Help
Franken Gets Racy
Quote
What about Franken's own comments in respect to race and ethnicity? Look at his book again. On page 85 of Lies, Franken refers to talk-show host Sean Hannity as an "angry, Irish ape-man." Three pages earlier, Franken pondered whether Bill O'Reilly suffered from a "touch of the Irish flu." Ethnic slurs, anyone? Substitute "Mexican" or "black", and the point is clear.
Source:
FrankenLies.com
"My sources, Professor? Here they are."
Quote
If Franken's presentation weren't shameful enough, he reaches one of the lowest rungs of journalistic integrity when he cites internet "blogs" as evidence of "voter suppression" during elections of 2002 (and he doesn’t even cite a single specific blog address for someone to investigate for himself!) (Lies, page 363). Blogs, like the graffiti one sees on the walls of a public restroom, are not subject to any editing, fact checking, or rules whatsoever. To level such serious implications of racism and then cite internet blogs as a source of information is hardly up to the standards of any credible author. And it’s hard to imagine a blog being accepted as a serious source of fact at – hmm, let’s say – Harvard. Blogs are more fitting for that stuff one finds in the Weekly World News (actual story: "Meet Sandra: The World’s First Human Kangaroo" (November 18, 2003).
Again ... Is this what Franken means by his "impossibly high standard"?
Again ... Is this what Franken means by his "impossibly high standard"?
Source:
FrankenLies.com
"Operation Ignore"? Someone is ignoring some facts.
Quote
Franken’s book has a chapter called "Operation Ignore," in which he wants his readers to believe that the Bush administration sat on its hands and did nothing in the weeks before September 11. There was, of course, no plan from Bush’s office called "Operation Ignore." Franken made it up. (This is Franken's idea of humor.)
Franken takes issue and totally misrepresents the way the Bush administration reacted to a report on national security by the Hart-Rudman Commission from February 2001. The bipartisan commission was composed of seven Democrats and seven Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, who released a strategy and program for reform "based on its assessment of the next 25 years." The Commission’s report clearly took a long-range outlook on how the United States should approach its national security. But Franken leads many readers to believe that the commission’s report was some urgent call for President Bush to revamp the entire national security infrastructure immediately. (See page 117-118 of Lies.) In fact, the commission wrote, "We propose significant change, and we know that change takes time."2 Franken has completely mischaracterized the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission.
There was one major immediate recommendation that the commission made in the final pages of its report: "The President should create an implementing mechanism to ensure that the major recommendations of this Commission result in the critical reforms necessary to ensure American national security and global leadership over the next quarter century."
What did President Bush do? On May 8, 2001, he established the Office of National Preparedness to address security reform and to "work with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed."4 Vice President Dick Cheney was asked to oversee the development of the effort, including leading "a new task force to address terrorist threats."5 He was to "report to Congress by October 1, after a review by the National Security Council."6 In his statement, Bush added, "No governmental responsibility is more fundamental than protecting the physical safety of our nation and citizens."
Well, the National Security Council held four deputy committee meetings between May and July 2001 to enact a more proactive strategy in dealing with al Qaeda.8 Unfortunately, the directive was not finalized until September 4, and the President had not reviewed its content before September 11.
Meanwhile, in July 2001, the CIA managed through "intelligence activities and liaison activities to disrupt (terrorist) attacks in Paris, Turkey, and Rome."10 Administration groups, such as the Counterterrorism Security Group (CGC), which was at the direction of Clinton-appointed National Security Council special assistant Dick Clarke, were meeting "almost daily ... sometimes twice a day"11 to address concerns of potential attacks overseas. On July 2, the FBI had released "a message saying that there are threats to be worried about overseas."12 Yet as all of this happened, Franken wants his readers to believe Bush was implementing something called "Operation Ignore."
Franken’s "Operation Ignore" is more like "Operation Franken Invention."
Franken takes issue and totally misrepresents the way the Bush administration reacted to a report on national security by the Hart-Rudman Commission from February 2001. The bipartisan commission was composed of seven Democrats and seven Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, who released a strategy and program for reform "based on its assessment of the next 25 years." The Commission’s report clearly took a long-range outlook on how the United States should approach its national security. But Franken leads many readers to believe that the commission’s report was some urgent call for President Bush to revamp the entire national security infrastructure immediately. (See page 117-118 of Lies.) In fact, the commission wrote, "We propose significant change, and we know that change takes time."2 Franken has completely mischaracterized the report from the Hart-Rudman Commission.
There was one major immediate recommendation that the commission made in the final pages of its report: "The President should create an implementing mechanism to ensure that the major recommendations of this Commission result in the critical reforms necessary to ensure American national security and global leadership over the next quarter century."
What did President Bush do? On May 8, 2001, he established the Office of National Preparedness to address security reform and to "work with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed."4 Vice President Dick Cheney was asked to oversee the development of the effort, including leading "a new task force to address terrorist threats."5 He was to "report to Congress by October 1, after a review by the National Security Council."6 In his statement, Bush added, "No governmental responsibility is more fundamental than protecting the physical safety of our nation and citizens."
Well, the National Security Council held four deputy committee meetings between May and July 2001 to enact a more proactive strategy in dealing with al Qaeda.8 Unfortunately, the directive was not finalized until September 4, and the President had not reviewed its content before September 11.
Meanwhile, in July 2001, the CIA managed through "intelligence activities and liaison activities to disrupt (terrorist) attacks in Paris, Turkey, and Rome."10 Administration groups, such as the Counterterrorism Security Group (CGC), which was at the direction of Clinton-appointed National Security Council special assistant Dick Clarke, were meeting "almost daily ... sometimes twice a day"11 to address concerns of potential attacks overseas. On July 2, the FBI had released "a message saying that there are threats to be worried about overseas."12 Yet as all of this happened, Franken wants his readers to believe Bush was implementing something called "Operation Ignore."
Franken’s "Operation Ignore" is more like "Operation Franken Invention."
Source:
FrankenLies.com
‘L’ as in ‘letter’ and ... ‘l---’
Quote
In pages 283-287 of Lies, Franken tells of how he wrote a letter to 27 right-wing and conservative figures. The letter, written in April 2003 on Harvard University stationery, claimed he was writing a book on sex abstinence called Savin' It! (not true). Under this pretense, Franken petitioned the 27 people to share his or her own story of abstinence. The author claimed he had already "received wonderful testimonies" from HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson (a lie), William J. Bennett (another lie), White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (yup, another lie), Cardinal Egan (are you counting the lies?), Senator Rick Santorum (lie), and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (lie).1
The second half of the letter was a hard sell to elicit replies. "I have found that kids respond best to total honesty ... Be serious! ... Kids can sense a phony a mile away."
One of the letters he sent, addressed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, was reprinted in his book on pages 285-286.
In the weeks following the release of his book, a couple of interviewers, rightfully so, took issue with the fact that Franken had authored a book entitled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, yet he had sent out an entirely phony letter. CNN’s Paula Zahn was one reporter who called him on it. She interviewed Franken on her show Paula Zahn Now on August 25, 2003. Read this. It’s fun!
Zahn: You wrote a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, 27 others. [author’s note: the total number of letters was actually 27.]
Franken: Right.
Zahn: You said you were writing a book on abstinence and you wanted to use them as role models. You sent it on Harvard University stationery.
Franken: Well, yes.
Zahn: Wasn’t that all a lie?
Franken: It was a joke. I was talking about – OK – here is what it was. It was –
Zahn: Wait, it may have been a joke, too, but would you concede that that was a lie?
Franken: Yes, but it was about – here is what it was. It was saying, "Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, I’m at Harvard writing a book called – on abstinence-only education called Savin’ It. And don’t you think it is time that kids had abstinence heroes? And I would like your abstinence story."
Zahn: So the folks who are saying out there, what credibility does Al Franken have when it comes to the issue of lying. He just got caught with his finger in the cookie jar.
Franken: I think if you look at it in the context of the book, it was – I’m a satirist. And it was satirical. And I think that if you read the letter, you saw what the purpose of the letter was, which is, that these people who push – abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work. It –
Zahn: Of course, you have seen people come out from various organizations say that you’re absolutely wrong on that one, but we don’t have enough time to have a debate on that.2
Woops. Look at Franken’s last remarks. In the span of about 5 seconds, the letters went from being a "joke" and "satirical" to something totally different, an effort to exclaim "abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work." You'd think the guy would want to get his stories straight before he hits the press tour!
Well, which is it, Al? Were the letters obviously a prank? Or were the letters a clear indication that its recipients are hypocrites?
By the way, Franken writes on page 354 of Lies, "[L]ying is when you deliberately deceive." He’s right about that!
The second half of the letter was a hard sell to elicit replies. "I have found that kids respond best to total honesty ... Be serious! ... Kids can sense a phony a mile away."
One of the letters he sent, addressed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, was reprinted in his book on pages 285-286.
In the weeks following the release of his book, a couple of interviewers, rightfully so, took issue with the fact that Franken had authored a book entitled Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, yet he had sent out an entirely phony letter. CNN’s Paula Zahn was one reporter who called him on it. She interviewed Franken on her show Paula Zahn Now on August 25, 2003. Read this. It’s fun!
Zahn: You wrote a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, 27 others. [author’s note: the total number of letters was actually 27.]
Franken: Right.
Zahn: You said you were writing a book on abstinence and you wanted to use them as role models. You sent it on Harvard University stationery.
Franken: Well, yes.
Zahn: Wasn’t that all a lie?
Franken: It was a joke. I was talking about – OK – here is what it was. It was –
Zahn: Wait, it may have been a joke, too, but would you concede that that was a lie?
Franken: Yes, but it was about – here is what it was. It was saying, "Dear Attorney General Ashcroft, I’m at Harvard writing a book called – on abstinence-only education called Savin’ It. And don’t you think it is time that kids had abstinence heroes? And I would like your abstinence story."
Zahn: So the folks who are saying out there, what credibility does Al Franken have when it comes to the issue of lying. He just got caught with his finger in the cookie jar.
Franken: I think if you look at it in the context of the book, it was – I’m a satirist. And it was satirical. And I think that if you read the letter, you saw what the purpose of the letter was, which is, that these people who push – abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work. It –
Zahn: Of course, you have seen people come out from various organizations say that you’re absolutely wrong on that one, but we don’t have enough time to have a debate on that.2
Woops. Look at Franken’s last remarks. In the span of about 5 seconds, the letters went from being a "joke" and "satirical" to something totally different, an effort to exclaim "abstinence-only sex ed doesn’t work." You'd think the guy would want to get his stories straight before he hits the press tour!
Well, which is it, Al? Were the letters obviously a prank? Or were the letters a clear indication that its recipients are hypocrites?
By the way, Franken writes on page 354 of Lies, "[L]ying is when you deliberately deceive." He’s right about that!
Source:
FrankenLies.com
"But it's all a joke!"
Quote
When co-hosting on CNN's Crossfire, Tucker Carlson introduced Franken by saying: "filling in on the left is political activist and writer Al Franken." Why didn't Franken correct him by saying "Well, I'm really a satirist"? You can spot left leaning reporting when any report calls Al Franken a 'satirist' instead of the more accurate title of 'activist & writer/author'.
Franken gets away with his vicious personal attacks laced with profanity and crude, insult hate speech because he says he's writing 'political satire.' What exactly is satire? Political satire? Well, its text book definition reads differently than what most people think it is. The term 'satire' brings to mind Saturday Night Live, The Onion magazine, Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels. - But Al Franken? The previous works are all fiction. Satire is socially defined as being synonymous with fiction. But the real definition?
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. This is how Franken gets away with being a 'satirist' when he is really an activist. Franken found a unique way to smear people and not be accountable for it. Attacking people with jokes is technically 'satire' and thus Franken tarshishes the word while tarnishing reputations.
"But it's all a joke!"
"Why would anyone go after an Al Franken book?? The guy is a comedian! Don't you people like to laugh? Can't you take a joke??" Sure. I can take a joke just fine. But Franken's political books aren't playful. They're vicious. Franken mixes things he makes up with real accusations of serious charges that smear peoples reputations.
"But it's all a joke"? No it's not. Said Alex Jones, the former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner who is now the center’s director: “I would not have allowed a book that I consider frivolous,” Jones explained. “What Al Franken had in mind was a serious book. It has a skin of humor, but it is a thoroughly researched book.” Besides calling him a 'satirist' - “I take him seriously,” said Jones. And plenty of others do to. That is the point. Franken WANTS you to take his book seriously as a serious indictment of serious liars who seriously lie about serious things. The fact that the arguments are presented with jokes around them doesn't make ok.
Franken gets away with his vicious personal attacks laced with profanity and crude, insult hate speech because he says he's writing 'political satire.' What exactly is satire? Political satire? Well, its text book definition reads differently than what most people think it is. The term 'satire' brings to mind Saturday Night Live, The Onion magazine, Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels. - But Al Franken? The previous works are all fiction. Satire is socially defined as being synonymous with fiction. But the real definition?
A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. This is how Franken gets away with being a 'satirist' when he is really an activist. Franken found a unique way to smear people and not be accountable for it. Attacking people with jokes is technically 'satire' and thus Franken tarshishes the word while tarnishing reputations.
"But it's all a joke!"
"Why would anyone go after an Al Franken book?? The guy is a comedian! Don't you people like to laugh? Can't you take a joke??" Sure. I can take a joke just fine. But Franken's political books aren't playful. They're vicious. Franken mixes things he makes up with real accusations of serious charges that smear peoples reputations.
"But it's all a joke"? No it's not. Said Alex Jones, the former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner who is now the center’s director: “I would not have allowed a book that I consider frivolous,” Jones explained. “What Al Franken had in mind was a serious book. It has a skin of humor, but it is a thoroughly researched book.” Besides calling him a 'satirist' - “I take him seriously,” said Jones. And plenty of others do to. That is the point. Franken WANTS you to take his book seriously as a serious indictment of serious liars who seriously lie about serious things. The fact that the arguments are presented with jokes around them doesn't make ok.
Source:
LyingLiar.com
Franken distorts numbers to support his belief...
Quote
After warning that he was about to “misuse” some statistics, he asserted: “In the six years, about six years, of both Bush administrations, the elder and the younger, there has not been one new net job created. And so here's..."”
George Stephanopoulos: “Private sector.”
Franken: “No, not one net new job in the whole economy. So, extending that logically, that means that if the Bush's had run the country from the conception to the present no one in this country would have ever worked. We'd be the poorest country, we'd be poorer than Somalia.”
Stephanopoulos: “I don't think the Columbia economics department is going to be hiring you anytime soon.”
George Stephanopoulos: “Private sector.”
Franken: “No, not one net new job in the whole economy. So, extending that logically, that means that if the Bush's had run the country from the conception to the present no one in this country would have ever worked. We'd be the poorest country, we'd be poorer than Somalia.”
Stephanopoulos: “I don't think the Columbia economics department is going to be hiring you anytime soon.”
Source:
MediaResearch.org
Contact:
How to find contact information... RightNation.US
His Work:
IMDB.com
Posting content to this topic
1. Read our guidelines for suggesting additions.
2. Check all the messages in this topic for duplication.
3. Understand that this topic is not for conversation, but only for posting of direct information. It's a one-way conversation.
4. Understand that your post may be removed from this topic if we use it. We also reserve the right to edit or remove your post at our discretion.
This post has been edited by Wilrulz: 03 March 2005 - 08:16 AM
