Stigmata Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Ann Coulter vs. Al Franken by Harry Binswanger (November 29, 2003) I already reported on Ann Coulter's book, Treason, which has value plus serious flaws. I recently finished her earlier book, Slander, which is about how the left deals with the conservatives. It's similar, but with less value and more pro-religious stuff. The liberal "answer" to Coulter's books and others of this sort is comedian Al Franken's book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I wondered what he would say, but I didn't want to sanction him by buying the book, so I walked over to Barnes & Noble and spent about 10 minutes reading the first part of it in the store. The first part of Franken's book, which is all I read, gives many examples of alleged distortions or outright lies in Coulter's book, Slander. It looked convincing. But then I got to a passage that claimed there was no real leftward slant in the media. As evidence, he offered a statistic about the percentage of American newspapers that endorsed Bush over Gore in the 2000 election. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was on the order of 60% to 40% in favor of Bush. With that, I slammed the book shut and knew I couldn't trust anything I read by Franken. Sure, the statistics are probably as Franken stated. That's because there are 20 tiny regional papers for every major paper. So here's a sample of the meaning of the statistics: Podunk Daily Bugle: Bush Twin Rivers Gazette: Gore Sassafras Bulletin: Bush New York Times: Gore Right there, we can see the media aren't slanted--it's 50/50 among the papers. The equation of the giant opinion-leaders with the backwater eddies of tradition can also be used to understate the left's control of academia: just count every local bible college as equal to Harvard. Still, to be honest, I thought Franken had caught Coulter in some minor to middle-sized errors. And I don't 100% trust Coulter's accuracy on concretes anyway. So I was prepared to write a post with the theme: a pox on both their houses--fortunately, we do not have to agree with either liberals or conservatives. But I went on Google and searched for one of the charges Franken apparently nailed Coulter with (a charge about fudging Lexis/Nexis searches to get the results she wanted). I came up with Coulter's answer at: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/100803.htm Not only did she answer this specific charge, she answered every other charge that I could recall from the beginning of Franken's book (which is the part that contains the attack on Coulter). She admits to two tiny mistakes, and notes that they were immediately corrected for subsequent printings. But, basically, she catches Franken out. The value of Coulter's book (abstracting from its flaws) is not in its concretes, but in the ideas that the concretes illustrate. Yes, Coulter is savage, overstates, ridicules, and sometimes oversimplifies. But she has a mind. Franken does not. She sees the big picture of what's going on in this country. Franken not only doesn't, he twists the picture, as in his denying the leftist bias in the media. As an example of how Coulter makes intelligent points, but Franken just doesn't get them, here is a quote from the web site given above (the part in all caps represents the charge she is answering): "FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T GET ON TV ENOUGH. "Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be an hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book Slander --which Franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb--would have been a good place to make that point if I wanted to make it. Slander contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What I say is: 'Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans are "from the right" polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth.' "By the way, I also say: 'The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp.' Franken's absurd description of my point proves it." This is an intelligent point. Right-wingers are allowed (a little bit) on national TV, but, aside from on FOX, they are always carefully quarantined and accompanied by a warning label that they are "conservative" or "from the right." Think of all the times that The Heritage Foundation is identified as "a conservative think-tank." Has any moderator ever referred to the Brookings Institution as "a liberal think-tank"? And, of course, all the network news reporters--the Rathers, Brokaws, and Jennings's--are leftist. Let us not forget, however, that the enemy of our enemy is not the same as our friend. Didnt post the whole article just what interested me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Nostril Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 They're both crazy old men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 coulter=crazy franken=not funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Trying to reconcile these 2 and trying to gain any truth out of the 2 of them combined is utterly impossible. They print distortion and half-truths to sell books and sell ad-time. Thats it. They should both be treated at best as court jesters and at worse traitors deliberatly polarizing the American people. The first time i read the title to Frankens book, i thought it was an autobiography. Everytime i see Coulter on TV she get utterly outclassed in the fact department but makes up for it in the petty insults department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" It would be pseudo-funny if I didn't believe she meant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 This is very old news...article was published in November 2003. I've read the books mentioned...at least Franken is funny...reading Coulter is like watching paint dry...she takes 1,000 of words to basically say liberals suck...not much entertainment or intellect there, and when I've seen her on TV, no sense of humor whatsoever! I'd rather wash my hair, cut my nails, etc.:insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stigmata Posted March 26, 2006 Author Share Posted March 26, 2006 I just found it interesting how this guy here in the post article pretty much has no regard for coulter and then turns his attention to franken and comes to the conclusion bad as coulter is franken is pretty much an idiot and is out classed by coulter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashburnskinsfan Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 I think they are both liars. But Al Franken is funny some of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 coulter=crazyfranken=not funny Come on, admit it...Franken was pretty funny on SNL when he did the Stuart Smalley bits with Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and Muggsy Bogues :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Also liked the time when he helps the Bobitts, (Rosie O'Donnel and Mike Myers) release their anger. He makes Lorena tell John's penis "Hello. I was very angry at you. But that doesn't make you a bad penis! I'm sorry I cut you off and threw you in a field. I'm glad they found you and reattached you." :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Come on, admit it...Franken was pretty funny on SNL when he did the Stuart Smalley bits with Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley and Muggsy Bogues :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Also liked the time when he helps the Bobitts, (Rosie O'Donnel and Mike Myers) release their anger. He makes Lorena tell John's penis "Hello. I was very angry at you. But that doesn't make you a bad penis! I'm sorry I cut you off and threw you in a field. I'm glad they found you and reattached you." :doh: The Stuart Smalley bit failed to be funny after the first time. Franken and Coulter are both the same in that they suffer from a condition called "diarrhea of the mouth". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The thing about Coulter is, she is only effective when there is no debate. She likes to throw out outrageous zingers and hard-line opinions because it makes for good TV, however just about anytime she is debating someone with any type of knowledge about foreign policy and the world, she is outclassed and usually left with a smug look on her face, just like Hannity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Also I don't think you can compare Franken and Coulter. Franken is not a left-wing extremist. Sure, he doesn't agree with Bush, but not agreeing with Bush doesn't make you a member of the Green-Party of Communist club. On the other hand, most republicans I know besides Rick Sanitorum, roll their eyes and run far away whenever Coulter opens her mouth. I will give you an example: Franken is pro-choice - Hardly an "extremist" point of view Coulter says "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" That is not a mainstream republican view. If you want Ann Coutler's liberal counterpart, it isn't Alan Colmes, or Al Franken, or even Randy Rhodes. You'd be looking more for a Gore Vidal, or Noam Chomsky. This is another problem I have with Sean Hannity's TV show. He will invited Ann Coulter and Arriana Huffington on his show to debate each other, so they are having their debate and then Hannity brings up quotes from someone else, and accuses Arriana of supporting "outrageous statements" All the whole he has Ann Coulter, Mrs. "extreme outrageous statement" woman, sitting next to him, yet he has the nerve to badger someone else about outrageous views that she, herself never made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Al Franken = crazy Ann Coulter = extremely racist and a bigot Though I think both are crazy (though some things Al Fraken says is funny) and should not be taken seriously - Ann Coulter's racist comments are disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 http://if*ckedanncoulterinthea**hard.blogspot.com/ NSFW!!! Replace the stars for a good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The first time i read the title to Frankens book, i thought it was an autobiography. Everytime i see Coulter on TV she get utterly outclassed in the fact department but makes up for it in the petty insults department. The thing about Coulter is, she is only effective when there is no debate. She likes to throw out outrageous zingers and hard-line opinions because it makes for good TV, however just about anytime she is debating someone with any type of knowledge about foreign policy and the world, she is outclassed and usually left with a smug look on her face, just like Hannity. We are in total agreement. I will give you an example: Franken is pro-choice - Hardly an "extremist" point of view Coulter says "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" That is not a mainstream republican view. Ah, ya had me and then lost me. Not a fair comparison to take Frankens most mainstream view and compare it directly to probably the single MOST outrageous (and retarded) thing Coulter has said. At least try to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Franken: Coulter: If you believe it's a good option to choose either one of those two, may I suggest that you're the extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Franken: Coulter: If you believe it's a good option to choose either one of those two, may I suggest that you're the extremist. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Give me one example of a lie by Al Franken, or a crazy remark that is not clearly meant as a joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 They both earn money talking to the people that want to hear them... more power to them as they put out the information that stirs it up. I now listen to the Jerry Doyle show because he dislikes both sides: I'm all for that... Calls them roaches and such, pointing out the benefits/lobbyists/lies/ethics.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerSkins Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 ann coulter would eat his soul alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Give me one example of a lie by Al Franken, or a crazy remark that is not clearly meant as a joke! And yet if I said the same thing about Coulter and Crazy was in power I'd probably be arrested . Franken: http://www.frankenlies.com/ Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I'm sorry but is that article intended to be funny. The guy admits that he's read Ann Coulter - and then compares her books to Franken's after NOT HAVING READ THE FRANKEN BOOK. Can you imagine if in college you were asked to do a book report but claimed "well I only read the first part because I didn't want to give the author any money" You'd get a big fat well deserved "F" what a complete joke. BTW - I have listened to Franken and read Coulter and those that claim they are both extremists are just plain wrong. Franken isn't an extremist, though he is a liberal (some people refuse to acknowledge a difference). If you wanted to compare her to someone on the left it would be Mike Malloy. That guy is a loon just like Coulter. Franken is more like Rush Limabugh on the scale of crazy - clearly partisan but not exactly way out on the wing spouting hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 And yet if I said the same thing about Coulter and Crazy was in power I'd probably be arrested .Franken: http://www.frankenlies.com/ Coulter: http://www.anncoulter.blogspot.com/ I read ten excerpts from frankenlies.com and that was utterly pathetic. They debunked nothing and proved no lies. In fact, they confirmed that the swift boat veterans were liars and they confirmed that Tom Delay fought to protect sweatshops in Saipan. There is no comparison between Franken and Coulter. To make that comparison is clearly an attempt to smear Franken. Coulter is a proven liar, bigot, and zealot. Franken is a comedian, a family man, and a liberal in every definition of the term. Franken speaks out for the rights of slave laborers in Saipan, an American territory where thanks to th Republican leadership they are not subject to any type of labor standards, where people work for $1.35/hour with little to no chance to advance or ever get off that island. They live in shacks with 16 people to the room, surrounded by barbed wire, with no running water and sometimes no electricity. To speak out on these people's behalf is a noble cause and that makes Franken a noble man. Anyone who opposes Franken on this issue is either ignorant to the facts, or just plain scum of the earth. The Republican leadership in the House lead by Tom Delay blocked a vote that would have improved these people's lives and made Saipan subject to certain USA labor standards. For those of you who think this Sapan thing is some sort of partisan hackery, maybe you ought to check out the facts. You will not get this from your Republican-controlled media: The crowded, unsanitary factories and shanty-like housing compounds are in flagrant violation of federal law. The heat in some factories is so extreme it can cause workers to faint. Many live in a room with up to seven other people in inward-pointing barbed wire-enclosed barracks. Their movements are strictly supervised by guards, and are subject to lockdowns or curfews. Complaints about the conditions are met with threats of termination, physical harm and summary deportation With promises of a good job and a new life, workers agree to repay recruitment fees from $2,000 to $7,000. They often must sign "shadow contracts" waiving basic human rights, including the freedom to date or marry 91 percent of the workforce who were immigrants -- from China, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh -- were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks minus plumbing, work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, without any of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed -All thanks to Tom Delay. What a great guy. :doh: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/ http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pswlawsu.htm This is the type of cause Al Franken speaks out on. These attempted smearings are pathetic. Republicans like to reduce every comparison to he said/she said. That is because it elevates their status to that of their political opponent. Coulter is slimy. Franken is decent. I cll it like I see it. Please, show me one Franken lie because you have yet to demonstrate one. Some lunatic website saying Franken lies doesn't make it so. http://www.zmag.org/Bulletins/pswlawsu.htm http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/09/real.delay/ BTW, I have links in here but they are invisable for some reason. Click on them, one is CNN and the other is from the posecutor in the Saipan case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I now listen to the Jerry Doyle show because he dislikes both sides: I'm all for that... Didn't know Jerry now has a radio show. Last I heard from him, he was running for a local political office somewhere in CA... Edit: Saw his site. He ran for a House position, which he didn't win. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I now listen to the Jerry Doyle show because he dislikes both sides: I'm all for that....... That's hilarious. Doyle ran for office as a Republican and campaigned for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and you think he is non-biased?!?! :laugh: Last fall he was railing about how there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. How many times are Republican voters going to fall for that trick where a guy claims to be independant (like Bill O'Reilly) but really the guy turns out to have a long history of being a staunch Republican? All these people on AM radio have one objective: to get you to vote Republican. That includes Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Ingraham, Grahm, Cor, Levin, Bruce, Beck, Mollsberg, Plant, Liddy, Doyle, O'Reilly, Scarborough, the list goes on and each one tries to claim an independant view point until they are exposed as the partisan hacks that they are...and each time people buy that load of bs. Truely amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.