Lying Liar

[Endymon32]

Al Franken is being targed by a few websites. Its real fun to see the man that wrote this "Anybody who deliberately propagandizes with lies should be held up to scorn and ridicule" being held to it.

I particularly like how the websites list the lies in his book by topic.

I will anticipate the counter arguments.

"Since when is comedy supposed to be accurate" My favorite, as Michael Moore said when confronted with his own lies.


"That website has an agenda" Like Franken doesnt... everyone has one.


"Those are taken out of context" Please, Like Franken uses the correct context in his book.

Here are the links.

http://www.lyingliar.com/

http://www.frankenlies.com/

[magua]

Hmm. Read Al Franken's book. Looked at the websites, expecting some amusement.

Got to say, if those are the "lies", they really shouldn't've bothered. In fact, lyingliar.com is really quite pathetic. It's like it's trying to do what Franken did, but really, really, really badly. And that's just the comedic side. On the factual side, whereas Franken notes several places where people actually lie, lyingliar shows a lot of linguistic manipulation (which is true) and calls it lying (which is false). Franken comes across as reaching sometimes in his book, but this site comes across as reaching...all the time.

So, I give lyingliar, uh, 3/10.

Frankenlies could use a site design, but seems a little bit better. It's not trying to be funny, and just presents the facts. Granted, some of its facts are contradicted by the sources it itself gives (eg, the Willie Horton one, where the Brown University source makes it pretty clear that the NSPAC was working closely with the Bush campaign). But, then, some of the sources seem to come from NewsMax.com.

And, uh, far be it from me to say that NewsMax.com may _lie_, but, uh, how to put this delicately...

Let's take an example. Clinton and bin Laden. NewsMax.com claims to have a tape of Clinton saying, quote:

Mr. Bin Laden used to live in Sudan ... And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.

Powerful stuff. If you google for, say,

"because we had no basis on which to hold him" clinton

You'll find lots of hits. The NewsMax site itself, and lots of smalltime sites that link to the NewsMax sites. Oddly missing from this are, uh, any real sites. There's no news sites in there (No msnbc, no cnn, no foxnews even), nor any biggy Republican sites (no Rush Limbaugh, no Ann Coulter, etc).

I find that surprising. I'd think that any news organization would want to report on something so big. I'd think any conservative pundit would love to crucify Clinton for that, especially considering that the Clinton administration thought Osama was behind the first WTC bombings, and that Bill Clinton signed an assassination orderr for Osama.

So, I've got to assume that NewsMax is, to say it politely, making it all up.

On other points (Florida voting, the Maryland flier), though, I think they're more on the ball. Nothing comes close to some of the stuff in Franken's book -- it's mostly references themselves that couldn't be trusted, like, cough, NewsMax, cough) -- but that's still something.

I give frankenlies about 6.5/10.

And I'm glad there are people who fact check Franken. I wish they'd cast a wider net, though.

[mystmarimatt]

I was going to mention something earlier about this, but Magua talks prettier and more smarter than I do. So I'll just add this. FrankenLies has a bit against his "Savin' it" Letter to a few officials, trying to bust him for using a pank-like letter to make a point about abstinence only sex ed.

I respect fact-checking on both sides when it comes to books like these, but to try and derail that particular chapter is a bit asinine, if you read the book, it's pretty obvious that he's lying, and the lie was meant as part of the whole, it wasn't something he tried to hide or was shameful of, it really was in good fun, and it feels a lot like fluff, like they're desperate to nail him on ANYTHING.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by mystmarimatt
I was going to mention something earlier about this, but Magua talks prettier and more smarter than I do. So I'll just add this. FrankenLies has a bit against his "Savin' it" Letter to a few officials, trying to bust him for using a pank-like letter to make a point about abstinence only sex ed.

I respect fact-checking on both sides when it comes to books like these, but to try and derail that particular chapter is a bit asinine, if you read the book, it's pretty obvious that he's lying, and the lie was meant as part of the whole, it wasn't something he tried to hide or was shameful of, it really was in good fun, and it feels a lot like fluff, like they're desperate to nail him on ANYTHING.

I was hoping that everyone would be tired of Endymon trolling and this post would sink without a single reply but since that didn't I'm going to weigh in.

Oh wait, Magua already deconstructed your arguments and left nothing left for the rest of us. Darn...

[Nizzle]

Yeah, give me a break. Did you even read the Al Franken book? I guess irony and humor are things ridiculously closed-minded republicans can't grasp, but what else is new.

/Tired of this crap

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Endymon32
I will anticipate the counter arguments.

Did you read the book Endymon?

If not, counterarguments with you seem pointless, since you seem to be willing to believe what any random website posts about his book.

Prove to me that you've read the book and I'll read your links.

[mystmarimatt]

Originally posted by nanofever
I was hoping that everyone would be tired of Endymon trolling and this post would sink without a single reply but since that didn't I'm going to weigh in.

Oh wait, Magua already deconstructed your arguments and left nothing left for the rest of us. Darn...

That's really funny, that was the reason i wasn't going to post in the first place, before Magua even posted, i wasn't want to even give this thread a shot, but i figured i would if someone came along later, i'd jump in

[Candide]

Writing as a durn foreigner (Canuck), I have been waiting for signs of life from the American Left (not really all that far left, though). Franken is a welcome addition to the Michael Moore culture, but there still really needs to be more writers, thinkers, and activists. The right has been so much more imaginative, intelligent and downright active than the left.

The same thing has been going on in Canada for so long. Conservative think tanks (like our Fraser Institute - truly an impressive group) produce so much more research, attract so much more money, better researchers and more press attention than our teeny little progressive groups, like the Center for Policy Alternatives.

The only advantage for the Left is that the Right has been unchallenged for so long, they've grown lazy about their fact-checking. This advantage will only last for so long; eventually, the Left will have to come up with Big Ideas of their own to build on whatever momentum they have.

[Conclamo Ludus]

The best thing Franken has going for him is that he is a comedian. Nobody can call a comedian a liar. They can simply respond that they were joking. Personally I think all talking head angry pundits should do this, their credibility would never need to be poked at, because you could just say "Dude, I'm a comedian, grow up, I'm just having some fun with you."

Franken's really funny if you agree with him, so is Moore, Coulter, Limbaugh, and countless others. They don't look to persuade or open dialog, they simply wish to poke their fingers in and say nah nah nah nah nah and then high-five and grab-ass with the people that agree with them. They turn politics into a point-game instead of a process by which to solve problems. I'm sure if you check the score it'll always be a close game with these types, frequently they'll go after eachother. Franken vs. Coulter, Franken vs. O'Reilly. I've heard more intelligent debate in an elementary school forensics club. Its all a personal game for them. It would be nice to see some of their energy go towards something constructive, but unfortunately any constructive activism they partake in usually becomes just a spotlight-grabbing scream-fest that ends up diminishing any positive effect they may have had. Change usually comes through compromise. Has there ever been any evidence that any of these people Moore, Franken, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. that they're interested in compromise?

You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. And unfortunately, even more with bullshit.

The sad thing is how often people cite their opinions as if they were some sort of unbiased chronicle of events. I am tired of pointless poisonous political punches peppering the pages of every periodical or tv program I peruse. They represent the minority of far left and far right, and are hardly a berometer of the public.

Sorry I had to rant about ranting ideologues. Maybe I just joined their ranks.

[mystmarimatt]

You bring up a good point, Conclamo, now, i Like Franken, but especially with Moore and Coulter, all the rhetoric has become really disheartening. I consider myself a strong liberal, and normally, i'm very interested in politics, but now, whenever i see these books on the shelf, i kind of get siick to my stomach with it all.

[hlprmnky]

I've never bothered to purchase or read any of 'Treason', 'Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them', 'Who's Looking Out For You', or 'Dude, Where's My Country?' for one simple reason: I already know what they're going to say. No joke is worth $12.50, or an hour of my time, if I've already heard the punchline.

[European Son]

Websites lying about a political satirist lying about politicians lying about lies. What happened to the good, old days when it was taken for granted that all politicians and most media was bullshitting you?

[jbuffett]

I like the part where Franken notes, "no one bothers to ask her a question about anything past page 12" Talking about Ann Coulter's TV interviews. "I should be commended because I actually bothered to read this crap."

I'll take Franken over the goosestepping rightwingers (yes, that is a Nazi comparison. Don't even get me started there.)

[Strange Famous]

I read that book and its pretty good. If the stuff he showed about Ann Coulter is true then how can anyone even take her serious?

[hammer4all]

Originally posted by Strange Famous
I read that book and its pretty good. If the stuff he showed about Ann Coulter is true then how can anyone even take her serious?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." -- Ann Coulter

I have no idea...

[smooth]

Originally posted by European Son
Websites lying about a political satirist lying about politicians lying about lies.

Nicely done.

[Tomservo]

The saddest part of this whole debate lies in several replies above- folks who disdain the battle, so they don't bother to inform themselves AT ALL. How's this idea- Read 'em ALL! In the midst of doing so, you'll be able to get some clue as to who the real pricks are, and fashion some theories about the real facts.

Additionally, you never know which facts will affect your opinion. I'd bet many right-wingers defended Newt Gingrich's issues (Asking his cancer-stricken first wife for a divorce, all that, old hat news) without caring about the "truth" just like many lefties defended Clinton all the same. Nevermind that Gingrich and Clinton maybe DID do the things they're accused of!

EVERY American should read Moore and Franken's latest books, if anything, just to inform themselves of the relationship the Bush family shares with the bin Laden family, Saudi Arabia, and oil overall. I truly believe that most Americans (Republican or no) would turn their back on the Bushes if they realized how much they're tied to the Middle East cash machine. I wouldn't expect them to suddenly become Democrats, hell, they're no angels either, but the idea of putting the entire country in the hands of a family that has THAT MUCH at stake in the Middle East is just asinine. If you've read the last paragraph and you don't know what I'm talking about, you may want to go find out. As much as we know about Clinton's sex life, we should know a little about where the Bush fortune comes from- really.

John McCain was alright. I think.

[Conclamo Ludus]

Originally posted by Tomservo
The saddest part of this whole debate lies in several replies above- folks who disdain the battle, so they don't bother to inform themselves AT ALL. How's this idea- Read 'em ALL! In the midst of doing so, you'll be able to get some clue as to who the real pricks are, and fashion some theories about the real facts.

Additionally, you never know which facts will affect your opinion. I'd bet many right-wingers defended Newt Gingrich's issues (Asking his cancer-stricken first wife for a divorce, all that, old hat news) without caring about the "truth" just like many lefties defended Clinton all the same. Nevermind that Gingrich and Clinton maybe DID do the things they're accused of!

EVERY American should read Moore and Franken's latest books, if anything, just to inform themselves of the relationship the Bush family shares with the bin Laden family, Saudi Arabia, and oil overall. I truly believe that most Americans (Republican or no) would turn their back on the Bushes if they realized how much they're tied to the Middle East cash machine. I wouldn't expect them to suddenly become Democrats, hell, they're no angels either, but the idea of putting the entire country in the hands of a family that has THAT MUCH at stake in the Middle East is just asinine. If you've read the last paragraph and you don't know what I'm talking about, you may want to go find out. As much as we know about Clinton's sex life, we should know a little about where the Bush fortune comes from- really.

John McCain was alright. I think.

I wouldn't depend on these books for the "truth" any more than I would depend on reading the phone book for entertainment. There is far too much partisan rubbish in these books to sort through. I commend you if you have the patience to make it through them without just accepting them as "truth". They aren't really written to present their argument to anybody other than those who have already decided to agree with them. This is why they are too frustrating for me. Saying EVERY American should read Moore or Franken's books is as silly as saying every American should read Coulter's book so they know that liberals have been trying to distort the truth to promote their communist agenda. The premises of these books are absurd and divisive. If every American read these books we would still be split down the middle politically, maybe more so. It would perhaps just push people either further left or further right.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Saying EVERY American should read Moore or Franken's books is as silly as saying every American should read Coulter's book so they know that liberals have been trying to distort the truth to promote their communist agenda.

Can I distort the truth even if I don't have a Communist agenda, or perhaps have a Communist agenda without distorting the truth ?

Because on some days, I like distorting the truth and on others, I like a bit of norther European Socialism but the two never seem to happen on the same day.

[Tomservo]

I agree that partisanship makes the search for truth a much bigger challenge. However, if I'm ignoring my guy's faults because he's my guy, that doesn't make it right.. or me informed.

Case in point- Clinton. Most Dems have a pretty solid line on Clinton now, likable guy, philanderer, didn't run the country into an iceberg during a proseperous time. Partisan Dems say he brought about the goodwill by cutting the deficit and taxing appropriately... partisan Reps say he killed everyone he disliked and had sex with everyone he could. Neither partisan standpoint is true- they're both exagerrations. If as a Democrat I refused to believe Clinton had a wandering eye (and other parts), then I'd be a fool. And the wandering eye has no stake in the middle east!

Put it simply- the search for answers in the middle east- WMDs, terrorism, drilling rights, no-bid contracts.... should not stop short of the most powerful office in the world. Allowing the one country who HAS used WMD's in the past to run amok simply because no one else has the might to resist us is not a great world plan, and if we use our might to gain bigtime oil and middle east bargaining, it's not going to sit pretty with anyone we're not sharing the oil with. Our president should stand apart from this quagmire, not have financial interests with the defense contractors, the Saudi royals, and the overall oil market. These aren't wacky left-leaning myths, they're Bush family history... and this isn't even considering Dick Cheney!

As an obvious Democrat, I think Clinton shouldn't have banged that intern- but at least he was at work on a Sunday.

[Conclamo Ludus]

Originally posted by nanofever
Can I distort the truth even if I don't have a Communist agenda, or perhaps have a Communist agenda without distorting the truth ?

Because on some days, I like distorting the truth and on others, I like a bit of norther European Socialism but the two never seem to happen on the same day.

You can mix and match as needed.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
They don't look to persuade or open dialog, they simply wish to poke their fingers in and say nah nah nah nah nah and then high-five and grab-ass with the people that agree with them.

Have just read Franken's book, I would respectfully disagree here. For the first 100 pages he's very engaging and informative, and I could see how you could pin him as a jocular cheerleader. However, by the time I get to page 160, I get as spiritually exhausted as Franken sounds at that point, after going through Bush Jr.'s administration, Operation Ignore, and the assessments of such as related from people who were deep inside the process, particularly the former head of the Office of Faith or whatever it's called. Then the Wellstone memorial section, which soured me on Limbaugh faster and deeper than anything I've ever read about a person before. And I've read a fair share of words in my time.

While veiled in satire and straightforward comedy, Lying Liars hides within it some revelations that, even if they are only half-true, will never make me look at cable news, talk radio, or the major newspapers the same way again. I feel like I should write down Franken's short list of where these outlets lean, so I can read a given article in a more educated manner.