Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Anyone have the transcript of the Ann Coulter/Al franken Debate?


Destino

Which one do you dig the most (to say the least)?  

92 members have voted

  1. 1. Which one do you dig the most (to say the least)?



Recommended Posts

Franken is not a sensationalist, he does not make crap up, and he apoligizes when he is wrong. Quit lumping them together just because you do not like them.

Of course he does.

They are both the same.

Here are some examples.

http://www.frankenlies.com/

http://www.lyingliar.com/media/theview.htm

Both of them are part of the cause of division in our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franken is not a sensationalist, he does not make crap up, and he apoligizes when he is wrong. Quit lumping them together just because you do not like them.

I lump them together because they are both full of :pooh: and perform the same job for the opposite sides. This is why they are debating each other.

Dont try to differentiate them because you agree with one and not the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he does.

They are both the same.

Here are some examples.

http://www.frankenlies.com/

http://www.lyingliar.com/media/theview.htm

Both of them are part of the cause of division in our country.

Kilmer, the sites you listed are really a joke, they have not "rebuked" anything in his book. For example, in your first link. . .

http://www.frankenlies.com/truth/nclb.htm

"Kerry voted for the bill, which the President promised to fund. The President didn't fund it, which created unfunded mandates on states and school district across the country."

"The President didn't fund it"? Yikes! Where are 14 Harvard researchers when you need them?

The truth, supported in part by Franken's friends at factcheck.org, is that federal education spending under President Bush has increased by a whopping 58 percent!1

Franken's claim is 100% false.

Ummm, he DIDN'T fund NCLB to what he said he would, hence Frankin is correct. The argument uses Clintons funding levels, while never taking the direct question that NCLB is underfunded, just as Frankin says it is.

#2b from the same site. . .

Franken's claim that President Bush "didn't fund" No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been debunked; but Franken then continues about NCLB (on page 93, emphasis mine):

Ummm, it was not "debunked", it was using wordsmithing to get around the facts surrounding a pitiful callout

"As a result, class sizes went up, after-school programs were dropped, teachers were fired, and children were left behind."

In the "Notes and Sources" section at the back of his book, Franken does not provide even one source to support this statement. (And we know how important "research" is to him.) What evidence does Franken have to make such a claim? Does he have anything? Who knows.

All of which are true, and I have even posted on HERE about the school in my hometown which was doing away with extrecurricular activities in post a few years ago.

This is typical BS meant to obfuscate the issues, and just because I am on the left side of the equation doesn't mean I can't see the issues clearly.

I don't disagree that Coltier is a polarizing figure in this country, but Frankin? Come on now, did you read his speech? How does that polarize the country by telling the truth? He fact checks everything, she fact checks nothing. He is a good journalist, she is shoddy as hell, and I wouldn't even call it journalism, it is yellow journalism.

There is a distinct difference between the two figures, and they are not the same for each side. In fact, it is a good analysis on the difference between the two parties. Read both books, and fact check everything, you will find out a HUGE difference between the two, and what they do for checking. I am surprised a publisher would publish Coltiers crap under non-fiction, because it should be under fiction, Frankin, OTOH, is fairly good at his writing and facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer, the sites you listed are really a joke, they have not "rebuked" anything in his book. For example, in your first link. . .

http://www.frankenlies.com/truth/nclb.htm

Ummm, he DIDN'T fund NCLB to what he said he would, hence Frankin is correct. The argument uses Clintons funding levels, while never taking the direct question that NCLB is underfunded, just as Frankin says it is.

#2b from the same site. . .

Ummm, it was not "debunked", it was using wordsmithing to get around the facts surrounding a pitiful callout

All of which are true, and I have even posted on HERE about the school in my hometown which was doing away with extrecurricular activities in post a few years ago.

This is typical BS meant to obfuscate the issues, and just because I am on the left side of the equation doesn't mean I can't see the issues clearly.

I don't disagree that Coltier is a polarizing figure in this country, but Frankin? Come on now, did you read his speech? How does that polarize the country by telling the truth? He fact checks everything, she fact checks nothing. He is a good journalist, she is shoddy as hell, and I wouldn't even call it journalism, it is yellow journalism.

There is a distinct difference between the two figures, and they are not the same for each side. In fact, it is a good analysis on the difference between the two parties. Read both books, and fact check everything, you will find out a HUGE difference between the two, and what they do for checking. I am surprised a publisher would publish Coltiers crap under non-fiction, because it should be under fiction, Frankin, OTOH, is fairly good at his writing and facts.

:stfu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lump them together because they are both full of :pooh: and perform the same job for the opposite sides. This is why they are debating each other.

Dont try to differentiate them because you agree with one and not the other.

That is the problem, you SHOULD because one IS better then the other. If you want to take a far left like Vonnegut and place him there go ahead, then you might have a point, but Frankin is nowhere near the same as Coltier, she is far far worse and more of a liar then he ever could hope to even be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer, the sites you listed are really a joke, they have not "rebuked" anything in his book. For example, in your first link. . .

http://www.frankenlies.com/truth/nclb.htm

Ummm, he DIDN'T fund NCLB to what he said he would, hence Frankin is correct. The argument uses Clintons funding levels, while never taking the direct question that NCLB is underfunded, just as Frankin says it is.

#2b from the same site. . .

Ummm, it was not "debunked", it was using wordsmithing to get around the facts surrounding a pitiful callout

All of which are true, and I have even posted on HERE about the school in my hometown which was doing away with extrecurricular activities in post a few years ago.

This is typical BS meant to obfuscate the issues, and just because I am on the left side of the equation doesn't mean I can't see the issues clearly.

I don't disagree that Coltier is a polarizing figure in this country, but Frankin? Come on now, did you read his speech? How does that polarize the country by telling the truth? He fact checks everything, she fact checks nothing. He is a good journalist, she is shoddy as hell, and I wouldn't even call it journalism, it is yellow journalism.

There is a distinct difference between the two figures, and they are not the same for each side. In fact, it is a good analysis on the difference between the two parties. Read both books, and fact check everything, you will find out a HUGE difference between the two, and what they do for checking. I am surprised a publisher would publish Coltiers crap under non-fiction, because it should be under fiction, Frankin, OTOH, is fairly good at his writing and facts.

chom, part of the reason there is such a divide n our country is the refusal of people on both sides to denounce misdoings by both sides. IE, the "my sides ***** doesnt stink" debate.

Both Franken and Colter play to their base. If you want to say that Coulter lies more often than Franken, I'll accept that and not really care. But I cant believe that you, or anyone for that matter on either side, would make a blanket statement that one or the other doesnt lie at all.

You want to claim that the websites are playing wordsmith games to obfescute the point Franken was making, I wont contest it. However it shouldnt be ignored that this method is PRECISELY what Franken does to make HIS points on certain issues.

In either case, I cant think of a less entertaining evening than to listen to 2 blowhards talk about how bad the other one is all the while their minions sit masturbating about he or she ****slapped the other during the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chom, part of the reason there is such a divide n our country is the refusal of people on both sides to denounce misdoings by both sides. IE, the "my sides ***** doesnt stink" debate.

Both Franken and Colter play to their base. If you want to say that Coulter lies more often than Franken, I'll accept that and not really care. But I cant believe that you, or anyone for that matter on either side, would make a blanket statement that one or the other doesnt lie at all.

You want to claim that the websites are playing wordsmith games to obfescute the point Franken was making, I wont contest it. However it shouldnt be ignored that this method is PRECISELY what Franken does to make HIS points on certain issues.

In either case, I cant think of a less entertaining evening than to listen to 2 blowhards talk about how bad the other one is all the while their minions sit masturbating about he or she ****slapped the other during the debate.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I look at the situation as degrees of polarization and their methods. I think Coltier is down around a 5 and Frankin is up around an 80 (on a scale of 1-100). What you are saying is that just because you don't agree with them, they are bad, that is not true in my book. I will argue this one when I get home tonight, because I think there is a BIG, a very BIG difference between the two authors, and i think it does a disservice to our country to have people believe that Frankin is the same as Coltier, they aren't even close in my book.

Either way, I gotta go, I'll pick up tonight when I get back to my place. . .taking moms out to dinner at Ruths Chris Steak House tonight (yes, I am expecting the obligatory mother joke Major and Rince :) )

:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the problem, you SHOULD because one IS better then the other. If you want to take a far left like Vonnegut and place him there go ahead, then you might have a point, but Frankin is nowhere near the same as Coltier, she is far far worse and more of a liar then he ever could hope to even be.

Well Chom, here is the rub. Obviously i dont spent nearly the time or energy as many on this board do paying attention to politics. I actually learn what is going on from reading what you and a few of the Democrats and Sarge and a few of the GOP'ers have to say on issues. Often good points are made on both sides, id ive learned to ignore some of the more, um, "colorful" posters (im sure you know who im talking about) I dont have the time nor inclination to listen to everything either of these 2 say. What I get is the occasional snippet or soundbite. Sometimes ill turn to Air America on my way to an appointment and get 15 minutes of Franken. Sometimes ill tune into 5 minutes of Hannity & Colmes and see Coulter.

These 2 play to their base, of which I am not a part of eithers. To me, they both come across as arrogant, self-important, and hate-filled. And not particularly smart. Both of them. Equally. Of course, its hard to tell when either of them is lying outright, or just spinning and distorting the truth.

Just trying to give you the view from the swing-voters POV. Ironically, no one seems to be trying to capture the middle, which I dont get. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I gotta go, I'll pick up tonight when I get back to my place. . .taking moms out to dinner at Ruths Chris Steak House tonight (yes, I am expecting the obligatory mother joke Major and Rince :) )

:cheers:

Isnt that Sean Hannity's favorite place? :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I gotta go, I'll pick up tonight when I get back to my place. . .taking moms out to dinner at Ruths Chris Steak House tonight (yes, I am expecting the obligatory mother joke Major and Rince :) )

:cheers:

Best meal she'll ever get. All i ever give your mom is a bottle of Boonesfarm, a 7-11 hot dog, and some certs. Oh yeah, and a nice deep ****ing :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I see Al is a polarizing figure and a blowhard, he's certainly no Coulter.

Why don't you guys pick a more appropriate left vs. right comparison? Surely you can think of a left-leaner who is as Cocoa-Puff-cuckoo as Coulter, or a rightie who masquerades as an acceptable "voice of reason" but still isn't actually in tune with most of America, like Franken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chom, part of the reason there is such a divide n our country is the refusal of people on both sides to denounce misdoings by both sides. IE, the "my sides ***** doesnt stink" debate.

Both Franken and Colter play to their base. If you want to say that Coulter lies more often than Franken, I'll accept that and not really care. But I cant believe that you, or anyone for that matter on either side, would make a blanket statement that one or the other doesnt lie at all.

You want to claim that the websites are playing wordsmith games to obfescute the point Franken was making, I wont contest it. However it shouldnt be ignored that this method is PRECISELY what Franken does to make HIS points on certain issues.

In either case, I cant think of a less entertaining evening than to listen to 2 blowhards talk about how bad the other one is all the while their minions sit masturbating about he or she ****slapped the other during the debate.

The thing is, what gets me is that the left has Michael Moore, who DOES make stuff up and obfusticate the issue, HE is on par with Coulter. I hate it when people denigrate intellect and research, just because they do not agree with it. Franken actually does research, he has solid bibliographies (Except in his first book, which had no footnotes sadly, though I did find all the quotes he referenced), and if a teacher were to grade a Franken essay versus a Coulter essay, Franken would always get higher marks based on research alone. That is irrespective of argument. It drives me up the wall that people don't accept that, that because Franken is not from their side he is automatically a liar. He could be a blowhard, I accept that, but he uses the truth, or he tries to find the truth and when you catch him in a mistake he admits to it. No one on this board should whine about the lack of a "middle" pundit, because a lot of people on this forum frankly don't care about facts, statistics, or quotes in context. And when good writers like Franken, that utilize good research teams that would make any academic proud, are not listened to because of who they are rather than the work they have done, it boggles my mind. It totally boggles my mind. Ann Coulter makes stuff up, Franken does not, Ann Coulter does not admit fault, Franken does, and the fact that people don't acknowledge those crucial differences make any future argument that much harder. Al Franken plays to his base, I am not totally sure of that, give me a definition of playing to a base, and I will give you my verdict. If you mean he lies on air, that is a possiblity, but I don't like Franken because he has never lied (Which I think would be impossible for me to confirm), I like Al because he lies a whole lot less than Hannity, Bill, Moore, and Coulter, and I want you guys to realize this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, what gets me is that the left has Michael Moore, who DOES make stuff up and obfusticate the issue, HE is on par with Coulter. I hate it when people denigrate intellect and research, just because they do not agree with it. Franken actually does research, he has solid bibliographies (Except in his first book, which had no footnotes sadly, though I did find all the quotes he referenced), and if a teacher were to grade a Franken essay versus a Coulter essay, Franken would always get higher marks based on research alone. That is irrespective of argument. It drives me up the wall that people don't accept that, that because Franken is not from their side he is automatically a liar. He could be a blowhard, I accept that, but he uses the truth, or he tries to find the truth and when you catch him in a mistake he admits to it. No one on this board should whine about the lack of a "middle" pundit, because a lot of people on this forum frankly don't care about facts, statistics, or quotes in context. And when good writers like Franken, that utilize good research teams that would make any academic proud, are not listened to because of who they are rather than the work they have done, it boggles my mind. It totally boggles my mind. Ann Coulter makes stuff up, Franken does not, Ann Coulter does not admit fault, Franken does, and the fact that people don't acknowledge those crucial differences make any future argument that much harder. Al Franken plays to his base, I am not totally sure of that, give me a definition of playing to a base, and I will give you my verdict. If you mean he lies on air, that is a possiblity, but I don't like Franken because he has never lied (Which I think would be impossible for me to confirm), I like Al because he lies a whole lot less than Hannity, Bill, Moore, and Coulter, and I want you guys to realize this as well.

Bingo.

Franken is not as bad as Coulter. He is not Micheal Moore. He's just a liberal who is sometimes funny and ironic, and sometimes isn't. Sorry if you can't accept that people, but it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one on this board should whine about the lack of a "middle" pundit, because a lot of people on this forum frankly don't care about facts, statistics, or quotes in context.

The rest of that was fine Winslow. Im not arguing which of those 2 is "worse." Frankly I think Coltier is "worse" because she seems kinda dumb and just wants to fire out the venomous zinger for a soundbite. She has absolutely no substance and just tries to shock people and collect the paycheck that comes with that. That aside, "worse" isnt an issue for me because they are both bad enough that i know not to take anything either of them says seriously on its own.

However.

I didnt get the part that i quoted. I often wonder why there isnt anyone "in the middle" without a political agenda though im sure its economic reasons. And i do care about facts, statistics, and quotes in context. Is there anyone that combines both facts and a lack of a political agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder why there isnt anyone "in the middle" without a political agenda though im sure its economic reasons. And i do care about facts, statistics, and quotes in context. Is there anyone that combines both facts and a lack of a political agenda?

The closest thing I have found recently is The Economist magazine. Probably because they are Brits and can look at our political issues from outside the fray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...