Posted on 02/04/2011 9:12:28 PM PST by John Semmens
All the traitors probably did say those things. Fake, but accurate.
Little Dick Turban is calling for LAWLESSNESS!!
Satirical hair is drawn very fine in this one John....lol !
Stay sage...
No exactly. There’s at least a patina of significant difference between the actual and the hypothetical Durbin. The actual Durbin relies on the absence of a formal injunction to assert that the law is still in force, whereas the normal operation of judicial review, as expressed by the judge, presumes that an order voiding the entire law as unconstitutional is the functional equivalent of an injunction, and therefore no, the law is not in force. Durbin either knows this and is lying, or doesn’t understand this and is speaking from ignorance. Reader’s choice.
However, in support of your thesis, toward the bottom of the article, he does get perilously close to the substance of the satire, because he appears to be saying that none of that matters anyway, because Obamacare is just the nice, caring thing to do, so we ought to do it anyway. Somebody needs to fire that man. As an Illinois voter, I’m doing my share. Now if everybody else here would just pitch in ...
Man, this is one of the longest stringers in quite some time.
And it looks like the bites keep coming. You may have to from stringing lines to dropping pots like in Deadliest Catch...
One your BEST EVER, John!
Do you operate a Cointelpro type program against the Rats?
I ask because it seems that the specific wording the Rats use is designed for your benefit. I know they are stupid, but are they that stupid or do ya help 'em out?
When the foolish is plausible, how are we to tell satire from reality?
Thanks John. You get better and better. :)
You've been on FR for over 10 years and you're just finding out about John Semmens' satire posts? O-kaaaaay. He sets the keyword "satire" and is very clear about how he sets up his stories. Well, now you know. And BTW, satire is not lying.
I submit that there's no need to take offense at such satirical humor, or the fact that some folks find it amusing to watch others get fooled. Most people find such situations funny; it's not like anybody actually got hurt.
A sense of humor is not expensive; you may be able to find a used one for cheap on Craigslist or eBay. Or if you feel the one you have is okay, I suggest you avoid John's posts in the future. There's lots else to read and enjoy on FR, and not everything is for everyone.
(Hint: this comment was meant to be light-hearted, not offensive. If you were offended, I apologize, as that was not my intent.)
Oh, I have a great sense of humor. You can ask either of my friends.
Honestly, I think it might be funny if the title said “satire” instead of being reported as news. “Semi-news semi-satire” buried in the link is hardly an acknowledgement that it is all made up.
No harm??? true enough except when I see it quoted as fact on other threads or - God forbid - someday another site. It just makes conservatives look bad. Lots of folks obviously take it seriously as evidenced by the responses.
John doesn’t care what I think. I’ve raised the issue before. I think he called me a name. Yeah, I’m familiar with his work. Others aren’t. Call it what you will... this is a news forum or it isn’t. When liberals attribute quotes, positions, and stories to conservatives that aren’t true, it think it is harmful. If CNN makes up entire stories in the middle of a program, I’ll complain about that too. I’m not sure how this is different.
People obviously believe the story is true. The humor in that just escapes me. It was 40+ posts in and it was still being passed on as fact. Plenty of chances to correct the perception, but no one took it. When you deliberately mislead someone on facts, I think it is a lie. If you have another word, I’ll accept that, but that is clearly what is going on.
I’m not offended by your comments (well, the “okaaay” stuff is a little disrespectful and would have gotten the kids sent to their rooms). But overall, I accept your intent as being friendly. I hope you accept mine the same way. It isn’t my intent to offend in any way either. I just think this really hurts the dialog. John will continue posting and when I think it is appropriate, I’ll continue to object. But I will not agree that his format is okay as long as it is designed to misinform people, then laugh because someone took the bait.
> Oh, I have a great sense of humor. You can ask either of my friends.
Well said. I could hear you smile from here. :)
> Honestly, I think it might be funny if the title said satire instead of being reported as news.
Actually, it's in the "Bloggers" section, which has no restrictions or requirements to truth on the stuff that shows up there. I don't know if John's posted his columns into "News" in the past, but "Bloggers" is appropriate.
And I think I recall John or the Admins putting "[satire]" in the title from time to time.
> Semi-news semi-satire buried in the link is hardly an acknowledgement that it is all made up.
Well, that's the title of his blog. And in fairness, generally it's not -all- made up; I've noticed that John usually starts out with a real quote or news item, and diverges into semi-fiction by paragraph two, and by the end it's just silly. I enjoy trying to figure out when the fiction starts -- with some of the quotes from "our liberal friends" (-RR) it's sometimes impossible to tell.
> No harm??? true enough except when I see it quoted as fact on other threads or - God forbid - someday another site. It just makes conservatives look bad. Lots of folks obviously take it seriously as evidenced by the responses.
Okay, there I completely agree with you, in that there are people who pass along things they read on an internet forum without bothering to do the least bit of critical thinking or even a basic sanity check. There's a ton (no, make that many megatons) of misinformation, false stories, and other assorted silliness on the net, and sad to say, it gets passed around like Gospel.
> ... Im familiar with his work. Others arent. Call it what you will... this is a news forum or it isnt.
See above about Bloggers.
> When liberals attribute quotes, positions, and stories to conservatives that arent true, it think it is harmful. If CNN makes up entire stories in the middle of a program, Ill complain about that too. Im not sure how this is different.
CNN has a responsibility to present actual facts. (Many on this site would say they ignore that responsibility, but that's a different issue.) I don't presume to speak for JimRob on this point, but I don't think FreeRepublic's Bloggers forum has that responsibility. Caveat emptor.
> People obviously believe the story is true. The humor in that just escapes me. It was 40+ posts in and it was still being passed on as fact. Plenty of chances to correct the perception, but no one took it. When you deliberately mislead someone on facts, I think it is a lie. If you have another word, Ill accept that, but that is clearly what is going on.
I won't argue semantics or vocabulary, as you are welcome to your opinion on this, and it's not my place to try to tell you you're wrong, just because my opinion is different.
> Im not offended by your comments (well, the okaaay stuff is a little disrespectful and would have gotten the kids sent to their rooms).
Consider the "okaaay" withdrawn.
> But overall, I accept your intent as being friendly. I hope you accept mine the same way. It isnt my intent to offend in any way either. I just think this really hurts the dialog. John will continue posting and when I think it is appropriate, Ill continue to object.
Fair enough, it's your right to do so.
> But I will not agree that his format is okay as long as it is designed to misinform people, then laugh because someone took the bait.
Well, I've made the point about "Bloggers" vs. "News", so I'll just reference that and say that "misinform" seems to me an inappropriate verb -- after all, if you frequent the "Bloggers" area you'll see articles written and posted as truth that make John's satire seem like Gospel by comparison. Those other rampant, raving falsehoods are quoted by FReepers and I've seen references on other sites to such stuff (probably because Google indexes FR).
I don't know if you go about correcting all those folks also, but if you do, you have a lot more perseverance, dedication, and time, than I do. I just figure, anybody who believes the stuff they read on internet forums without checking it gets what they asked for, and sooner or later the truth will prevail.
In any case, thanks again for your gentle and helpful response, and I hope you're enjoying your day. I'm frozen in by rain-slick solid ice on my hill in upstate NY and marooned at the top of my 2000-foot steep driveway for a few days. So that's why I have time to write so much back -- I may be FReeping a good part of the weekend, unable to do anything else!
Well, that's not strictly true... I could dust the furniture which gets coated by the woodstove, but I'm not that bored yet. :)
I can usually spot satire, but this one went right by me. Didn't even notice the "semi-satire" under the title. Don't I feel a little foolish.
Thanks for clearing that up since I'm not familiar with John Semmens' work. Learn something new everyday.
I see your point
I do not want to get banned, so I will say I agree he needs to go.
If I typed my true thoughts I would be banned
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.