Connect with us

OT: Al Franken

Discussion in 'CAD' started by Jim Thompson, Apr 2, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    I decided to be fair with the leftists and listen to Al Franken's new
    talk show (I've found him funny on Leno, etc.).

    Looks like he loses his humor capability when immersed into a talk
    show environment.

    Looks like "Liberal Talk Radio" will die a quick death.

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  2. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    Mockery can be funny, but stark hatred seldom is. Ann Coulter can whip
    him and Molly Ivans together with one hand, and not scuff her nail
    polish.

    John
     
  3. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    How true! Ann is quite a fighter!

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  4. Whenever I want a quick laugh I listen to Rush.
     
  5. Roger Gt

    Roger Gt Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes
    "Richard Henry" wrote
    : "Jim Thompson" wrote
    : > I decided to be fair with the leftists and listen to Al
    Franken's new
    : > talk show (I've found him funny on Leno, etc.).
    : > Looks like he loses his humor capability when immersed into a
    talk
    : > show environment.
    :
    : Whenever I want a quick laugh I listen to Rush.

    For a real belly laugh try CNN!
     
  6. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    I switch stations when Rush comes on.

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  7. Chuck Harris

    Chuck Harris Guest

    To, or from?

    -Chuck Harris
     
  8. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Long ago I announced my aversion to Rush.

    Actually, the last few days, I've switched to Al Franken.
    Unfortunately he's plain bo-o-o-o-oring on radio. Shame, I found him
    funny when I've seen him on TV.

    My normal switch, when Rush comes on, is to Bob Mohan, who has
    returned to Phoenix talk radio, now that he's past his one-year
    non-compete.

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  9. John Dyson

    John Dyson Guest

    Its too bad, but when Rush first appeared on a station that I could receive,
    he seemed to be pretty good and served a useful purpose. Starting several
    years ago (probably coincedentally with his 'drug' problem) I found him to
    be less entertaining.

    I believe that he is TOO political (akin to Franken) without enough
    substance (akin to Franken.) I blame him (for example) for re-enforcing
    the notion that American leftists are 'liberal.' It is exactly UNTRUE that
    the prominent American left is 'liberal', but it is more doctorinare than
    the
    predominant American right wing. When realizing the incorrectness of
    his allusions about the American left, it started the downward spiral (for
    me) away from serious respect of him. I still have great respect for Rush
    WRT the freedom of speech wave that he had ridden (and really did
    help to spearhead in some ways), but that is about all.

    My most favorate Rush-contribution are the Shanklin parodies, and I
    still listen to a few minutes of Rush per month -- but he just doesn't
    draw my interest. Rush doesn't 'anger' me, and his opinions and schtick
    don't 'bother' me, but he no-longer interests me -- perhaps partially
    because
    he isn't 'unique' anymore, and there appear to be other 'acts' that do
    the job better in the way that I prefer.

    People like Franken would definitely be worse than Rush (my prediction),
    because he starts of with total lack of integrity, rather than losing his
    direction along the way (like Rush.)

    One person (I suspect that it was Jim) has suggested a lack of integrity WRT
    Rush, and I have been coming to that conclusion for myself over the years.
    Franken is clearly not very 'high class' either, but nor is Michael Moore.
    When
    it comes to 'dishonesty' and 'hatred', Franken and Michael Moore are still
    INFINITELY worse than Rush.

    Lately, I have been listening to people with a little more internal
    consistency
    (integrity), but none of them is perfect. It is quite sad (for example)
    that the
    network with the most leftist political bias (very strong, in fact), with
    some
    political bias that does appear to be of weak integrity, is also the network
    with
    the best 'technical' shows (NPR.) Today, for example, the Lewis and Clark
    show (science friday) was quite good -- and those kinds of shows have
    been wonderful and informative entertainment.

    John
     
  10. John Dyson wrote...
    Could you expound a bit on that point?

    Thanks,
    - Win

    whill_at_picovolt-dot-com
     


  11. And not bad looking either. Ever notice that all the Right leaning
    female pundits tend to be very happy and atractive while the leftys
    can often look mannish and prepetually pissed all the time ala Susan
    Estrich.
     
  12. JeffM

    JeffM Guest

    Looks like he loses his humor capability
    So, with your political slant,
    most of what he says is "goofy" anyway. Right?
    That doesn't pass for humor though, huh? :cool:

    I still say the way to make political shows interesting is to have
    a leftie leave his studio and get locked into a booth with a rightie,
    then the 2 of them go at it. Simulcast on both stations.
    Next day the leftie gets the home-studio advantage.

    Heat is OK; light is better.
    Having to defend your opinions keep you honest.
     
  13. Chuck Harris

    Chuck Harris Guest

    Usenet memory is very short. I presumed that you would be about
    as conservative as they come, being as it is the Arizona way ;-)

    But then you started with your signature about cowards and
    heros, and how you weren't going to vote for any cowards.

    Well, the Kerry supporters have been calling Bush a coward because
    he served in the NG, and the Bush supporters have been calling Kerry
    a coward because he became an anti-war activist after his tour in
    Vietnam.

    So, I figured that you must think both were cowards, and were touting
    for Nader... But he is just a poorly paid lawyer... And I cannot
    imagine you having any use for a poorly paid lawyer...

    As I said, usenet has a short memory. It needs to be refreshed
    each time a subject is brought up.

    -Chuck Harris
     
  14. Rich Webb

    Rich Webb Guest

    Not to put words in John D's mouth but for myself, I regard
    liberal-conservative as one axis and (in the present context) the US
    left-right as an orthogonal axis.

    The conservative-right and liberal-left quadrants are the more populous
    but the so-called Rockefeller Republicans on the one hand and the
    Dixiecrats on the other would be examples of the liberal-right and
    conservative-left, respectively.
     
  15. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    The American Left seems to be motivated by jealousy and hatred, and
    characterized by intolerance; who woulda thunk it? Their figureheads
    tend to be mean-spirited and especially not funny. We don't need
    "fighters", we need thinkers.

    But most public figures are just playing to the crowd they think they
    will get the most out of. The Kerrys and Clintons of this world would
    have been enthusiastic racists 100 years ago, if that's what it took
    to get ahead.

    The Libertarian attitude, "just leave me alone", is impractical but at
    least hints at integrity.

    Ann is a kick.

    John
     
  16. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    Probably the only good leftist-feminist-lesbian writer is Camille
    Paglia. Her serious stuff ("Sexual Personna" and such) are pretty
    heavy going, but her essays ("Vamps and Tramps", etc) are a real hoot,
    especially since she gave up men and got in touch with her Inner Dyke.
    She's been pretty quiet lately, though.

    John
     
  17. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

    However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more Libertarian than
    Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards ;-)

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  18. ---------------
    You're an arch Rightist and as such you're unfit to discern or define
    "Liberal" for the rest of us.

    ------------------------
    In other words, Rush doesn't know what to say, while Franken knows
    what to say that you disagree with.

     
  19. John Dyson

    John Dyson Guest

    Thank you!!! Your understanding is similar to mine...

    In a way, in a meaningful sense, the term 'conservative' is similar to
    the notion of being 'doctorinare' -- perhaps with an emphasis towards
    an 'unchanging' or 'traditional' aspect.

    This labeling of people or belief systems as being 'conservative' or
    'liberal' is misleading and mostly ends up being a name-calling game.

    The notion of 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' is certainly more meaningful
    than popular use of the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal', but also each
    person has varying beliefs that cannot be meaningfully grossly
    categorized as such.

    More specifically, Rush Limbaugh gave our doctorinaire leftist friends
    a 'boost' by calling them 'liberal.' In the US, generally our most common
    group of 'leftists' are also MUCH MUCH more intolerant (doctorinaire
    and tied up in the traditional US leftist propaganda) than the mainstream
    group of right-centrists. Most often, you'll find that 'traditional right
    centrists' will be shouted down in leftist communities like ivy league
    colleges than the 'traditional lefties' in equivalent communities. Even
    if the 'righties' would deny the exercise of freedom of speech in their
    institutions, the 'righties' don't often make self-righteous claims about
    their open-mindedness.

    So, the use of 'liberal' when speaking of the mainstream US political
    spectrum, it would probably be most accurate (but still defective) to
    call the mainstream right as being 'liberal', while the mainstream left
    is more 'conservative or doctorinare.' Refer to the rants of the
    crazy old leaders of the US mainstream left e.g. Kennedy. Refer also
    to the blocking of the constitutional process in congress by the
    relatively leftist party leaders (the Dems), where that behavior is
    more likely associated with doctorinare and narrow minded
    crusaders.

    I credit Rush with the over-emphasis and dishonest give-away to the
    American left, where they are allowed to call themselves 'liberal', when
    they are quite far away from being 'liberal.' It is almost as bad to
    call the centrist-righties 'liberal', because even though they TEND to
    be more liberal, they aren't really 'liberal.'

    Each side tends to be overly doctorinaire rather than 'thinking' and
    'open.' This is why I aspire to being a radical centrist, where neither
    the GOPers nor the Dems can take me for granted. As it is nowadays,
    the Dems have done a wonderful job of forcing a vote that advocates
    their challengers. One day in the future, I hope to see more Evan Bayh
    or Lieberman styles of personality (not specifically their political
    advocacy), rather than the Kerry, Kennedy, Braun, or Daschle type
    of personalities. Luckily, I have been able to vote for Bayh, but not
    many districts/states have had good Dems to vote for. The GOPers
    also have their 'wierdos', but seem to have better people in general
    (WRT stability and integrity.)

    Too often, the Dems tend to INVENT new criteria for integrity, apparently
    to create new axis to criticise their opponents. Equivalently, the Dems
    opponents don't always have to 'INVENT' new criteria for integrity, but
    the Dems are good at politically spinning the matter so that the criteria
    is deemed unimportant. A good example of the 'history-spin' would be
    apparently dismissing Kerry's behavior and votes -- even to the extent
    of effectively claiming that a very CRUMMY vote that really counted
    was somehow mitigated by the very appropriate vote that didnt' count
    (his silly claim about voting for a bill before voting against it.)

    The Dems opponents only have to repeat the Dems behavior which
    clearly impeaches the Dem. The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior
    that has invented criteria (or even a behavior that would be deemed
    acceptable for a Dem.) This pattern isn't 100% true, but is much more
    true than not.

    Another good example of different criteria for Dems is that when the Bush
    administration increased funding for terror by 5X over Clinton (before the
    9/11) it
    is apparently not deemed sufficient. When the attack is fully staged and
    funded
    by the end of 2000, with a large part of the attackers already past the US
    frontier,
    the Dems seem to imply that it is Bush's fault that the attacks happened on
    his
    watch (after BY FAR most of the failings occuring during Clinton.) Also,
    if you look at the 'recession', it technically started in the Month
    immediately
    after Bush took office (when Clinton's policies were still 100% in force,
    and
    ABSOLUTELY no way for Bush policies to have taken hold), and the stock
    market was already screwed up EVEN BEFORE BUSH WAS NOMINATED,
    yet the Dems blame Bush for screwups during Clinton's presidency (even as
    the transition from Clinton to Bush was impeded by McAuliffe/Gore/etc.)

    I guess that even the Dems have higher standards for GOPers than for the
    Dems themselves. This is an implicit admission about the inferiority of the
    Dems candidates, and the fact that GOPers really do have to be better
    than the Dems.

    Sadly, I do try to vote for any Dem with integrity, and there are few who
    have been able to get my vote. However, those who are really good people
    (e.g. Bayh) do get my attention.

    The Dem party MUST be encouraged to develop more good candidate. WHen
    thinking of the Dems vs. GOPers (for involvement of Blacks), it is easy
    to compare Condi (perhaps the closest person to the president other than
    his wife) and Colin -- and then look at the Dems high-level people (e.g.
    Jesse
    Jackson, Carol M Braun, Sheila J Lee, Sharpton, etc.)

    John
     
  20. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    There's some serious stuff behind the macho manly-man thing: you
    survive and prosper by partnering with people you can trust, and you
    can never trust a coward.

    John
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-