wasn't about Clinton's sex life, it was about his use of semantics when he was asked a question. (And, no, making a joke about the word "semantics" and "Clinton's sex life" is too easy.)
By the way, is the real issue all about me? I'm flattered.
I just came into this conversation to point out a book called "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron".
We all know about the book and that it's satire...
your line saying that Al tried taking them to court and that we liberals only think we're entitled to satire, was not...you didn't even provide a link to check out the book...
also... other people have tried to say the same exact thing to prove that Al Franken is a hypocrit.
and in a courtroom where lawyers are playing gotcha... it's smart to try to understand exactly what they are trying to get you to admit to... especially when it's in a supposedly closed grand jury... and things keep getting leaked. So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
We all know about the book and that it's satire...
your line saying that Al tried taking them to court and that we liberals only think we're entitled to satire, was not...you didn't even provide a link to check out the book...
also... other people have tried to say the same exact thing to prove that Al Franken is a hypocrit.
and in a courtroom where lawyers are playing gotcha... it's smart to try to understand exactly what they are trying to get you to admit to... especially when it's in a supposedly closed grand jury... and things keep getting leaked. So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
Sounds like the courtroom isn't the only place folks are playing gotcha. But again, thank you for clarifying exactly what "we all know about the book". I am just glad that I don't attack blanket statments like that and insist that you are establishing a fact for all of us. Oh, poop! There I go again with that circular reference satire stuff again. I keep forgetting, after all these posts, I have been criticized as not being allowed to perform this form of satire, it is only for the liberals in our society who can do this with specific attacks against conservatives.
As has been so rightly pointed out to me, the statements I make are serious arguments. No wiggle room for even a sense of the ironic. I apologize with all the integrity that Al Franken would muster up in his letter to Ashcroft.
So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
No one said conservatives couln't give satire a try. None of us said that the book wasn't satire... and none of us pointed to that book as a bunch of lies...
actually... if you were being satirical... you would have been riffing more on conservatives than on liberals...
Sounds like the courtroom isn't the only place folks are playing gotcha. But again, thank you for clarifying exactly what "we all know about the book". I am just glad that I don't attack blanket statments like that and insist that you are establishing a fact for all of us. Oh, poop! There I go again with that circular reference satire stuff again. I keep forgetting, after all these posts, I have been criticized as not being allowed to perform this form of satire, it is only for the liberals in our society who can do this with specific attacks against conservatives.
As has been so rightly pointed out to me, the statements I make are serious arguments. No wiggle room for even a sense of the ironic. I apologize with all the integrity that Al Franken would muster up in his letter to Ashcroft.
Okay, you win. I'll stop bugging you for being untruthful. I'll just bug you about not being funny instead.
No one said conservatives couln't give satire a try. None of us said that the book wasn't satire... and none of us pointed to that book as a bunch of lies...
actually... if you were being satirical... you would have been riffing more on conservatives than on liberals...
guess I didn't get it.
And now you do! It takes some time, but eventually, you "fair and balanced liberals" come around. Remember, you are a person, not a category.
But you do agree... your post can easily be misconstrued as trying to show Al Franken to be a hypocrit? It's the same exact thing Fox news would try to pull.
Circular humor is probably not the way to go straight outta the gate.
Comments
"A tabloid show? it won a Peabody!"
I wasn't nailing you... just pointing out your tactics. Dodge and weave... dodge and weave.
I don't think anyone expects Al to worry too much about his little "lie".
Hey what's 16 little words in a state of the union address anyway...
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Hmmm...nail this person to a wall..."A tabloid show? it won a Peabody!"I wasn't nailing you... just pointing out your tactics. Dodge and weave... dodge and weave.I don't think anyone expects Al to worry too much about his little "lie".Hey what's 16 little words in a state of the union address anyway...
And continue to do so. We require citizens to constantly point things out. There is no greater duty or drive in the human experience that to critique others.
You have taught me a lesson on the evils of dodging and weaving. Never again will I try to define the term "is". Oops, did I just do it again?
just that some are a bit more thin skinned than others.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
And I agree, when a person is caught, he should be made to answer for it.
But nobody has been "caught" doing anything here.
In his Rush Limbaugh book, Franken responded to Rush's claim that, apart from the military, not a single government program has ever worked. So he contacted a few conservatives and asked them if they could name any government programs that they believed were successful. He wrote (emphasis mine):
I spoke personally with each of these very nice conservatives. As you might guess, I didn't tell them that they were contributing to a book entitled Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations. Instead, I told them that I was writing "a satire on the breakdown of civility in public discourse," which in a way is true. I also told them I was calling Democrats and asking them to name government programs that don't work. Which, I admit, was a naked lie.
It's quite obvious that, were it not for Franken's concerns for his association with Harvard, he would have voluntarily included all of this content in his book as part of the joke. "Savin' It"?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I was just calling you out on your very Fox News like tactics... and I agree... it is every citizens responsibilty...
just that some are a bit more thin skinned than others.
Being a citizen is the responsibility, and we should not concern ourselves with the type of skin our brothers have.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
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.
Ah, another fine Right wing tactic--when you are caught in a bald faced lie, change the subject. The assertion was not that Frankin was a jerk, but that he was a hypocrit for suing others.
You first post was a LIE, it was not satire. It was designed so that anyone who did not check the facts would believe you. It was not designed to entertain or make anyone laugh. It was presented as a serious argument.
Don't try and change the subject. You were caught red handed.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
And continue to do so. We require citizens to constantly point things out. There is no greater duty or drive in the human experience that to critique others.
You have taught me a lesson on the evils of dodging and weaving. Never again will I try to define the term "is". Oops, did I just do it again?
And once again, note the change in subject. "Oh, no. I've dug myself into a huge hole. That's okay, I'll make a joke about Clinton's sex life and no one will pay attention to the real issues."
Man, you should get yourself a talk-radio gig. You've got the shtick down pat.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Ah, another fine Right wing tactic--when you are caught in a bald faced lie, change the subject. The assertion was not that Frankin was a jerk, but that he was a hypocrit for suing others.
You first post was a LIE, it was not satire. It was designed so that anyone who did not check the facts would believe you. It was not designed to entertain or make anyone laugh. It was presented as a serious argument.
Don't try and change the subject. You were caught red handed.
And thank you for explaining my designs. Along with using such loaded terms to create an effect.
Yet again, I have to explain the post.
It was a quick jab of a comment about a fabricated letter in a book of satire about a book of satire which presented a fact about a fabrication that was done as a satire (follow?), and now I am being told I presented this as a - get this! - "serious argument." Most serious arguments I've encountered have backing references, and this comment had none. In fact, where is the backing reference to prove my serious argument? At most, it was designed to HAVE people check into the background of the book it was in!
Everyone: do yourself a favor and research "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron".
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
And once again, note the change in subject. "Oh, no. I've dug myself into a huge hole. That's okay, I'll make a joke about Clinton's sex life and no one will pay attention to the real issues."
Man, you should get yourself a talk-radio gig. You've got the shtick down pat.
At least this time you get the idea... that there's a joke!
And that joke wasn't about Clinton's sex life, it was about his use of semantics when he was asked a question. (And, no, making a joke about the word "semantics" and "Clinton's sex life" is too easy.)
By the way, is the real issue all about me? I'm flattered.
I just came into this conversation to point out a book called "Al Franken is a Buck Toothed Moron".
your line saying that Al tried taking them to court and that we liberals only think we're entitled to satire, was not...you didn't even provide a link to check out the book...
also... other people have tried to say the same exact thing to prove that Al Franken is a hypocrit.
and in a courtroom where lawyers are playing gotcha... it's smart to try to understand exactly what they are trying to get you to admit to... especially when it's in a supposedly closed grand jury... and things keep getting leaked. So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
We all know about the book and that it's satire...
your line saying that Al tried taking them to court and that we liberals only think we're entitled to satire, was not...you didn't even provide a link to check out the book...
also... other people have tried to say the same exact thing to prove that Al Franken is a hypocrit.
and in a courtroom where lawyers are playing gotcha... it's smart to try to understand exactly what they are trying to get you to admit to... especially when it's in a supposedly closed grand jury... and things keep getting leaked. So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
Sounds like the courtroom isn't the only place folks are playing gotcha. But again, thank you for clarifying exactly what "we all know about the book". I am just glad that I don't attack blanket statments like that and insist that you are establishing a fact for all of us. Oh, poop! There I go again with that circular reference satire stuff again. I keep forgetting, after all these posts, I have been criticized as not being allowed to perform this form of satire, it is only for the liberals in our society who can do this with specific attacks against conservatives.
As has been so rightly pointed out to me, the statements I make are serious arguments. No wiggle room for even a sense of the ironic. I apologize with all the integrity that Al Franken would muster up in his letter to Ashcroft.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So it's easy to make fun of Bill Clinton try to ascertain what "is" they meant... but it's sad that he was even put into that position in the first place.
Exactly!
actually... if you were being satirical... you would have been riffing more on conservatives than on liberals...
guess I didn't get it.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Sounds like the courtroom isn't the only place folks are playing gotcha. But again, thank you for clarifying exactly what "we all know about the book". I am just glad that I don't attack blanket statments like that and insist that you are establishing a fact for all of us. Oh, poop! There I go again with that circular reference satire stuff again. I keep forgetting, after all these posts, I have been criticized as not being allowed to perform this form of satire, it is only for the liberals in our society who can do this with specific attacks against conservatives.
As has been so rightly pointed out to me, the statements I make are serious arguments. No wiggle room for even a sense of the ironic. I apologize with all the integrity that Al Franken would muster up in his letter to Ashcroft.
Okay, you win. I'll stop bugging you for being untruthful. I'll just bug you about not being funny instead.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
No one said conservatives couln't give satire a try. None of us said that the book wasn't satire... and none of us pointed to that book as a bunch of lies...
actually... if you were being satirical... you would have been riffing more on conservatives than on liberals...
guess I didn't get it.
And now you do! It takes some time, but eventually, you "fair and balanced liberals" come around. Remember, you are a person, not a category.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
Okay, you win. I'll stop bugging you for being untruthful. I'll just bug you about not being funny instead.
"Who said satire is funny?"
- Dame Magdalene
Besides my own, a perfect example is the work of Al Franken.
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
"Who said satire is funny?"
- Dame Magdalene
Besides my own, a perfect example is the work of Al Franken.
My dictionary, for one. Or if not funny, at least witty.
n.
1.A. literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
B. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
--
And I found Frankin's letter to Ashcroft fairly amusing--even though I'm fairly religious and support abstinence.
[Edit] Well, before marriage anyway. My kid's would seem to indicate I don't believe in it after marriage.
Circular humor is probably not the way to go straight outta the gate.
http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/...y.asp?aid=3965