I'll try typing this slowly so maybe you'll understand me this time. I HEARD the speeches from the memorial service. What I heard was out of line for a memorial service, imo. Why do I need to read someone elses "facts" about something that I heard for myself?
I'll type this even slower so that maybe you can analyze it effectively. One of the facts was that nobody vetted any speech by any participant. Wellstone was not the only one that died in the plane crash and all of the families chose one person to speak. Since it was a memorial service, nobody asked any of the speakers what they were going to talk about and, as is the case in political circles, some of them were a bit upset about some things the Republicans did leading up to the service. You can get the entire story if you listen to more than the small portions of the speeches that Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh chose to air (Franken also deals with these taped portions in his book). If you looked at more than just the GOP side of this issue, you would be able to see that, but as it is, you seem to be choosing the road of the shill. EDIT: While I totally agree that the speakers who chose to make policical statements that night showed EXTREMELY poor taste, as did the .5 to 1 % who booed Lott, it is absolutely NOT accurate to color the ENTIRE 3 hour memorial as a "political event" as Limbaugh and O'Reilly did.
You area absolutely correct. Reagan gave us the second longest economic recovery in our history while winning the cold war. Clinton gave us the longest recovery while risking his presidency to get blown by Monica Lewinsky. Scoreboard Clinton.
Clinton gave us the longest recovery while risking his presidency to get blown by Monica Lewinsky. Interesting that the Lewinsky thing is a big deal to you, but Iran-Contra (a direct subversion of an act of Congress) is not.
If you are refering to the 14 Havard Profs then let me show some " Facts" that they may have missed in Franken's book. In a scatterbrained chapter called "Who Created the Tone?", Franken asserts that Bill O’Reilly was wrong when he declared in a magazine interview that the liberal Los Angeles Times "never mentioned Juanita Broaddrick’s name, ever." (Lies, p. 138)1 (Juanita Broaddrick is a woman who has claimed that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978.) However, in his effort to besmirch O’Reilly, Franken then cites Times editor Melissa Payton as saying that its paper’s archives contained "twenty-one articles mentioning Broaddrick." (bold and italics added) Hmmm. Let’s apply that "impossibly high standard" to Franken and Ms. Payton and take a closer look at those alleged "twenty-one articles." A search of "Juanita Broaddrick" in the archives at latimes.com returns 21 items that date before the 2000 election.2 But "twenty-one articles"?? Sorry, Al. Not even close. The 21 results include: (calculators for addition are permitted) ... two Letters to the Editor ... four references to TV listings and/or TV ratings reports ... one theater review reference ... one book review reference ... three "Laugh Lines" mentions (a former feature within a defunct Times section in which they printed jokes on current events from comedians like Jay Leno) ... one public interest feature about the general legal issue of the statute of limitations ... one reference to a "News, Trends, Gossip, and Stuff To Do; Out and About; Dick Morris on Affairs of State" segment ... one article entitled "Clinton Cites Social Security Consensus: Budget: President commends GOP agreement ..." ... one March 1999 article entitled "Clinton Says Legacy Will Be Truth" [Author’s note: I’m not making this up. I laughed also. What’s even funnier? The article is on page 1.] ... one March 1999 commentary piece on the issue of character in the forthcoming 2000 election. How’s your math? There should be five results remaining. Let’s take a look at those. 1. A February 28, 1999, opinion/editorial piece was entitled "Clinton Mess Will Become Even Messier," and it addresses the Broaddrick claim. However, this piece is only listed for Section B of the Orange County edition of the paper. (Orange County is south of Los Angeles County and above San Diego County. In other words, most of the Times readership never even saw this piece.) 2. and 3. There were two opinion/editorial pieces on the same day and on the same page in the Section B Commentary pages, on February 26, 1999 ... The first, under the banner "Column Left," was written by nationally syndicated liberal columnist Bill Press: "Clinton Rape Charge Can’t Be Proved." The other was by Michael Kelly: "This Accuser’s Claim Has Ring of Credibility." 4. On February 25, 1999, a fluffy media news analysis was published on the morning after an NBC Dateline interview of Broaddrick. Its title is "Journalists Weigh Standards, Scoops; Media: Whether a woman’s allegation of a sexual assault by Clinton in 1978 is true becomes secondary to competitive pressure." The item, published on page 9, can hardly be described as a bona fide news story about Broaddrick's claim. And, finally ... 5. Ta-da! Here is the strongest evidence that the Times delivered an actual news report of the Clinton/Broaddrick issue. On Saturday, February 20, 1999, the Times published a puny 226-word (!)3 article under the title "Clinton Camp Denies Alleged Sex Assault." Buried on page 13, the piece begins with a denial by Clinton’s lawyer. So, was Bill O’Reilly really that far off in his analysis of the Los Angeles Times’ coverage of the Clinton/Broaddrick issue? A rape allegation against a sitting President merits just one tiny news report on page 13 of its Saturday issue? Could just one of Al’s 14 Harvard researchers have looked into the facts of this topic a little closer, as this author did? An "impossibly high standard"? Ugh. In a silly passage on Bush strategist Karl Rove, Franken writes on page 146 of Lies that Rove "orchestrated the most complete takeover of Texas since Sam Houston routed Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. (Sam Houston was later killed at the Alamo by terrorists.)" Oops. Sam Houston was not killed at the Alamo. Sam Houston died of pneumonia in 1863, some 27 years after the Alamo.1 This slip is particularly embarrassing considering the fact that the battle cry at San Jacinto was "Remember the Alamo!"2 Let’s hope none of those 14 Harvard researchers are history majors. 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"? In his chapter "Fun with Racism," Franken writes, "[Y]outh poverty among blacks is now at its highest level in the twenty-three years they’ve been keeping the statistic." (Lies, page 259) Wrong! Franken cites a Los Angeles Times article about a study by the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). If Franken or any of his Harvard researchers had actually taken a moment to read the CDF release, they would have read "that annual Black child poverty figures reached their lowest point on record in 2001."1 (italics and bold added.) Doh! What the study actually showed was an increase in the number of black youths living within a much smaller sub-category called "extreme poverty."2 ("Extreme poverty" is the level below half the amount used to define regular-ol’ "poverty.") Because it is smaller in number, the category of extreme poverty displays more fluctuation. In fact, there was actually another increase in the extreme poverty category between 1996 and 1997 when (gasp!) Bill Clinton was president. That’s right: "Extreme poverty among black youth increased in the middle of the Clinton administration!" Gee, that doesn’t sound very good, does it? See what an author can do? Just a few examples of the "fact-checking" that Franken uses.
Does anybody know if its a lie to copy text from somebody else's webpage without citing to the page or including a link so that it appears to be your own? http://www.frankenlies.com/latimes.htm http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.clinton/messages/1290537.html
So, you've (or the author of this piece...link?) got four things out of that whole book, one of which appears to be a joke (the Alamo thing) and one simply criticizes the source, not the actual claim? Good job.
I would be more than happy to give the source anytime I was asked. But it appears that you already know where the information came from..so much the better. It is not a lie since I never claimed to have wrote it or composed it.
It's customary to post the source anytime you post the info. And in the case of published articles it is required (by Clutch) to post the actual link.
Unfortunately there was many additional examples of "facts" from the book but I did not wish to take up too much space on the BBS. The purpose of posting the info was to call into question the supposed 14 Havard Profs that were Franken's fact- checking team which may have been on vaction during the writing of the book.
Bull. If you post something that's not obviously an article from somewhere else and you don't provide a link, what else are we to think. Clutch is extremely serious about this, start posting links and stop trying to pass off other's "work" as your own.
I saw this picture on Friday...and Drudge's commentary on it...and had the same reaction some of you had. They were not sleeping...it was likely a moment of prayer or reflection.
But the facts still remain that Mr Franken did not use any type of fact-checking method to his book. He claims to hold his facts to the highest standard but the facts can be refuted in the simplest ways. The point is that everyone is entitled to their opinion whether it is political or otherwise. However if you represent opinion as fact then you better be prepared to back it up which just doesn't happen in the case of Franken's book. Again, I am not telling anyone who to vote for.
I'm not sure about that picture, but I did just see some video on The View (yes, I watch every now and then) of Bill and Hillary. They were very close to dozing when while GWB was speaking. They showed the clip and their heads were nodding in a near doze. Gerald and Betty Ford sat behind them with their eyes open and at attention so it was obvious this video wasn't taken during a prayer. I don't have a clip to show you so you'll just have to take my word on it.
No offense taken RM95. I have been here long enough to know to reference the material posted. Completely my fault.
