Posted on 01/04/2004 2:01:45 PM PST by infoguy
www.frankenlies.com ... Thank you to all the Freepers for the great feedback and spreading the news!! ... Franken has been called on his facts, and the word is getting out! Thank you!!!
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Ohio | 250.00 |
4 |
62.50 |
440 |
0.57 |
542.25 |
15 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
MKM
What they do cite tends to be either:
1. A different interpretation of facts that they do agree are correct (Franken believed the purging of voters from the rolls was the result of a republican campaign to rid the state of possible democratic votes. The website charges that it was merely a mistake. Either way, both sources agree that an incorrect purging did occur)
2. A wild overreaction to something that obviously isn't what they say it is. (Come on, saying someone has "A touch of the Irish Flu" is about as racist as saying "Gee, this is a fine Italian sausage they sell at Penn Mac.")
3. Their inability to handle a joke (The chapter "Operation Ignore" is obviously a joke that Franken uses to emphasize his belief that the Bush Admin had many opportunities to prevent Sept. 11th. Anybody who doesnt get the point that Franken was joking (whether you believe it's funny or not) has to have an IQ ranging in the mid-20's)
4. A fake disproving of a fact (Al says that poverty hit its highest point in 23 years according to one study. The site provides the same study saying it was at its lowest point in 2001. This does not disprove Franken's point about 23 years, yet the site heralds it as though it does. It would only apply if Franken had said it was at its highest point that year.)
5. The citing of an editorial as fact (Not everything in Time Magazine is the total, unvarnished truth, sorry to say. Some of it is an opinion.)
6. Disproving a minor point and saying it discredits the whole. (They cite that Glick was lying to O'Reilly. Does this matter? No. What Franken was trying to prove was that O'Reilly cannot handle confrontation - it does nothing to disprove Franken.)
7. A complete misunderstanding of world affairs (If Phillipine officials don't help the US, you might as well call me the pope.)
8. Completely making stuff up (Even if Phillipinian officials had given the president the information, Clinton's FBI that captured Yousef is still at least partly responsible for thwarting each of the terrorist attacks they had planned.)
Final Word? An all-too-familiar Hack job. Either catch him in something real, provide a true counterpoint, or just get off the web. The national discourse has become waaaaaaaay too much of people trying to get other people into little "gotcha!" situations without addressing any real issues - this site is a prime example of trying, but never succeeding.
I look forward to more insightful input on even more threads in the future.
There is potential, but it has nothing more than potential. Where, for example, is the quote from any totally impartial witnesses who saw oreo cookies handed out by Democrats at the Maryland debate referenced? Where are the quotes by witnesses who saw Democrat operatives roll one on the floor to Steele.
Find those from clearly impartial witnesses and then you are headed in the right direction. Without them, there is nothing of value here.
Also a good site :)
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.