OT: Al Franken

Jim Thompson · Apr 2, 2004

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:06:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> 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.

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

...Jim Thompson

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

Jim Thompson · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:42:41 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:06:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> 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.

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

...Jim Thompson

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

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Richard Henry · Apr 2, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:cmar60dsb3cji0joufalrujd0cb8b4fktk@4ax.com...

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.

Roger Gt · Apr 2, 2004

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!

Jim Thompson · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:20:36 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:cmar60dsb3cji0joufalrujd0cb8b4fktk@4ax.com...
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.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Chuck Harris · Apr 2, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

I switch stations when Rush comes on.

...Jim Thompson

To, or from?

-Chuck Harris

Jim Thompson · Apr 2, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:35:04 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

I switch stations when Rush comes on.

...Jim Thompson

To, or from?

-Chuck Harris

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Dyson · Apr 2, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:3usr60tjqnmuv3355hkevg2heddinckego@4ax.com...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:35:04 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

I switch stations when Rush comes on.

...Jim Thompson

To, or from?

-Chuck Harris

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.

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

Winfield Hill · Apr 3, 2004

John Dyson wrote...

... 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' ...

Could you expound a bit on that point?

Thanks,
- Win

whill_at_picovolt-dot-com

Product developer · Apr 3, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<2hdr60hkmaafvoq3gt5qff3usinbfbk2j5@4ax.com>...

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:42:41 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:06:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> 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.

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

...Jim Thompson

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

How true! Ann is quite a fighter!

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.

JeffM · Apr 3, 2004

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

So, with your political slant,
most of what he says is "goofy" anyway. Right?
That doesn't pass for humor though, huh?

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.

Chuck Harris · Apr 3, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 17:35:04 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

I switch stations when Rush comes on.

...Jim Thompson

To, or from?

-Chuck Harris

Long ago I announced my aversion to Rush.

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

Rich Webb · Apr 3, 2004

On 2 Apr 2004 17:11:44 -0800, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Dyson wrote...

... 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' ...

Could you expound a bit on that point?

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.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:51:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 10:42:41 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 11:06:30 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> 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.

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

...Jim Thompson

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

How true! Ann is quite a fighter!

...Jim Thompson

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

Jim Thompson · Apr 3, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:48:32 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
Long ago I announced my aversion to Rush.

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

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

R. Steve Walz · Apr 3, 2004

John Dyson wrote:

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.
---------------

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

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.)
------------------------

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

Franken is clearly not very 'high class' either, but nor is Michael Moore.
---------------------------

I guess that means your kind won't be inviting them to your elitist
cabal then?

When
it comes to 'dishonesty' and 'hatred', Franken and Michael Moore are still
INFINITELY worse than Rush.
-------------------

Hatred of your dishonesty is very important.

(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),
-----------------------

There is no such thing as a Leftist "bias", because Leftism is the
Truth, not any bias!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

John Larkin · Apr 3, 2004

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:57:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:48:32 -0500, Chuck Harris <cfharris@erols.com
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
Long ago I announced my aversion to Rush.

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

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

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

R. Steve Walz · Apr 3, 2004

John Larkin wrote:

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

Nonsense.

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

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
---------------

Or a brave person who disagrees with you strongly.
Figure out which is which.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

John Dyson · Apr 3, 2004

"Rich Webb" <bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote in message
news:gp8s60ljj1jelh9rb00lv70au4140fp80e@4ax.com...

On 2 Apr 2004 17:11:44 -0800, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

John Dyson wrote...

... 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' ...

Could you expound a bit on that point?

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.

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

OT: Al Franken

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Roger Gt

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Dyson

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Product developer

Guest

JeffM

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Rich Webb

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

R. Steve Walz

Guest

John Dyson

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor