Talk:Al Franken

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Layout

Right now everything is in one long paragraph, if anyone wants to make it look more appealing, I have no problem with that, I'll probably do it my self when I have more time SirJim 18:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I am changing "Al Franken" to "Alan Stuart "Al" Franken", if that's alright with ya'll. It's his name, that's all. You can guess from my name I'm liberal, but don't worry, I'm not trying to shoehorn liberal values into your site. I'm just saying that in the interest of continuity, his middle name should be included, as it is for all the other senators I can find. Alright, cool. RespectfullyLeftWIng 19:25, 15, December 2009 (EDT)
Not cool. You may suggest the change, but moving the article should only be done by admins to keep the edit history intact. We consider keeping the history of page edits available to be very important, so only sysops can do this. JacobB 20:26, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Quote

I don't want to insert a fact tag, because those are ugly and usually not needed. But we really need a citation on that quote about being glad the homosexual was killed.... If this is posted with no backup and it's not true, it crosses the line. This would be pure libel [1] and could get this site in serious trouble. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 17:48, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Sources added, libel avoided. Karajou 18:25, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Sorry to seem a stickler... but I wouldn't slam the door on that yet... I mean, the first two are simply opinions columns (with the first linking to the second) as for the third. It's obviously genuine, but after reading through the article, it seems very poorly written. on top of that. This is a quote from 1976 (if it was even said.) I don't see why a 40 year old quote is relevant today. Many people change attitudes through experience. In 1976, Homosexuality was still conseridered a mental disorder in some circles. This seems much like drug charges that are often leveled at people... who cares? people change Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:34, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
Not really a stickler; you just wanted accuracy. The first source may be an opinion column, but having that source come directly from a gay blog carries some weight in it; the other two lead to the actual source of the quote, which is Harvard University's newspaper...and Harvard has always been a bastion of liberal toleration and love, hasn't it? Whether or not it's relevent today is immaterial; the point is that Franken had actually said such a despicable remark. Karajou 18:39, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
(rolls eyes)Please...reading the original source article, Franken is clearly being sarcastic, expressing mock-anger that the Hasty Pudding people rejected the skit he wrote.--RossC 18:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
I acutally agree with Ross. As for your earlier points. I don't think having it come from a gay blog gives it any more weight than not.... But that's another point. As for the other point, I disagree.. If we're going to trolling through everybody's past to find any type of bad thing they said and then assume with no context that this makes them a bad person.... well then by all means, go ahead... Besides, in terms of homsexuality, this site has said a lot worse than whatever Franken did or didn't say... I think the term "despicable remark" is a little out of place. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 19:02, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
In short, he gets a pass because he's a liberal, right? Not on this site. Karajou 07:12, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Not suggesting he get a pass. Suggesting that it be made clearer that his statement was a (poor) attempt at humor.--RossC 09:16, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) It has nothing to with liberal or conservative.... But this site is demanding when it comes to quoting certain people I find it strange that we're so open when it comes to others.... I would argue that the liberal bias (in this case negative) is in my opponent. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 18:14, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Books and credibility

Is this the guy who wrote "Lies and the lying liars" or whatever it's called? I heard he tried to discredit someone with a charge of plagiarism, which he plagiarized from another source! --Ed Poor Talk

Citations

There should be a citation for radical. If There's a reason to put it in the article, then, there should be a citation. LiberalSmack 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You can't cite being a radical. Learn together 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Changes

I made a serveral major changes to the article, and I decided it would be easier to lay them out here point by point.

  • Whatever your personal opinion about Franken, there is a fine line between character assassination and opinion reporting. Accusing someone of "masquerading as a 'satirist' who deliberately smears and defames people he disagrees with ... " with your ref being a site that exists only to attack Franken if hardly acceptable.
  • The line "Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and his tendency to make outrageously offensive comments." is completely out of place in an encyclopedia. Is this article meant to be an opinion piece? if so, by all means lets keep it in.
  • "even in a state such as Minnesota known for electing wrestling stars as governors" Really? An Ad Hominem attack against an entire state? How about we add that California is a state that likes to elect has been B Movie actors? Not to mention, past governors have nothing to do with article.
  • Regardless of whether or not you agree with the subtitle of the book, it's still part of the title. Personal feelings are immaterial. If his book was subtitled "Why all Conservatives should be shot." it's still part of the title and needs to be listed as such.
  • We have no idea of seeign into a person's mind and decided what they believe or what they simply charge. In the book, Franken makes it clear that he feels everything he's writing is true, and we cannot extrapolate the facts to make decisions.

On a final note, the second proof of his hatred should be removed or better sourced. As it is now, the ref simply tells a story with no page numbers or proof whatsoever. I would just take it out now, but I'm sure my changes would be reverted. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 12:26, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Franken's own work has shown a history of smearing and defaming; he doesn't try hard to cover it up as he has convinced himself he needs to be a counter-balance to the right. The title of his book on Rush Limbaugh would certainly qualify as rude, for instance - as well as being horribly insulting and politically incorrect to about 50 million Americans.
Arnold had a history of positive political contributions, especially in the area of fitness. And Arnold never left office to make a large check being a guest referee for Wrestlemania while he was employed as a governor. The people of Minnesota took Ventura's victory with all of the respect it was due such as doing brisk sales with the 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. It is what it is. Politics in Minnesota stand out on their own merits.
Franken has gone out of his way to push the envelope. Using the language from the Fox network in the title of his book. Calling his show O'Franken. And that's hardly all. We go by the fruits. How many people will tell you they have hatred? Learn together 03:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Well, considering the fan magazine article that is Ann Coulter on this site... I was under the mistaken impression that we gave a damn about honest reporting.... So you know what? screw it.... this site is doomed to fail if good hard work from editors is simply reverted, with a go screw message left on the talk pages.... Have fun with your blog. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I have not been actively involved in the Ann Coulter article, but if you're saying we need to shield the truth about Franken or water it down to sound nice because you don't like the way Ann Coulter is written, then no, that's not the way it works. Learn together 14:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I said nothing or the sort. I simply bring up the Ann Coulter article because it sounds like it's written by a 13 year old with a crush. I have no problem with including ciritisms against Al Franken... but this is beyond the line... It goes right along with the "He a liberal so we don't like him" party-line of this site. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 16:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

No Response

It's been several days, and I've received no response to my postings. Can I please have the common curtesy of a reply. None of my original points has been addressed, and the current version of the article still remains. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 23:43, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

[2] Learn together 01:38, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
Your repsonse is a simple link to a week old response? Wow, just wow. Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 13:17, 25 April 2008 (EDT)
You appeared to have missed it. So are you ever going to provide constructive information to this site, oh 'conservative doctor'? How about detailing medical procedures, various maladies, and details on medical instruments? I look forward to seeing your results. Learn together 03:27, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Excuse me sir.... I have given you no reason to cast such doubt on my personal history, nor have I ever patronized you in such a matter. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilized, decent mannor, I would ask that you not address me at all. As for my contributions to this site, and this page in particular, I find it quite obvious that you know this is pure garbage and simply choose to let it stand for ideaological reasons (aka, Franken is Liberal, so we defame and slander his name) and I will simply let it be. May I also ask you sir, what your chosen field of study is and what profession you work within? Doctor CBThe Doctor is In 12:34, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
Of course you have given reason. If I claimed I was a devout Orthodox Jew, but I didn't show that I even understood any of the terminology and I was upset because the Hamas article didn't portray a kind picture of Hamas, then I would be lying as well. You had ample opportunity to show you could do more than talk. You failed. Learn together 01:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Learning, as I am a devout Orthodox Jew, let me assure you the Hamas paints too kind an image of them. ---user:DLerner--- 06:56, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

wrestling stars

I meant a source for the state being known for electing Ventura. I think the line is irrelevant OR. Seems like "Minnesotaphobia"... HenryS 02:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

It was big news for an extended period of time when it occurred my friend, and it was a position that the people of Minnesota themselves promoted with brisk sales of 'My governor can beat up your governor' T-shirts. When it comes to politics, Minnesota can do some odd things. Nevertheless, if you really want to remove you can do so, but realize there is validity to the statement. Learn together 02:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

The edits stay

What I included was factually accurate; removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed. Karajou 12:40, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Karajou, your attitude is not making this page any better... you simply revert anything you want to and then protect the page to prevent further editing. As for the Helen Thomas thing, I'm holding a copy of the book in my hands right now... he mentions this, saying in a footnote "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies." Whether or not you like Franken or don't (and you obviously don't) It was intended as a joke. If you want to mention that his style of mixing fact with humor makes it difficult to tell the two apart, that's fine. But to continue repeating the blatant untruth that he lied about it just makes the entire sight look silly. JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 14:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
My attitude? And your's doesn't count? Karajou 14:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
The Helen Thomas thing was corrected by Franken in the paperback edition, after the hardcover edition was mentioned and found out to be a lie by Skorski. You are the one who cannot handle the truth of the matter, and so far your attitude proves it. Karajou 14:33, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Occam's razor. The story from Franken is that the item was intended as a joke, but was misunderstood and corrected as such. Your explanation requires a vast Franken and publisher conspiracy, in which he lied about something that could easily be checked by even the most novice of investigators and even publicly disputed by the subject. Then, when he was outed, he invented the coverup of a joke.... Which situation seems more plausible? JDavidsonLeave a message ::BEEP:: 16:45, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
You are aware of Hillary Clinton dodging sniper fire are you not? Perhaps that was also a joke? Occam's razor is a very poor instrument when it comes against human behavior. Learn together 22:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for clearing up the issue by locking out any changes to the article! --Jareddr 19:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

This is the talk page, why not propose and justify changes you want to see? HenryS 19:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
It seems JDavidson tried to propose and justify changes. He was blocked. Also, Karajou makes it fairly clear about changes, "removing them because they were later considered to be just another Franken "joke" is not going to be allowed." Not much room for discussion there, it seems. --Jareddr 19:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
Karajou's edits were sourced. What changes do you want to make? HenryS 19:28, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
That in the paperback copy, Al Franken footnotes the Helen Thomas story stating, "The Helen Thomas think is a joke. In a number of right-wing blogs, this was cited as exhibit A in proving that my book was full of lies."--Jareddr 19:30, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
So... you want the article to say that after his deceit was exposed he claimed it was a joke? HenryS 19:32, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
No, I disagree that it was a deceit. When I read the book, I saw it as a joke---knowing that Al Franken is a satirist and a comedian.
And here's another change, according to Karajou's source on the unemployment numbers (the Department of Labor statistics), 5.0% was not the lowest in decades (according to the 2005 interview). As Franken would point out, looking here shows lower unemployment (sub 5%) every year from 1997 to 2001. --Jareddr 19:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I suggest you wait for Karajou to deal with this. He will no doubt see your arguments and take them into consideration. Though you seem to be arguing against sourced material. HenryS 19:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) I seem to be arguing against sourced material? Interesting perspective. Karajou posts a page from a book that says Franken is lying about unemployment numbers. Provides link to the actual numbers. The numbers show that Franken was correct. I guess Karajou may have a "source" but doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...especially when the "source's" source says otherwise. But I guess if it's in a book it must be true.--Jareddr 20:17, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Do we do OR here? I can't remember. HenryS 20:18, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
I can't remember either...mostly because I don't know what you're talking about. --Jareddr 20:20, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

As I've said, the edits stay. You can add the cavet about Franken admitting the joke about Thomas, etc, but the fact remains that Franken is a proven liar; his lies and mistatements have been well-sourced, and they will be posted here. And no, JDavidson, it's not because I dislike Franken...it's because nobody in their right mind should ever put such a man like Franken in the United States Senate, and I'm going to do my little duty to ensure Minnesota's voting public is informed about it. Karajou 00:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

This page

this page currently reads like an Anti-Franken essay. I see numerous problems with it, but after looking through the history, I'm reluctant to step in and change anything, as it's rather obvious what happens to those that do. Is there anyway one of the sysops can at least tone down the blatant hatred. NateE 14:10, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

You certainly want to put down your concerns in the talk page first and what wording you would wish to use to address them, including any sources that you may wish to use. Learn together 20:36, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Seeing as what just happened here, I have no intention of wading any deeper into this issue. Neutral, well sourced information is simply reverted without explanation and your interaction with the now banned DrCB here shows that you're pretty resolute in your postition. Therefore, in the interest of saving energy, I withdraw myself from this and all other Franken related pages. NateE 11:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, more insinuations from a concern troll. QuickFixer 11:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
QuickFixer, don't call people trolls. NateE, I'll take a look at the article and see what I can do. HelpJazz 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
For starters, the "Franken's problems with the truth" section should be entirely deleted, or better examples should be picked. The guy is a comedian who's known for being offensive; it's entirely expected that he exaggerates or makes stuff up for comedic effect. The next two sections ("tax issues" and "Playboy article") are petty, but other than that, I guess there's nothing too wrong with them.
As for the stuff I changed, here are my reasons the only important thing that I change was the first reference, which was not actually a reference, which I deleted. The rest was, I though, minor changes to make it more encyclopedic. HelpJazz 14:23, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Personally, I don't like your changes. It is more watered down 'coarse style', if that is what you claim more encyclopedic --50 star flag.png jp 15:05, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Ok so "rude and vulgar" have been added back in; not really that big of a deal. The real problem is the "Franken's problems with the truth" section, which is just petty. HelpJazz 13:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I've renamed the section. Franken has had more than his fair share of statements that probably should not have been said. He's tried to be controversial, and really, only a small percentage of those statements are actually mentioned. I'm not sure what changes I would make, but with 3 other sysops having edited this article and showing the way they wish it to read, I am reluctant to go any further beyond what has been done. Learn together 13:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
No offence, but I don't really see what sysops editing it has to do with it; sysops can be wrong just like everyone else. The entire section is examples in the form of "Franken says X is bad, and here Franken does X". Who cares? A good 50% of the entire article is devoted to how Franken, like every other human being on the planet, is a hypocrite (and this is assuming he's being serious about everything he says, which is dubious at best). I'm all for finding controversies (like the Playboy thing) but using shaky examples of how he may or may not be lying -- sysop "approved" or not -- doesn't do the article justice and makes Conservapedia look petty and biased HelpJazz 14:34, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

The Jewish seat.

I just came across this on the internet.

Should it be pointed out in the article that Al Franken is running for the Senate seat that is dedicated to those who are Jewish since about 1984, in a state where less than 1% of the population is Jewish?


2008: Al Frankin (D) v. Norm Coleman (R)
2002: Norm Coleman (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
1996: Rudy Boschwitz (R) v. Paul Wellstone (D)
1990: Paul Wellstone (D) v. Rudy Boschwitz (R)

Maybe not, since it's not officially dedicated as far as I can tell. QuickFixer 11:59, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

No, because we are not an anti-semitic website. HelpJazz 12:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
It is interesting. I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough, so it is an issue that Minnesotaians acknowledge in their own state. I'd imagine due to political correctness, they have a tendency to reach out to non-majority candidates or positions, hence the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz, the election of Jesse Ventura, and, possibly, the fascination with Al Franken. Learn together 14:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Why is it political correctness? Could it not be that the best candidates are Jewish? For example, in Colorado, when Ben "Nighthorse" Cambel ran and won seat. He was voted in because people thought he was the best, it wasn't some farcical political correctness drive to get an indian into office. NateE Let Us Communicate 14:22, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
See above the argument between Wellstone and Boschwitz about who was more Jewish. Now explain that based upon the removal of political correctness. You completely ignored that in your 'reply' above and went off on a tangent. And do you really believe Jesse Ventura was the best candidate? At the end of his term his approval rating was in the teens. Learn together 14:28, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
There was no tangent involved, I simply disagreed with your point and used another example as an anecdote. As for the two fighting over who was Jewish enough, I fail to see how that has connection to political correctness. I find it amusing that religion is so important in American politics, but that's neither here nor there. On a side note, before I address your last question, MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven, so I doubt political correctness would be strong enough to propell a candidate to office there. No, I don't think Ventura was the best candidate, but it doesn't matter. I'm not a resident of Minnesota. However, approval ratings (especially at the end of a term) are not good indicators of anything other than their popularity. At one point, I believe Ventura's approval rating was very high, somewhere in the upper 70's or low 80's (I'm not sure, I'll try and look that up). NateE Let Us Communicate 14:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Politicians fight over those things that they feel give them an advantage. Approval ratings do show how a candidate's performance was viewed by his constituents, and it is very rare to get one under 20%. Minnesota has a great deal of political correctness even if they aren't a liberal haven (although they are more liberal than the country as a whole). Ventura was known for being a WWF commentator who was good with one-liners (wrestling is huge in Minnesota) and wasn't necessarily the candidate with the best credentials. Indeed, there was a brisk business of selling T-shirts with the line 'My governor can beat up your governor' shortly after his election. Learn together 15:25, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
I'll be answering these in the order that flows the easiest so they may not be the order they were raised. First the T-shirts, you've brought this up before, but I fail to see how this is in any related to anything. After Arnold was elected, there were several shirts marketed that read "California's governor saved the world, what has your governor done?" They were not a reflection on the performance or popularity of Arnold, they were simply a humorous T-shirt that referenced modern political events. I don't know your residency, but may I ask if you live in Minnesota? If so, then I will accept your view that he was not the best candidate, but obviously the general electorate didn't agree. If not, then I don't know how you can say that he was not the best candidate, as it was not your state and you can't really understand the differences in mentality, just as I can't understand voting mentality in New York or Alaska. Ventura was indeed a wrester known for witty one liners, but in modern politics, that's what sells voters. No longer do we want long campaign speeches, the candidates are reduced to one or two second sound bites, taken with no context and played over and over by a media with too much air time to fill. As for the approval ratings, you keep changing the point. you brought up approval ratings as an indicator of his poor performance as governor, I replied that they simply measure his popularity, not an objective view of his performance and you replied by saying that they measure what his constituents think of his performance (which is his popularity) I apologise if I didn't make that clear enough to begin with. As a final note, I don't agree that a state where the "liberal" candidate for president wins by 3% is more liberal than the rest of the country. NateE Let Us Communicate 16:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
"MN is not exactly known as a liberal haven"--What planet are you from? Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Most Minnesota Republicans would be socialists in other states. "I remember Wellstone and Boschwitz fighting over whether the other one was Jewish enough" I don't remember this. I don't remember Coleman even acknowledge that he was Jewish for a long time. (I don't really think he's a religious Jewish person, and his wife is Christian). Norm Coleman's dad is pretty cool, though; he got caught with a street hooker in a pizza joint parking lot in St. Paul, causing Norm to release the following statement:


“I love my father dearly. I do not condone his actions or behavior, and I am deeply disturbed by what I have learned. He clearly has some issues that need to be dealt with, and I will encourage him to seek the necessary help.”--Norm Coleman Jr. on his father
Voting or not voting for a presidential candidate does not make one liberal or conservative. California and most (if not all) of New England voted for Reagan, does that make them Convservative states now? NateE Let Us Communicate 12:02, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
"Minnesota was the only state in the nation not to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984." That was not because Minnesota is "so liberal." It was because Walter Mondale hailed from Minnesota and was DFL. Many of the people who vote DFL in this state would be Republicans in every other state. Jinxmchue 13:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, Minnesota voted against Reagan because Mondale (from Minnesota) was running against him. And yes, Minnesota has a tendency to be rather blue collar socialist in outlook. Their Republicans are not conservative in the way that much of the country would define it. Yes, Wellstone and Boschwitz did have a quarrel in the press over who was more Jewish. It wasn't the cornerstone of their campaigns, obviously, but it was rather humorous to behold. I remember discussing it with someone at work who was Jewish who felt that it was rather silly and looked poorly upon the Jewish community. He wished it would just go away. If there is a feeling that Jesse's approval rating in the teens was unjustified then I would like to hear it. The problem was apart from blasting religion, writing tell all books, and being a guest referee for Wrestlemania, he didn't really do anything.

Put whatever last comments you want to say, but I'll be removing this section in a couple of days. While it was interesting, I'm not sure we're edifying people's knowledge of Franken. Learn together 13:48, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Photo

Can we get a picture where he looks normal? In the current one he looks . . . evil, with the black and white coloring and the shadows. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 14:37, 11 November 2008 (EST)

He's a raving liberal who delights in the death of his opponents and is making a mockery of democracy. He's a hypocrite who, after 8 years of accusing George W Bush of stealing two elections is himself using ACORN to stead an election. The photo is, if anything, far kinder than he deserves. I doubt one could find a photo where he DOESN'T look evil, without using a shot from the bomb he starred in for Hollywood. --AlexC 12:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)
I dunno if you were referring to the current picture, but why don't we use the official Senate picture? Wouldn't it be a good idea if we standardized that for officials...in other words, used the official picture for people elected to public office? Seems like it would make the site a bit more pleasing to the eye. Just throwing that out there. -RespectfullyLeftWing
Fair enough, your still going to have to change your username.Chippeterson December 19, 2009
I am just going to point out you are responding, Respectfully, to posts that are very old. Not a good indicator. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

Playboy article section

This should be removed, since it's unencyclopedic and the commentary within mentions that this statement was a joke anyway. --DinsdaleP 11:53, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Contradictions with Norm Coleman article

While doing a couple minor spelling and grammar fixes on the Norm Coleman article, I noticed a few contradictions. The Coleman page states that Coleman won the senate seat in the recent election, while the Franken page says Franken won. Which is correct?

  • The Coleman article is. The Democrat machine is contesting, so is Coleman, irregularities. It is in the courts now. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

radical?

Is Franken a radical? he may turn out to be one in the future but the article completely neglects his political views. He has not taken any notable radical positions so far. RJJensen 18:31, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

  • Well, then, I shall present to you his on-the-record views, Herr Doktor! He isn't much of a mystery, really...and most would say he is pretty left of liberal. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 03:26, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
note that Franken was a supporter of the Iraq war until the end of 2006, a very anti-radical position. The radicals hated him and tried to stop his nomination by the DFL.RJJensen 11:08, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
Richard, I am surprised at you using that canard to portray Franken as....as...what? 25% a new and improved, somewhat better liberal? Did you know that the radical Nazi's hated Hitler because he didn't put enough R & D money into oven efficiencies? Have you, as a Historian, become so jaded with the constant leftist bombardment, that you now draw those silly lines in the sand to show who among nut cases is the most insane? Maybe in comparison to how far left liberal public thinking has seemingly moved since 2004, according to the radical-left MSM, you could have a dram of reasoning on your side; but I would submit crazy is still crazy, and radical is still radical, no matter what direction the rest of their cloistered world has moved. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:15, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
Is Al Franken radical? We've listened to his hate speech and tirades in Saturday Night Live skits he has authored for over two decades. Rob Smith 14:28, 2 July 2009 (EDT)
the article does a pretty good job of describing his nasty personality and vitriolic rhetoric. But "radical" is a political term and we don't have much on his actual positions. RJJensen 14:33, 2 July 2009 (EDT)

His Positions

"He considers all options and truly listens to the facts before deciding." A bold face lie when it came to healthcare legislation. See this http://video.foxnews.com/v/4124789/obama-zombies --Jpatt 17:34, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

Personal tools