« MDE FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN TELLS U STUDENTS “HE DOESN’T FOLLOW MINNESOTA POLITICS” | Home | FRANKEN EVENT DRAWS LARGE CROWD IN MANKATO; MN PUBLIUS BLOGGER WORKS FOR FRANKEN’S CAMPAIGN #3 »
FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN’S ANGER CAUGHT ON FILM
By Michael B. Brodkorb | February 22, 2007
Wow…click here to watch the video.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 18 Comments »
18 Responses to “FROM THE ARCHIVES: FRANKEN’S ANGER CAUGHT ON FILM”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Hey Al, *how* shameless are they?
You can actually see spit flying from Angry Al’s pie hole…pity the poor slob who had to use that microphone next, yuk!
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh..the campaign commercials THIS will make. Hardly need any more words…just run that as a 10 second spot…followed by:
“Is THIS your next US Senator?”
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Al Franken supporters are the ones who are shameless.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Wow is right. Sounds like an updated version of the kind of speech Patrick Henry might have given when filled with righteous anger. Ya gotta hate passion.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 PM
This is nothing. Liberals are angry, classless and stupid. This is how they talk. If anything, they’ll be more likely to vote for Franken.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 PM
I think I’m going to hurl.
The gall to try and compare Angry Al with Patrick Henry is unbelievable. Now THAT is shameless.
Angry Al isn’t about passion, he’s about hate and anger.
Can’t wait for the commercial. Some group is going to take that and run with it. They’re going to eat his lunch.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 PM
And Mary, Stuart Smalley is a far cry from “Give me liberty or give me death.”
To Frankenize Patrick Henry, it would sound more like: “… what a what a fucking asshole Katie Couric is. And how fucking shameless are these British Loyalists! How fucking shameless! How fucking shameless!”…
… and then, a someone would probably stand up and say something like: “Let me get this straight Patrick, do you think she’s just ‘shameless’ or is she ‘fucking shameless.’ Because all you’re doing man, is pandering to bunch of juveniles, who applauding your public use of the word ‘fucking’ more than the substance of the asinine rant your giving.”
Give me a break. Franken is no more like Patrick Henry than Democrats generally are like people who love America.
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 PM
“…updated version of the kind of speech…”
Talk about WOW! Minnesota expects their elected officials to be CIVIL. Angry Al’s spew is EXACTLY representative of his soul. Which is as black as the ace of spades.
Campaign commercial:
“This is Al Frankin”
***insert video***
“He wants to be your next US Senator”
***insert video***
“No…we’re not joking”
Angry Al’s video it PURE GOLD.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:07 PM
It’s a first!! We’ve finally found a flaming liberal (Patrick Henry) that MDE loves!
Thank you.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Gee, I wonder what Brit Hume did. Oh, I remember:
**
Brit Hume. On the October 13 broadcast of Special Report, the show he regularly hosts, Hume said of U.S deaths in Iraq, “by historic standards, these casualties are negligible.”
What history is Hume referring to? It’s true that U.S. deaths were substantially higher in World War I and II, Korea and Vietnam–major wars fought either against major world powers or against well-armed states backed by superpowers. Deaths were also much higher in the U.S. Civil War.
But when compared to other conflicts in its category–wars and counterinsurgency operations against comparatively weak, isolated nations and guerrilla movements–the death toll in Iraq is strikingly high. Of all the other U.S. military interventions over the past 30 years–which include Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the 1991 Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo and Afghanistan–none have come close to 1,000 U.S. deaths, let alone 2,000. By those “historical standards,” the Iraq War has been remarkably deadly.
**
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2706
Now if someone on the left had called the casualties in Iraq ‘negligible’ the right would crucify that person.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Also, I wasn’t aware that Patrick Henry ever knew Katie Couric.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 PM
# In March 2002, President of the United States, George W. Bush referred to the U.S. focus on Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, “Fuck Saddam; we’re taking his ass out,†at a Senate Republican Policy lunch on Capitol Hill.
# In June 2004, US Vice President Dick Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to either “fuck off” or “go fuck yourself” during an exchange on the floor of the Senate.
So just stop with the high-road, holier-than-thou, your-swearing-is-shameless bull.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Then there was this winner from Brit back in 2003:
**
Two hundred and seventy seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that, statistically speaking, U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California…which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2,300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they are incurring about 1.7, including illness and accidents, each day.
**
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95850,00.html
Way to keep selling the war there Brit. But your math skills are pretty lackluster for a person, never mind for an anchor:
**
A: 6.6 average daily murders in California with 38,000,000 people at risk.
(6.6/38,000,000 = probability is 0.0000002)
B: 1.7 average DAILY military related deaths in Iraq with 150,000 solders at risk (1.7/150,000 = probability is 0.00001)
C: RELATIVE RISK = RISK IN IRAQ / RISK IN CALIFORNIA = 67.5 (when done on a calculator)
A SOLDIER IN IRAQ IS 66 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED IN COMBAT OR BY ACCIDENT THAN A PERSON KILLED BY HOMICIDE IN CALIFORNIA.
OR
IF YOU ARE COMPARING DEATH IN IRAQ TO MURDER IN CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA IS 68 TIMES SAFER.
**
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/08/29_fox.html
When told that his example proved the opposite of what he was trying to say, Brit said:
**
“Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something,” Hume says.
**
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40105-2003Sep7
Yes, it was–It’s illustrative of what a stooge you were being for the administration.
February 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 PM
//A SOLDIER IN IRAQ IS 66 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED IN COMBAT OR BY ACCIDENT THAN A PERSON KILLED BY HOMICIDE IN CALIFORNIA.//
For crying out loud, I would hope so!
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Mary, the point was that to compare Al Franken to Patrick Henry is so ridiculously stupid… oh, nevermind… it’s a complete waste of time trying to debate something of your caliber.
Mindless, ignorant, feckless. Liberal.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Kyle, you quit. I win. Haha.
Besides, you also chose to miss my point. Sometimes anger and passion are good things.
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Mary = Fred. Pretty simple to figure out.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 PM
I wouldn’t confuse whatever act Franken is pulling with passion. Stupidity or hatred, maybe. Rudeness, classlessness, definitely.