Aw, Novak is a stooge. That show was better when Tinsley and Buchanan were on. It is interesting that most liberals think Combs is a "p***y" while most conservatives think the same of Novak.
Twhy77 - I've posted in another thread several of Coulter and Franken's lies. They are documented and well researched. You can dislike Franken all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he's done his research, and it checks out. It holds up to scrutiny. Now if you would like to go back through and find the numerous examples of O'Reilly's and Coulter's lies in an old thread, then that's fine. I'd do it myself but I'm not exactly sure how to link to that thread, and I'm short on time to figure it out right now. If you don't want to I will either repost the lies and show how they were lies, or I will try and find a link to where I posted them before. Franken on the other hand, had a vast research team, and went to great links to make sure his information was accurate and correct. You can hate him, or think that he is attack oriented and divisive, but his information is dead on. For you to say that you would believe Franken over O'Reilly anyday only shows a bias, and on that flaws reasoning. If you would believe someone who has been shown to be a liar over someone who's shown that he prints well researched documented evidence, because you have such a dislike for the accurate one then it's clouding your reasoning.
No, but you could say "you know what, I will read it when I get a chance." You are flatly refusing to read it in favor of reading National Review and watching O'Reilly. Where did I say your analysis was shallow? I merely pointed out that you should read commentary from both sides before deciding one side is right. And Franken puts together statistics on the tone and presentation of news reports during and after the election. You can say that they don't mean squat, but you haven't even bothered to take a look so how can you discount them? That's funny, I noticed a conservative bias long before Hilary's comment about the "vast right wing conspiracy" and it has only gotten worse since then. Um, no, Franken calls people who lie liars. I have not lied anywhere in this thread or (to my knowledge) on this board. Actually, I said: You admitted that you would rather get your information from National Review than even consider reading an alternate viewpoint, what am I supposed to think? I challenge you to point out ONE lie I have written here. I am more than happy to admit that I use rhetoric, I just try to make sure that I back my rhetoric with facts, figures, and evidence. Besides, I am proud of my ability to use rhetoric (defined by dictionary.com as the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively).
But at least Novak talks about the conservative viewpoint whereas Colmes is just window dressing. I would blast Hannity over and over again if I were in Colmes' shoes, but instead, Hannity just gets a pass. (if you would like to get the Colmes joke, read the book)
Couldn't have been funnier than Stuart Saves His Family. No way. Hannity - no, Coulter - no. I got one of O'Reilly's books as a gift and started to read it, but it didn't hold my interest so I stopped. But I think it's funny that you try to group him in with those two, as well as Limbaugh.
No, I've heard Frankkken talk, and I think he's just as shady if not shadier. If O'reilly wanted he could probably make a lying book about Frankkken. The lies that have posted have all been weak. So, I don't think its really a cloud in reasoning. Have you ever heard Frankkken give a talk... I mean the guy just says things about Bush, and how he hates the country, and how he brought us into an economic decline ( check the numbers, the economy was slipping at the end of Klinton's reign) The bottom line is, both of these guys are TV men, not the most real journalists on earth....get some real info.. the book is meant to be extreme and all it does is search for a few key lies... and paints them as the way people are... And I guarantee you O'reilly's lies were not in front of a grand jury of the United States of America... whats that called again... perjury? Perjurers and the Perjuring Perjurey they Pervade amongst the Populace.... now, If I wrote a book all about how Clinton lied, set a crappy example of family, and was a legacy loving w****, do you think that would be an accurate example of who he is? Point is, Frankkken's book holds no weight with me just as O'reilly's holds no weight with me. Go read the Federalist papers and then make up your mind on politics.
So because nobody cares enough to try to dig up dirt on the star of Stuart Saves His Family and comb through everything he may have said in his lifetime to look for hypocrisy in his statements, he probably doesn't lie.
Yeah. And he seems to be confused. He got it right with Clinton, but also misspelled it as Klinton. I dunno, maybe Ks are demeaning or something. He may start referring to me as Rockkketman95.
Andy-- Let's see, so you are claiming that you didn't say that I got my idea that there was a liberal bias by the right wing media, even though I told you that I thought the media was bias long before I ever heard anything towards that matter? Or that you called my analysis shallow and then said where did I call your analysis shallow? Or that saying I'm at work right now, is the same as saying I will not read Franken's book? Or how about how the fact that I will not read Rush, nor, Anne's, nor Bill's books, how you forgot to mention those, and then portray my not wanting to read AL's book as me only looking at things from one side (I called that one more a misleading than a lie) But you know what? I guess you are truth personified. This isn't even remotely on-topic anymore. Great derailment.
This just in, Franken some children there was a Santa Claus. What a lying liar bag. Oh, and I feel Franken persecutes my beliefs as a conservative with about the same zeal as one in kkk would persecute others on race or religion... I'm tired of feeling like a simpleton for liking God, or being pro-life, so you know... a petty thing to strike back... I'm not above saying I messed up and shouldn't have typed that...
It's fine to blame Clinton for lying because he did so. Franken also points out in his book that he doesn't hate the country, and gives examples of it, and how people always make the claim that you do about hating the country. I wasn't saying that the commentator O'Reilly's lies were as bad as lying under oath by a commander and chief. You said the lies that O'Reilly told were weak? O'Reilly lied about being an independent. O'Reilly lied about his background to make it seem more working class than it was. O'Reilly lied about statistics and how much money the U.S. gives. O'Reilly has lied to his guests and when they try to correct them, he tells them they are wrong. O'Reilly lied on the Terry Gross interview and then when she read a review that O'Reilly was blabbering about O'Reilly had to admit he might be wrong. To compare Franken's book to O'Reilly's isn't fair. Franken's book isn't full of lies. Franken's book is factual, and well researched and documented. The two are not equal.
So I have to go back to work and can't type much but I will just say this... you think it's factual to say that someone lies about being independent just because once way back in their past they were republican. I think its a lie to try and equate the two. My mom used to be registered as a democrat. Then, she changed. I guess she's a lying liar too. And I don't think I ever said Franken hated the country. I'd hate to call you a liar though. I think we've had about enough childishness in the mainstream media these days.
No, Bill O'Reilly said he'd never registered as a Republican, but he'd registered as an independent. Then he said there was no independent box. Both of those statements were lies.
RM95, I don't know where you are getting that from, but I've heard numerous times from him on air saying only, I am an Independent, not registered or whatever. Now, I don't know when the finding of the registration as a republican is, but I don't really think that even matters, because quite frankenly, I'm getting sick of this whole debate. Franken is commiting a classic error of Rhetoric (andy) in his ad hominemn attack.
I'm getting it from him. O'Reilly claimed that he'd never been a registered Republican. Then he said the only reason he registered Republican was because there was no independent option. Both were lies. Sure, that's an ad hominemn attack...if proving someone wrong is one. Of course, that's something only Franken does. I mean, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity always stick to the issues and never make personal attacks.
I wanna know when Franken attacked people who believe in God or are pro-life. That is a harsh thing, if he actually did it.
Dude, is this thing on? That's why I said I'd rather read the national review or something, sure I like getting my kicks out of hearing Rush rip on liberals, but I never use him as a source, its more of a just for fun thing, Soo when I want an iformed opinion I go to those journals or when I want the right opinion I go to First Things,...or maybe even the constitution, or the federalist papers or something. But the way you guys talk, frankenly cracks me up a little.
Well, I think he went to far with the Bob Jones thing, but I think he realizes that too. At least that's what I gathered from that chapter.
Just various times I've heard him talk about being pro-choice, realy as if there was no other choice. I didn't say he attacked pro-life people, just our views... and when I said anti God I really just meant the general fervor against conservative Christians that I've encountered from liberals on this board numerous times...
