Author Topic: Al Franken... Great American (Read 1548 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #45 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:25:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
You mean the same irony you used in a definition of satire? To use your definition, satire is irony, which is the definition I quoted?

So satiric irony is different? How so?

I see since "Irony" is contained in the definition, it must BE the definition. Convenient how you ignored "wit" and "derision".
No real points there Martlet, but a valient effort.

You must have gone to the same school of truthful writing as Anne Coulter!

Martlet · « **Reply #46 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:33:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I see since "Irony" is contained in the definition, it must BE the definition. Convenient how you ignored "wit" and "derision".
No real points there Martlet, but a valient effort.

You must have gone to the same school of truthful writing as Anne Coulter!

Ahhhh, so you have to GUESS which parts are wit, which are derision, and which are irony. In other words, there is no way to tell the fact from the fiction.

Again, no WONDER liberals are so confused.

midnight Target · « **Reply #47 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:38:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhhh, so you have to GUESS which parts are wit, which are derision, and which are irony. In other words, there is no way to tell the fact from the fiction.

Again, no WONDER liberals are so confused.

I tell you what. I don't seem to have any trouble telling the wit from the irony, although the derision is funny enough at times to seem like wit. Why don't you read it and let me know what you think.

Confused? Only as to how you think you have made a point here.

Martlet · « **Reply #48 on:** September 08, 2003, 06:56:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I tell you what. I don't seem to have any trouble telling the wit from the irony, although the derision is funny enough at times to seem like wit. Why don't you read it and let me know what you think.

Confused? Only as to how you think you have made a point here.

That's convenient. If it serves your argument, then it's true, if it doesn't, then it was irony!

How nice it must be as a liberal.

Sabre · « **Reply #49 on:** September 08, 2003, 07:29:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
The guys name is Evan Thomas JUNIOR! Do you think Coulter is correct? Wake up and smell the Right Wing Media bias!

From MSNBC News…
http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/nwinfo_thomase.asp

Quote

Thomas joined Newsweek from Time magazine, where he had been a correspondent, writer, and editor for nine years. The father of two daughters, Thomas is married to Oscie Thomas, a lawyer with AT&T. He grew up in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, the son of publisher Evan Thomas II, and the grandson of Socialist leader Norman Thomas.

I don’t have Coulter’s book, so I don’t know if Franken misquoted her or not. Anyone have it, so we can see who’s guilty of, shall we say, insufficient research?

Gadfly · « **Reply #50 on:** September 08, 2003, 07:51:56 PM »

Let me save you some trouble, Sabre-They are both entertainers, not historians or even actual political analysts, although they both would like to be, it appears.

midnight Target · « **Reply #51 on:** September 08, 2003, 08:08:52 PM »

Slander Page 68 - Newsweek Washington Bureau Cheif Evan Thomas "is the son of Norman Thomas, a four time Socialist candidate for president."

midnight Target · « **Reply #52 on:** September 08, 2003, 08:15:47 PM »

More from Coulter -

First Anne called Jim Jeffords a "half-wit" and D-U-M-M

Then she backed it up with this gem -

"Jim Jeffords' degree from Yale cannot be cited often enough. (And consider that Jeffords got into Yale long before the terrorizing regime of the SAT's, back when admission to the Ivy Leagues turned on social class rather than standardized tests.)"

anyone want to guess who else this might apply to? Anyone? Sabre? Martlet?

Martlet · « **Reply #53 on:** September 08, 2003, 08:34:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
More from Coulter -

First Anne called Jim Jeffords a "half-wit" and D-U-M-M

Then she backed it up with this gem -

"Jim Jeffords' degree from Yale cannot be cited often enough. (And consider that Jeffords got into Yale long before the terrorizing regime of the SAT's, back when admission to the Ivy Leagues turned on social class rather than standardized tests.)"

anyone want to guess who else this might apply to? Anyone? Sabre? Martlet?

What's your point? If you quote the entire context of the column, and if my memory serves me correctly, she was referring to Liberals constantly questioning the validity of Bush's degree, while touting Jeffords. Truth be told, when Jeffords got into Yale, as a legacy, he only had about a 10% chance of being denied. An legacy in the early 50's that could read or write got accepted.

So her entire point was, why is Jefford's degree so highly regarded by Liberals, while Bush's isn't.

Sabre · « **Reply #54 on:** September 08, 2003, 10:30:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gadfly
Let me save you some trouble, Sabre-They are both entertainers, not historians or even actual political analysts, although they both would like to be, it appears.

No worries, Gadfly. I'm well aware of it. I just thought it was interesting that some on the left treat everything Franken writes as true (same for the right in regards to Coulter), without realizing both are partisan in the extreme.

MT: Yes, you could make the claim that Bush also came by his degree the same way (same for ol' Algore, the "smartest man in America?). However, it sounds like you may have quoted her out of context, according to Martlet. BTW, what is the comment, "Slander, pg 68" referring to? Is that a direct quote from Coulter's book, or a quote of the quote from Franken's book? Still be interested in hearing from someone who actually looked it up in the original author's book. If quoted correctly from Coulter's book, than she is indeed guilty of not doing her research. The truth about Evan Thomas was easy to find after only a few minutes search on-line, backed by multiple sources. Franken's claim to have called Evan Thomas to verify that he was not the son of Norman Thomas (and did he also mention the grandson thingie in his book?) smacks of equally poor research on Franken's part. Saying he called is just a cheap trick to try to lend credance to his "facts," especially when the answers were readily available from numerous public sources. However, Coulter's assertion that Evan Thomas' idiological views were likely influenced by his ancestor Norman is at least possible. Indeed, several sources I found seemed to support that idea, though only Evan's own works can speak to that.

Edit: Went to Barnes & Noble last night and looked in Coulter's book, "Treason", and Franken's book, "Lies." Found that Franken's remarks about Even Thomas was in referrence to Coulter's earlier book, "Slander." Didn't have time to check "Slander" to see if Franken got the qoute correct (closing time).