The article does show an exaggeration on Franken's part, that it was 21 references and not 21 articles. That hardly shows that facts weren't checked for the whole book. The Alamo thing was a joke, and irrelevant to the point being made. The fact trying to be proved by Franken's mention of the 21 'articles' was that O'Reilly lied when claimed the LA Times didn't cover it. That still is shown to be false. There was an exaggeration, and it's fine to point out. That doesn't Make Franken's claim false. I also believed that the fact checkers were not professors but students.
I saw it...they weren't sleeping or about to fall asleep. Has anyone here looked around at their fellow worshipers at church. Maybe things have changed since I last attended regularly, but I used to see all kinds of responses to what was being said. Some had extremely attentive looks, some were reading in their Bibles, and some, gasp, didn't. I've seen this at funerals, too. Some people are crying, some are listening attentively to whoever's speaking, and some have their eyes closed, taking the message in. This is just nonsense from some guy who's extremely obsessed with the Clintons. We just lost our 40th president, losing soldiers and other innocents every day in Iraq and what will most likely be the most venemous Presidential election season ever is underway, and we're talking about something like this. I got three words for Drudge and other conservatives who can't get Clinton off the brain: Get Over It.
Speaking of getting over it, can't you guys find someone else to worship? I realize it's slim pickings on the democratic/liberal side but he CAN'T run again regardless of how much you would like that to happen.
How does pointing out that a report about the Clintons was false, equal to worship of Clinton? I used to not like him very much. Maybe it's just the in comparison to our current President that has made my initial appraisal of him grow, or maybe the more I find out the more I like. I still have definite problem with Clinton, with some of his problems, with his honesty, etc. I didn't vote for Clinton the last time. I don't have a problem with worship of Clinton, but I still want false claims exposed. Wanting the truth and worship of someone are two different things.
I agree that it is a small example but if someone has proven to stretch the fact, distort the truth, or flat make stuff up then you would have no choice but ot question everything. And if he fact-checkers really were students than why distort the truth? To give his opinions legitimacy?
That "21 results" stuff is completely lame on Franken's part. But then again, if that's the "worse" offense in his book, it practically endorses Franken's fact-checking.
Where have I alluded to that? I've always said he is just the better choice of the two candidates we have to choose from.
I believe they were students. And I believe that Franken states they were students. I don't think that part was a distortion. I do agree that everything Franken said should be checked. Much of his evidence is refereneced at the end of the of book. I think any books trying to assert the facts should be referenced. On the whole his book and the one on Rush Limbaugh came through fact checking by the opposition to be fairly sound. But of course they should be checked and exaggerations or falsehoods should be pointed out. Secondly if the mistakes are minor, and don't topple the argument he was trying to make, then I don't believe it's fair to discount everything in his book. The arguments he makes do often check out to be accurate, and do show falsehoods by those he claims make falsehoods then that would discredit them and anything they say. I think we should take each argument and judge it on its worth. Those with a proven track record or unwillingness to admit misrepresentations(Moore, O'Reilly, etc.) should have their words taken with a grain of salt, and we should look for confirmation on things that aren't substantiated.
I completely agree. I am not saying that everything Franken says in a falsehood but his incessant hatred for the right shows through sometimes just as it does for Moore and to a certain extent, Limbaugh toward the left. Crazy to the left or crazy to the right is still crazy.
Limbaugh spawned this kind of crap. Without him, I don't think there'd have ever been a Franken book, because there'd be no O'Reilly, so on and so forth. That's awesome!
Very true. My theory on the whle O'Reilly/Franken feud is that they are actually the best of friends and they're using each other to sell books. Laughing all the way to the bank. Either way, they're both boobs.
Well Franken's main beef seems to be with the right in general and O'reilly in particular. Personally I do like Limbaugh and agree with him most of the time but he does get a little full of himself sometimes. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my point of view but if the discussion degrades into a name calling match then it just isn't worth it. I do not agree with most liberals thinking processes but I am open-minded enough to at least hear what someone has to say. There are 2 sides to every coin. I just have a problem with someone oppressing me because they think that I am oppressive. Examples: 1. I am all for nature conservation but if it is between mankind surviving and the spotted owls, its going to be mankind everytime. 2. If I want to pray aloud then I should be allowed. The constitution says freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion 3. I believe in smaller government and less taxes. I do not believe that I should take care everyone else besides my family through welfare programs. 4. I believe that we should do what is best for America whether the Euroweenies like it or not. Just a few examples.... I do not expect everyone to believe the same way I do and I am willing to negotiate to get as close as possible.
Dennis2112, that last post pretty much summed up my whole political philosophy. Well, all except for the Rush Limbaugh part. I don't really like talk radio that much anymore. Anyway, you should post here more often.
