Savage advocated "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims; called alleged Duke rape victim a "drunken slut stripping whore"
On April 17, Michael Savage called for "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims and referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as a "drunken slut stripping whore."
On April 17, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage called for "kill[ing] 100 million" Muslims and referred to the woman who alleged she was raped by members of Duke University's lacrosse team as a "drunken slut stripping whore."
On his radio show, Savage told listeners that "intelligent people, wealthy people ... are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there's a billion of them.' " Savage continued: "I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean ... would you rather us die than them?" Savage added: "Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."
Savage also referred to the alleged Duke rape victim as "a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers." He later asked: "What kind of system do we have that anyone can scream rape and not have to show her face?" adding, "This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement." Echoing previous comments he has made about the alleged rape victim, Savage said, "The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core."
Savage has also previously referred to the alleged victim as a "dirty, verminous black stripper."
From the April 17 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.
[...]
SAVAGE: Now, we got the Durham dirt-bag case. The Durham dirt-bag case disgusts me to my core. Here, you have a drunken slut stripping whore accusing men of raping her when there is absolutely no evidence of such a rape other than what comes out of that filthy mouth of hers. And what really gets to me, here, is not only the piling on by the vermin in the media -- the spineless eunuchs in the media who are taking the side of an unknown accuser without ever having to ask her one question. What kind of system do we have that anyone can scream rape and not have to show her face, not answer to the public. And, yet, those she accuses are suddenly guilty until they're proven innocent. This is all the product of the out-of-control lesbian feminist movement.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
That carry this hateful , vicious man.
Great job MM for keeping the heat on this divider.
This is the most dangerous man in American media today.
I would disagree with the second part of your post only because to be dangerous you have to be taken seriously.
How many listeners does he have again?
Soon we may have to take Savage and OReilly seriously as they begin to broadcast target lists of 'liberals' for authorities to round up and eliminate. Already the F-Word Network is compiling lists and threatening some of them with phone calls. Savage's call for the genocide of 100 million humans is not a joke. The fact that he could say such a thing on the radio and get away with it is the first step to genocide. The same thing happened in Rwanda...first the hate broadcasters weren't taken seriously as everyone believed most people have good sense...slowly the hate speech became more and more concrete as people were identified for elimination and mass killings were carried out.
he is an over the top radio talk show host who does that for entertainment and to purposefully cause controversy. Calm down. No one is going to kill anyone. Why aren't you screaming about the Iranian president calling for the extermination of the Jews? could it be that you are anti-semitic?
So outing Mr. Foamy at the mouthy means you HATE JEWS!!! Awesome argument, my friend...you are so darn LOGICAL!
Here we have it again. Although his show could be categorized under entertainment and probably tries to purposefully cause controversy, what you see in other people is some kind of self-criticism and not just plain smearing of someone.
Further, he clearly calls as one of his solutions for the 'islamic problem' to kill a couple of them without looking on which side the victims stand. Sounds like terrorism to me! I cannot see fun in those statements. And for 'No one is going to kill anyone': look at Iraq!
Of course, the answer to "Why aren't you screaming about the Iranian president calling for the extermination of the Jews?" is not because people are necessarily anti-semitic, but just because that is not the topic of this post. If you find joy in excusing Savage and attacking others by a crooked argument, perhaps you should name politicians or others that have spoken out in favor of Iran and against Israel. By referring to the Iran situation you willfully back away from the current topic.
Iran is and with this regime always has been one of the worst countries in the Arab region. That is why America and European countries supported Saddam to begin with: to attack this fundamentalist Islamic country. Makes it any sense to 'joke' to kill a couple of Islamists? Nope, not even in that context.
You don't understand the definition of "Semite"- it includes Palestinians too, NOT just Jews.
Leave it to the rethugs to shout "anti-Semite", sheesh.
This guy may not have the number of listeners of Rush or Bill O'Reilly, but his listeners are rabidly supportive fans.
My brother has been "transformed" by the Savage Weiner (Weiner is Michael's real last name) in a most horrific way over the past 7 years. I have watched him go from an semi-conservative but fairly apolitical skate punk to an off-the-chart racist, sexist, homophobic monster. He started by quoting Michael Savage and referring to some of the less offensive things he said, but none of us knew who this guy was 6 years ago so we just figured it was another nut on the radio but no big deal. But things have degenerated over the years until I don't even recognize my brother anymore. The vile filth that spews from his mouth sometimes even sends my otherwise conservative Dad into a tizzy. And that's part of the difference there. As bad as the Rush/Bill/Fox rightwingers are, they are no where near as dangerous as the followers of the Savage Weiner.
That man truly incites and defends violence and he openly defends his "right" to racism, sexism, and homophobia. (Not to just have those thoughts but to have the right to turn those feelings into public action.) His hateful rants prompt a sense of action that is very scary. He plays on the sense of isolation his listeners feel until they develop an us-against-them stance that totally eclipses reason and compassion. AFter watching my brother be transformed I have tried to listen to this guy when I can stomach it so that I can understand the filth my brother is ingesting, and I worry that if we ever have a situation in this country like they did in 1994 in Rwanda where right-wing radio prompted a genocide, it will be the Savage Weiner that prompts the violence to begin.
MMFA should spend *more* time focusing on this dangerous man. The people who can stomach him long enough to be regular listeners are the folks we really need to be worried about. And we need to know what they are hearing every day.
to our country's ethics? We fine TV for showing Janet Jackson's nipples, we fire reporters who speak out against Bush, and we do NOTHING to wingnuts who advocate murder against anyone not of their liking. Why the heck aren't we organizing a HUGE signature drive to send a statement to talk radio network DEMANDING the removal of this hate monger? Do to them like they did to the Dixie Chicks, ruin their careers.
Guys, I agree with every post here - this guy is disgusting, and far more fits the definition of vermin than the victim of the alleged rape at Duke. HOWEVER - we prize free speech in this country - the man can say whatever he wants, and if people want to listen, they do so to their own detriment in this case. Even the suggestion that we kill 100million people is horrific. But he, Crazy Annie, Oxicontin boy, Slanthead Hannity, Bill O'Really, and the rest of them will eventually talk themselves into obscurity. I have a theory, and I may be wrong, but I sincerely hope I'm not - I think maintaining hatred takes a lot of energy and is emotionally draining - I'm suspecting that the American public will tire of this language and already are - all but about 34% at least. So, I say the man is entitled to say what he wants, but MMfA and everyone else should keep the heat on this man and his listeners if they repeat something he says.
I definitely see your point, LoC - I agree with it as well. Free speech can never be "free for only the speech I agree with". People will say stupid things - it's the nature of the beast.
However, others can exercise their right to free speech by going to the stations that air this show and saying "What Savage said really offended me. I am not going to listen to your station. I'm recommending to everyone I know not to listen." They can also go to the station's advertisers and say "I'm not buying your product/service because I will not support a show like Savage's." These are not violations or abrogations of free speech. They are legitimate tools of market influence. If stations thought they could make more money without Savage than with, he'd be dropped in a hot second.
The idea that all speech is protected under the First Amendment is a myth. The First Amendment protects the right of protest speech, for example, but this protection would not extend to a protest leader exhorting his followers to kill. Such an act would be probable cause for arrest and detainment.
You have no idea what freedom of speech means. You view of speech means that you are against freedom of speech. So many Americans are against freedom of speech and about the same amount don't know it. It protects Michael Savage to allow him to say what he said. It allows you to argue and protest what he's said. Get the real meaning of freedom of speech in your head and stop acting like a neolib.
As the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to "free speech" does not include making statements that threaten others or that could incite panic or rioting. Thus, shouting a false "Fire!" in a crowded theater is NOT protected under the First Amendment; a real and credible threat to creating a panic and possible injury/death exists as a result of this statement, and the person making it could be held liable for the consequences.
Savage's comment poses a credible threat to the public, and he is not protected under the First Amendment. He could, and should, be held accountable for the implicit threat and the probable consequences of comments like the one he made. Fines, and /or termination, are the appropriate punishments for this type of abuse of the First Amendment.
So, perhaps you should study up on the "free speech" thing before telling others to do so, eh?
I agree that there is freedom of speech. But freedom of speech ends where people use it to preach hatred and killing. It is very interesting to read how easy S talks about killing and dying.
In Savage case, he is stating his opinions, but use straw men agruments to say that it is not his opinion/concern but that of thousants of other "intelligent people, wealthy people" (mmm, since when is the one the other? he probably refers to himself as a PhD ).
Also, freedom of speech has in my opinion nothing to do with smearing people, including alleged victims of rapes. So he wants faces of victims, eh? That is a good one! I would not come forward if I had to show my face on national tv of a crime that triggers bells by pundits who would accuse me of being a whore purely because I were raped. Then again, the alleged victim is of course no white Christian virgin teen. He has chosen the side of the alleged rapists from the start on, without asking her or them a question, too.
I agree with your view as to how our freedom of speech should be used, however, the Constitution does not limit us to "non-hate" speech. And, what is "hate speech" is in the eye (ear?) of the beholder. I've heard numerous people (mostly Republicans!) talk about how the left is just as hateful, so in their eyes - however wrong I may think they are - any criticism, no matter how true of the Republicans or Bush is "hate speech". And don't confuse them with the facts - that just makes them lower themselves to name calling against whoever their favorite "godless liberal of the day" is. (note to self - call Coulter and suggest she use that in her column - might be entertaining). So, yes, Savage is a reprehensible hate-monger who sits his sorry wuss ass in a studio and talks trash about others from the safety of his perch. And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, he has that right. But, don't despair, all of these folks eventually bring themselves down - the pendulum will swing the other way.
I agree, but by hateful I actually meant hateful and calling for violence, what Savage is doing in his piece. Just hateful opinions are protected under the constitution, but what I see and hear by some people that are frequently cited on MMFA (Weiner, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter) is using (latent) hate to invoke divertion (us vs. they) and violence (kill them or incarcerate them indefinately).
Lets compare it with in my eyes a nobler cause and person: What if rev. King told his listeners to kill all those whities because they are the cause of the history of injustice and suffering of african-americans and all other colored minorities across the globe? He would have been detained and questioned, and perhaps incarcerated.
Right now, we live in a society where peace protesters and gay societies are under watch of the CIA, whereas those who preach intollerance, segregation, and violence are offered a forum.
I couldn't agree with you more. I just don't see how you can outlaw hate speech - someone has to define just what qualifies as hate speech, and that opens the door to abuse - would you trust the Bushies with the power to define hate speech? I wouldn't. I'd rather Savage and the rest of the psycho right get to say whatever they want then to have reasonable dissent quelled as hate speech. Heck, I wouldn't trust anyone in the Bush admin to be dog catcher.
I will stay with "preaching violence" then as the threshold for free speech, although that is also not always bad, as the armed resistance during WWII showed.
I used to listen to all these guys, before seeing the light. Hannity and Medved used to constantly ask, "When, ever, now be specific, has a conservative called for violence against liberals?" This site helps make that questions as absurd as it should have been from the start, because now we don't have to rely on memory, because then they just dismissed is as a lie. Oh, and trust me, these types of comments are an everyday occurance on Savage's show.
I'm so glad you crossed over. If one listened to these Far Right hatemongers day after day, it would be hard to think clearly.
I agree with Left Of center's post as well. We can't stop and shouldn't try to stop these morons from talking just try to expose their hate. I do disagree with the point of people growing tired of their hate filled speeck. Unfortunately one thing history has taught us is that humans never get tired of hating one another. This idiot may go away but another one will replace him.
just one example: people do not get tired of Big Brother and American Idols. Further, people do not get tired to be maken fools of in programs like Big Brother and American Idols.
but it's equally valid to point out that THESE people are the ones who claim that while free speech is acceptable, there can be consequences to what you say. That's how they justified getting that reporter fired who basically called bush a coward for hiding out in bunkers on 911. My belief is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They want consequences for what you say, let's give them some and see how they like it. I'm betting they won't like it when it's used against them.
Free speech has been undermined for some years by the right who said that being against the war or their plans was unpatriotic, in favor of terrorism, anti-american etc. THese arguments are still being used and work to silence people. If that does not work, just fire them!
I agree. I refuse to do anything that would inhibit a person's right to free speech.
However, there are two things that are wrong with defending Savage's right to free speech.
First, he can be sued for slander. The fact that she is a stripper is inadmissable in court to demean her as a person because of her profession. The fact that she is a stripper does not make her a sl*t. This isn't protected. This is something that can get him in trouble.
Second, if he condones killing Muslims and someone goes out and kills thousands of Muslims and says he or she did it because of what Savage said, Savage can be held accountable. He is putting people at risk by saying things like this and needs to be shown that his mouth is a weapon. He's dangerous.
Savage is dangerous and lord knows who is listening, who feels threatened, and who will act out his words. how many times we have seen mere suggestion transition into someone's reality.
in regards to his comments about the Duke case, where shall i begin?
This guy is a sociopath, plain and simple. If his supporters say he's using satire or irony or in some way trying to be funny. Then he is still a sociopath.
He is also a coward. He sits in his studio and advocates genocide. This reminds me of the radio announcers comments about the cock roaches in Rwanda preceding the mass murders. Those people were tied as war criminals.
It's easy for chickenhawks like Savage (Weiner) to advocate killing, since they've never had to do it. He plays a dangerous game. Why is it that when we hear that the President of Iran say that he has 40,000 people who've volunteered to become suicide bombers we think that it could be true? If we believe that, then how many of the 900,000,000 million Muslims left after Weiner's minions finish their extermination will be willing to become suicide bombers? Most poor radical Muslims think they have nothing more to lose and an eternal reward to gain.
There is no sane reason for anyone to be stirring up another hornet's nest in the Middle East. It' time that sane people in this country to boycott the advertisers of these mentally ill radio ranters.
"Why is it that when we hear that the President of Iran say that he has 40,000 people who've volunteered to become suicide bombers we think that it could be true?" ---------------
You're willing to bet people lives on him bluffing? Keep in mind he's saying that as a defensive threat if we end up invading Iran. You want to believe he'll just lay down for Bush and take defeat?
The President of Iran is gonna have 40,000 suicide bombers whether he wants them or not. The people of Iran will fight for their country. You still wanna bet it's a bluff?
You wanna defend this psychopath who's acting like Bush? It was a horrible move when Bush said "bring it on", I seriously doubt it's a brilliant move for the Iranian president to say it. Because that's what he's basically saying to Bush. "Bring it on."
I wash my hands of this possible war. It's terrorist vs terrorist and I refuse to take sides. Let our soldiers and their men die into the thousands, even millions. I won't care at all. There is no good in this. Everything and every side is evil. There is no right decision. No matter what we'll do, we're wrong. They're wrong.
Not the Iranian or the American. The statement made by the Iranian President was defensive. The point I was trying to make is that while a lot of Americans will strut and swagger, not many will put their lives on the line. No so for the Radical Islamists. They seem willing to die for their beliefs.
While I agree with you that there is no good in this, I do have a problem with the following:
"Let our soldiers and their men die into the thousands, even millions. I won't care at all."
If the death count were to get that high, I guarantee that you will care. If that were to come to pass, every family in America would have lost a loved one.
Because YOU, YOUR CHILDREN, and YOUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN will be footing the bill. Don't be an idiot.
I absolutly agree with Left of Center. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, even speech as vile and hateful as Michael Weiner. So now, I'll use mine. I hope that someday a drunken sl*t who*e stripper caps Weiner in the head when he refuses to pay her. Justice served.
Oh, and that "isn't" hate speech?
The hypocricy of these posts is appalling.
and you'll see it makes perfect sense.
And that sentiment should frighten every one of us...
Advocation of violence from one side begets the same from the other. It was NOT hypocrisy however, he stood up for the demented ones right to say what he wants including this twisted sickening nonsense then made the point what goes around comes around. That he might be able to get the violence Genii out of the bottle but he would never be able to get it back in. Your knee jerk reaction shows you didnt try to SEE the point or the nuance. My guess is that would make you either a conservative or someone used to looking only at the surface the superficial.
I would hope Savage would take his meds before air time.
I also wonder whom would listen too, and put on the air a man whom is obviously so disturbed, and in desperate need of the best care the state mental institution can offer.
A straight jacket, psychotropic, and a rubber room would be good.
Do you think he visualizes a large parade ground with leather clad troops in their pointy boots, goose stepping, and clicking their heels as punctuation to his inflammatory remarks?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Savage has intimite knowledge that a whore will do almost anything for money.
He does it every day for 3 hours.
Only when people stop listening and ratings go down will these pests crawl back under the nearest rock. Our local 50KW clear channel AM station carries Beck, a local wannabe, Limbaugh, Savage/Weiner and Hannity. They get periodic emails from me telling them that not only will I not listen to their hateful crap, I will go out of my way to boycott their advertisers and will try to convince as many others as I can to do the same.
All Al-Qaeda would have to do to line them up twelve deep is to play Michael Savage tapes on a portable tape player.
He's aiding the enemy to an unbelievable degree.
Savage is aiding Muslim extremists. Muslim extremists need Christian extremists and visa-versa.
Rather than incinerate a hundred million Muslims, we can largely remove ourselves from the Middle Eastern quagmire by getting off the sauce: we need to stop incinerating oil. This would require, of course, true leadership and vision. Leadership isn't behaving in the same old ways, as Savage and Bush do. The language that Savage and Bush use and the attitudes that they manifest belong to yesteryears. So too does offshore genocide. The U.S. is too porous, too easily penetrated, for nationalism and imperialism. If we strike, we will be struck. And as Bush and Cheney did post 9-11, they'll scurry into their holes while American citizens die.
Our best defense is to remove our dependency on oil, and thus, the Middle East.
And our best defense against Savage is to view him as the curious and creepy anachronism that he is: he is the undead George Wallace. He is the resurrected and rotted Bull Connor.
out-of-control lesbian feminist movement. Again, no facts, just linking the procedures associated with rape with the feminist movement.
As to Weiner's comments about the filthy whore of a stripper- would he have said the same had it been say, an all-black basketball team accused of raping a white stripper?
As far as the comments about fanatical muslims, I too believe that this mindset is a scourge on the Earth and should be eliminated. Unlike Weiner however, I believe that the answer is to eliminate it through evolution of thought and culture until mythology becomes a thing of the past for all people (this is not going to happen anytime soon). Weiner's solution is to fight fire with fire. The resolution of that will be a blazing inferno that may likely be called WW III.
They can also go to the station's advertisers and say "I'm not buying your product/service because I will not support a show like Savage's."
RDArmand is correct. The nutty host won't listen, a station might listen a little, but to the show's advertisers, silent cash registers would be heard most distinctly.
Does anyone know who sponsors this swill?
we should feel sorry for him. Due to the Bush admin. steep slide down and down the other hosts of Republican talk shows have to be even more extreme in their spin, their excuses, and their lies and misinformation.This guy whose name I do not repeat has to make even more and more bizarre, extreme comments just to try to stand out of from the crowd. Any way he is second tier and radio programmers just use him for filler.
...does explain the amplification of hatred. The Right was powered by the petrol of hatred: hate gay people (fa**ots), hate brown people (wetbacks), hate Muslim people (towelheads), hate liberals (America haters), hate feminists (feminazis). And it is well-established that many people, under stress, will revert to once worked for them: times ten. So, merely hating gay people and legislating against their civil rights no longer suffices: now you have to incinerate a hundred million people. Heck, Hitler only incinerated 11 million.
I've the impulse to punch this loathing reincarnated George Wallace in the nose, but he probably needs love. I suspect he's self-loathing and rather than engage that, he hates outwardly. I just baked some brownies for the construction workers across the street. I wish Weiner were there, doing honest, fruitful labor, building instead of breaking, so that he could receive some chocolate and walnut yummyness from a feminist.
Look, the whole lot of you don't understand this guy. If you listened to his show (I agree with 95% of what he says by the way) you would find that he isn't some partisan hack. He derides and insults Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis for them being locksteppers with the Bush Administration.
He is an independent conservative, just as I am and he is really the only person I have to listen to who isn't a bush bot.
So I ask that you liberals stop trying to organize some campaign to get his advertisers pulled. If you dont like what he has to say, how about - don't listen and stop having his stuff put up here? Whatever happened to liberal tolerance? You want us conservatives to tolerate gay peoples' "culture" and their views, but you don't want to tolerate my favorite talk show host.
It seems to me that Michael Savage isn't the one being intolerant, he just has a different outlook on life than you do. IIt seems to me the hatemongerers are right here in this forum and on this website.
Honey, straight culture is gay culture. Gay people produce a disproportionate amount of all culture. You find that in Hollywood, in publishing, in interior decorating, in fashion, in the culinary arts, in theater, in dance, etc. If you ever imbibe culture, you are likely drinking deeply of a gay brew.
Why did you bracket culture with quotation marks? Are you suffering from the delusion that gay culture is inferior? Gay culture is all culture. Creation is a reply to pain.
Holly, I understand that you are a feminist liberal and you want to control the world, so I am sure this is hard for you to understand. Let me put it to you this way...liberals hate Christianity yet are enamored with Islam and want to respect it. Whether this comes from anti-semitism I don't know, but if we allow the muslims to invade our country like they did europe - you will see your precious rights for gays/lesbians disappear in 1 second. Muslims are the ultimate conservatives that even conservatives don't want. They hate blacks, women, and gays more than 100 michael savages.
I put gay "culture" in quotation marks because it is an artificial sub culture of society made up of those with emotional/mental instability. Did you know a recent study found that over 25% of gays in SF are HIV positive? I'm sure it is even much higher than that too. A culture that consists of a high % of hiv, suicide, and drug users cannot be a legit culture, especially when it isn't something you are born with. I did it to show I don't acknowledge the gay community. Was that wrong of me? Would you put me in a re-education camp or put me on ritalin to feminize me?
If you notice the "cultures" that gay people are a part of, they are mostly feminine ones because they have no strong male role models and they seek the safety of femininity in order to feel secure. It is a quite simple complex to diagnose.
Your stupid diatribe exhibits what happens to a brain on Savage. Boycott his advertisers. It's the American way. Heaven knows that the right does the same with people they disagree with.
I have to agree with Scott here, it's pretty ridiculous that a so called "conservative" is telling others not to participate in a boycott and informing companies of customer disapproval.. I thought you guys were supposed to be promoters of capitalism and the free market?
When we boycott companies like Ford, we do it because they support worldly and unrighteous causes and we must teach them a lesson. When you guys do it on the left, it's simply because you can't stand to hear someone telling the truth about a situation in such a black and white manner. Why does everything always have to be a shade of grey? Why do you hate it sooo much when he points out that a stripper isn't credible because she has a low level job and sells her body for cash? Everyone with a sane mind is thinking it, so why do you protest so much? What is wrong with going over the top?
Savage simply goes over the top to provide balance to our feminized society. The boys have already been tried in the media and found guilty. For every action, there is an equal...you know the rest.
BS. Ask Bill Maher what happens when the cons don't like what you say. Go back to your Weiner, ass.
You sound idiotic with all of your gross generalizations about people. Liberals hate Christians... liberals love Islam, Muslims hate blacks, gays and Jews.... gays are mentally unstable. Because gays contract aids at a higher rate they have no culture.
What do you base any of this off of? You make sweeping generalizations without an ounce of fact to back up your statements, you draw bizarre conclusions when you cite evidence, and you neglect to put forth how you come to that line of reasoning.. You know this how? Because Mr. Savage told you so or ?
It’s going to be difficult to send you for re-education when its pretty clear that you didn't have much of one to start with. Rational people that want to make a serious argument base their assertions off of something that can be proven or backed up by fact, not a baseless opinion.
Ah, do you have some facts to back up your assertion? The fact that he did not list his sources does not mean he has none.
Get a grip...you didn't even read your own posting!
You can't have sources for baseless assertions. Let me demonstrate:
"Conservatives are mostly made up of greedy, soulless creatures that would like nothing better than for America to be turned into a feudal state."
Now disprove it.
This person exhibits the true nature of conservatism in all it's glory. The sad thing for these people is that they know it's inevtiable that society will change and they can't do a thing about it.
He/she can hate gays till the cows come home for all I care, in time society will leave him/her in the dustbin of history along with all the other conservatives who fought tooth and nail to deny women the vote, keep black people segregated and force gays back into the closet.
It suck being a conservative, always on the losing side of history.
"Holly, I understand that you are a feminist liberal and you want to control the world, so I am sure this is hard for you to understand." LOL, oh man you are so funny. Its a pity that with that paternalizing attitude that people find it hard to start a real discussion with you, but hey...
"Let me put it to you this way...liberals hate Christianity yet are enamored with Islam and want to respect it. Whether this comes from anti-semitism I don't know" I wish that you provided studies are references that proved your point that christianity. "
"that they hate if we allow the muslims to invade our country like they did europe - you will see your precious rights for gays/lesbians disappear in 1 second." Since when did muslims invade Europe? There are certainly major groups of muslims, but they are certainly not the majority, and have also not invade europe. Some came in as guest-workers and due to new rules could stay and get their family, whereas in other countries they came in from colonies.
"Muslims are the ultimate conservatives that even conservatives don't want. They hate blacks, women, and gays more than 100 michael savages." I am glad that you say you think that Weiner hates blacks, women and gays.
"I put gay "culture" in quotation marks because it is an artificial sub culture of society made up of those with emotional/mental instability. Did you know a recent study found that over 25% of gays in SF are HIV positive? I'm sure it is even much higher than that too. A culture that consists of a high % of hiv, suicide, and drug users cannot be a legit culture, especially when it isn't something you are born with. I did it to show I don't acknowledge the gay community. Was that wrong of me? Would you put me in a re-education camp or put me on ritalin to feminize me?" First, ritalin won't work, secondly, the gay culture is not artificial and largely follows the American culture. Mental instability is mainly shown by those gays who have trouble comming out and are not acknowledged by their surrounding. As for the 25%, please insert a reference or something, especially in combination with references that this is on the low side and why it relates to suicide and drug abuse. Further, whether gays are born as gays or not, they are who they are and as far as for me they do not bother me or my marriage or whatever. Thus, they are no threat. What about you? Besides those phony arguments, why are you hateful against gays?
"If you notice the "cultures" that gay people are a part of, they are mostly feminine ones because they have no strong male role models and they seek the safety of femininity in order to feel secure. It is a quite simple complex to diagnose." LOL, no strong masculine role-models. Where do you get that from? Is they were beaten more often, they would probably have ended up with real psychopathologies, like impulsive aggression or something. What the hell is a stron masculine role model? And how do you explain female gays (lesbians)?
As for Holly being a liberal feminist? Well, perhaps she is, but I never heard her say she has interest in taking over the world. And even if she would, would that bother you to have a liberal feminist as a president?
I honestly think this guy is looking for kinky kicks. Read:
"I did it to show I don't acknowledge the gay community. Was that wrong of me? Would you put me in a re-education camp or put me on ritalin to feminize me?"
"Was that wrong of me?" smacks of a fellow wanting to revert to childhood. Now I've got the heeby-jeebies. I imagine him and his Weiner reading my admonishments and swelling with...well, it should be shame, but I suspect it's something else.
So, I say, "Hear me, my MM buds! My heart is sickened and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will respond to this perv no more forever."
I see it as a healthy challenge. Responding to him is like responding to Rush, Weiner and the like.
I'm sure he brings out the fierce raptor in you, but consider this: he suggested Ritalin, which is prescribed to children. And as he poked me, he asked, "Is that wrong of me?" He's acting as if he were a child. And there were plenty of other MM folks to poke, but he poked the only poster that's clearly female (Lynn posted later.).
I'm 95% (Devilish of me to pinch his figure, eh?) sure that there are sexual undertones here: and I don't want be his mommy. I think the Right's obsession with queer folks has truly, sexually twisted too many of them.
Or maybe it's just choice to be obsess about gay sex. I don't believe that those sexually twisted folks of the Right were born that way. It's their lifestyle choice.
Most of the time (at least in my experience) those having issues with gays also have issues with strong women. Therefore his 'strong, masculine rolemodel'. And this guy does not need a mom. Alas, but I think his period that he could and wanted to learn new things has been long past.
But keep your head up and in the wind and keep posting!
Yellow, please leave the analysis to the professionals (i.e. me). Holly hasn't a clue what she is talking about to be quite honest and I burst out laughing once I read her post. I have issues with gays from a purely moral standpoint. I believe everyone is a sinner, so I cannot place myself above them in that regard, but it is not good to seek out a sinful lifestyle. If you make some mistakes along the way, so be it, but don't look for it. This is the point where you tell me 'homosexuality isn't a sin.' Well I beg to differ. I don't believe a man or woman having homosexual thoughts is necessarily a sin per se, but acting on those thoughts is, in my humble opinion.
There is a verse in the bible that says,
"everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial"
I think it sums it up quite nicely. We can permit gays to roam free all day long, but it doesn't really benefit society much. Shall we discuss why?
"Yellow, please leave the analysis to the professionals (i.e. me)." Mmmm, that is an interesting point. I do not know your background, and you do not know mine, still you state that you are the professional. Why?
"Holly hasn't a clue what she is talking about to be quite honest and I burst out laughing once I read her post. I have issues with gays from a purely moral standpoint. I believe everyone is a sinner, so I cannot place myself above them in that regard, but it is not good to seek out a sinful lifestyle. If you make some mistakes along the way, so be it, but don't look for it. This is the point where you tell me 'homosexuality isn't a sin.' Well I beg to differ. I don't believe a man or woman having homosexual thoughts is necessarily a sin per se, but acting on those thoughts is, in my humble opinion." Another interesting point. I do not like to think in forms of sin and the like. If everyone is a sinner, you infer there are several levels of sin or that a few sins are better than more. I notice that you look through the glasses of faith. Of course you may dislike gays or how they live, although they do not live that differently that straight people. Their love-life is different perhaps, although I do know that many straight people have fantasies and sexual encounters that can also not stand the light of day. By saying that homosexual behavior is a sin infers that gays are inferior and do not deserve rights. Alas, in my opinion that is one of the negative sides of most faiths: faiths are biased and setting those biased in laws will place people outside society because the think or act differently.
"There is a verse in the bible that says, "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial" Yep, that what that means is open for a lot of discussion. What is beneficial. In my opinion, being happy who you are and therefore functioning well is beneficial. Whether that is beneficial to come into heaven? Well, everyone their own interpretation of what God meant.
"I think it sums it up quite nicely. We can permit gays to roam free all day long, but it doesn't really benefit society much. Shall we discuss why?" I am certainly not trying to convince you to endorse gays, because our points of view are to much apart. However, I do not agree with the inferior note you have on those people. And benefitting society? Well, a lot of people do not benefit society, but we are still around. In some peoples eyes, I do not serve society. Some people will perhaps think that only famous people, and family members serve society. I do not see how having love in a different way can serve society. Gays can make great soldiers (if they are allowed), laywers, doctors, priests, grocers, builders, actors, etc etc, just like women can.
Actually, the 1 Cor 10:23 says "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. " There is a difference if you take time to notice. Primarily, Paul was addressing Christians who were not in danger of judgement, but certainly in danger of living unfulfilled lives.
Paul would very likely say "If you're not washed in the blood of the Lamb, your opinion is rather irrelevant."
As to your opinion...there is another verse: Pr 16:25 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."
Perhaps that's why we have theologians: to help prevent us from saying "I think..." when we're ignorant.
To think for me, be intermediaries between myself and GOD, NOR to interpret the bible or anything else for me.
With every substance deficient and frankly argument free post, you provide us with a perfect example of the crazy far-right nutcases that are influenced by someone like Savage.
Since you think homosexuality is a sin, then you are free not to participate. Personally, I think greed is a sin. Yet, it is celebrated in American culture. However, the cons are interested in private "morality" while ignoring the public immorality that harms us all.
Being a homosexual, I can tell you, Mr. Hateful, that we are definitely no different than anyone else. Just because we tend to partner up with people of the same sex doesn't mean that we are amoral or immoral. You have no facts to back up your claims that 25% of homosexuals in San Francisco are HIVpositive. As a resident of San Francisco and an HIV negative homosexual, I take offense at your gross generalizations about a city and culture that you have probably never visited. I abhor your use of the bible to further your hateful "Christian" ways. You should be ashamed to call yourself a Christian. If you're not, I'm ashamed for you. To be a Christian means to be Christ-like. You sir, are not Christ-like. Your words prove it.
Actually, network news just released that statistic this week. Check the record.
Skatpilot - I asked for facts to back up what Bishop said. I didn't say that he was wrong. However, since San Francisco can be considered a mecca for gay folks from all over the world, it would stand to reason that it's very possible that the rate of HIV infection in this city might be higher than in other cities. Did you ever think of that, genius?
This is why morons really shouldn't post here. Even skatpilot.
"...cannot be a legit culture, especially when it isn't something you are born with. I did it to show I don't acknowledge the gay community. Was that wrong of me? Would you put me in a re-education camp or put me on ritalin to feminize me?"
These are exactly the kinds of rants that occur on Savage's show every single day.I used to listen to it every day. And while I believe Trackers' views are hateful, but representative of an alarmingly significant part of our culture. I really don't understand the vile hatered of women, either. I guess by "feminine" culture he means not as likely to arbitrarily start wars.
"...feminist liberal and you want to control the world...liberals hate Christianity yet are enamored with Islam..." Wow, he fit all those talking points into that short post. I wonder what he'd do with a little more space?
You've listened to Savage and Rush too close to bedtime. That led to your spooky nightmares of Amazons subjugating you (Although this would be a kinky dream for many.).
Night after night, you shed your syrupy tears, as you dreamt of feminists hordes, and when you awoke, you didn't have someone to say, "Hush, little one. It was just a dream.
Pumpkin, liberal feminists aren't Machiavellian. They aren't any one thing. Put 10 feminists in a room and you'll have 11 opinions.
Now, here's what I prescibe. No more bad men telling you spooky stories too close to bedtime. And right before bed, drink a warm glass of milk. That'll help usher you into peaceful sleep, which you need.
And most of all, find a feminist and hang with her. Don't bleat and bray and scare her away. Be civil. Be a gentleman. Listen. Learn. You'll learn that feminists are the boogeywomen that Savage says they are. We're an evolved variant of female called vertebrate femininus. Trust me: it's truly sexy to hang with a woman that isn't wormy.
You're a kook!
And you're also a little boy, in need of love. You didn't evolve. You didn't mature. You never became a man.
I don't know why, but you replaced the boogeyman beneath your bed with backboned women and gay folks. Honey, there isn't a queer women beneath your bed, but there's a queer man inside your head and is name is apt: Weiner.
lotsa typoes in the prior two posts. Sorry, all.
I know you are a conservative and therefore not used to thinking for yourself but let me put it into small words for you to understand. YOU are a MORON. I am a Christian who is among the far lefty liberals on this site. Your ignorance is appalling. Your homophobia and xenophobia ( I know I promised small words but hire a six year old to look them up for you and explain the words to you) are an embarrassment to this good country.
Your assertion that gays are inherently mentally and emotionally unstable shows only again that your ignorance is appalling and your bigotry an embarrassment. What I would do about that is shake my head in pity as you are truly piteous.
As for your 'diagnosis' you got your medical/psychiatric degree WHERE AGAIN? that's what I thought. Here is a clue, again find and pay a six year old to explain the concept to you. Mindlessly repeating like the propaganda parrot you are the excreble spewage and emotional diarrhea of your rightwing hero does not make it palatable nor correct, just that much more pathetic. Please increase your medication.
For all you "Christians."
Mt 7:2 - says "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "
Perhaps "MORON" is not the spirit Jesus intended when He said this.
How I respond to someone who told me I hate my own religion. It frankly isnt up to you. I will ALSO be deciding how I practice my religion and interpret the bible. That ALSO isnt up to you. Perhaps you thought God needed YOU on a pedestal telling us mere mortals what we should and shouldnt say. I would ask what great attributes do you bring to this awesome responsiblity? Some great moral purity I have seen no real evidence or some great intellectual prowess I have also seen no evidence of. I tell you what YOU respond to insults the way you see fit, I certainly have no comment on that. What is a CERTAINTY is I will respond as I see fit. Get over it
So calling someone a moron vs. calling for the murder of millions of people is somehow comparable? How does calling someone a moron on these boards excuse Michael Weiner and his broadcasted BS? I would much rather be judged by God for calling someone a moron than be judged for advocating the slaughter of millions who practice a different religious philosophy.
Things aren't as black and white as you conservatives would like it to be.
CSL
I wish I would have said that!
I'll listen to asinine comments like yours the first time I read about gay people calling for the extermination of those they don't agree with. Your man spews hate and a lot of listeners don't understand the subtleties of his brand of "sarcasm". He is as pure a hate monger as I've seen. Even Joe McCarthy had more integrity than Weiner.
Anyone who can defend someone who advocates killing 100,000,000 million people because they don't share the same beliefs is a subhuman monster. And don't try running that old excuse that he's just joking.
I wish there were more gay people and fewer conservatives. If one of my children were to marry someone of the same sex, I would give them my blessing. If they were to marry a Neocon, I'd give them hell.
do you hear yourself? You sound an awful lot like those white people from the 50s who tell their kids "if you marry a black, ill give you hell." Wow so much for tolerance.
If there were more gay people in proportion to the rest of this country, we would have a declining birth rate (not counting test tube babies) and you would see a country that hates Israel. Get a clue man.
Dude, for someone who bashes gays, you sure do love your Weiner....your Michael Weiner that is.
"If there were more gay people in proportion to the rest of this country, we would have a declining birth rate (not counting test tube babies) and you would see a country that hates Israel. Get a clue man."
Where do you get the correlation between a declining birth rate and a hate of Israel? Do birth control pills contribute to this as well (I better tell my Jewish girlfriend to stop taking the pill) or is it gay groups that promote intolerance to Israel? Yes that new slogan - We're here we're queer we hate Israel? You've totally lost me there pal..
You do have a declining birth rate. If it weren't for the Immigrants you'd have a whole lot less people to do your yard work for you.
post industrialized countries do have a drop in birth rates - what's your point?
Nice Assumption - Maybe I'll ask my father to do my yard work for me..
I married into an immigrant family. . . best people I know. There needs to be an emoticon for sarcasm.
I am begging you to rent a brain cell. I know it will die of lonliness but at least you will know what it was like to have had one
that you like 95% of what Weiner says, but don't be surprised and mad if I dislike 95% of what MMFA disposes of his thoughts.
Further, I do not think that you own the final knowlegde of what this guy is telling, and everything comes up to interpretation, personality, looks, and evidence, so "the whole lot of you don't understand this guy", is an assumption that is not valid.
I agree with you that Weiner is not a partisan hack, but rather has his own agenda, but which is still full of hatred.
"So I ask that you liberals stop trying to organize some campaign to get his advertisers pulled." There are actually quit some people here who are leaning to the right, depending on which subject the discussion is. ALso, I think that organizing a campaign to get his advertisers pulled is definitely something that we have not the power for, especially when you consider that advertisers must listen to him, too.
"If you dont like what he has to say, how about - don't listen and stop having his stuff put up here? " I could agree on that partly. Not listening to him is easy, but that won't change the hateful slur he is preaching. In this case, even MMFA is not listeing, the tree is still making noise when it falls, and that noise is not good. MMFA is poiting out on what points the moise is not good, based on smearing and stigmatizing people and using straw men as seemingly valid arguments.
"Whatever happened to liberal tolerance? " Liberal tolerance is certainly there, but not for those who smear people, purely based on an "I think she looks ugly so she is a whatever; it looks a little like making a diagnosis based on selected video footage".
"You want us conservatives to tolerate gay peoples' "culture" and their views, but you don't want to tolerate my favorite talk show host. " Nope. I at least do not tolerate the preaching of violence and smearing by your favorite host; lets say that the way I see it is that you say: "because I have to I tolerate gays and their whatever, who do not teach hatred and violence, but have love and sex in some other way than some straights do, so you have to tolerate my host who teaches violence.
"It seems to me that Michael Savage isn't the one being intolerant, he just has a different outlook on life than you do. IIt seems to me the hatemongerers are right here in this forum and on this website." Nope: he is certainly calling for hatred and violence. When you do not think so, what does 'psychotics' and 'killing' refer to. And yes, some here are quit hard in their criticism to Weiner, but when that is preaching hate, tell me towards whom?
You tolerate what someone IS. Calling for killing 100 million people is what Savage DOES. We are under NO obligation to tolerate what is done when it is this demonstrably INSANE. The man is a racist, and now has tipped over into deep dementia. Calling for killing 100 million people is not a joke. It is not in the same universe as funny. He has become dangerous and demonstrably INSANE. I think a boycott against his sponsers, since any sponser who would support such sentiments doesnt DESERVE my money is the very LEAST we can do. He is calling for violence on a scale that would put Hitler into the minor leagues of villiany. Shame on you for even THINKING of appologizing for this vermin
...and then I'm off: Savage represses his homosexuality. Perhaps this partly explains his desire to repress others: he does not want to suffer alone.
since he hates just about everything, that would make him a closet homo liberal cross dressing mullah loving feminazi!
Just pass that brownie plate this way, cause that was hard werk!
michael savage is a third tier, talantless Limbaugh/Coulter wannabe. He just says outlandish and retarded things because he is desperate for attention. He can't compete with other rightwing nuts in terms of intelligence, analysis or even effective lying. All he can do is some kind of far reich-wing version of a shock jock routine. But he's not even very good at that. He makes Mancow seem like an intelligent, entertaining radio personality. Savage represents the rectum of the radio dial.
--"I agree with 95% of what he says by the way"--
So you think that just 95--not 100--million Muslims should be killed.
Tell you what: when Savage stops the hate talk fest, you won't see his name here anymore.
Id put that in the 5% i disagree with, along with his backing of ford motor company (who supports gay people). But what you fail to understand is that muslims pose a threat not only to this country, but to your liberal feminist agenda. they will kill gay people over here if they got the chance.
--"But what you fail to understand"--
You could invite Muslims here for a week, have them exterminate all the gays and feminists, then kill them, too, while they're here. That seems like it would help you sleep better.
Hey-it's ok to rush to the defense of a husky, bearded, bigoted man that talks and thinks like you do and to whom you "heart". Sounds like overcompensation to me.
And their BIG GAY cars... Is there a direct relation to driving a Ford and turning queer? Or is it that Ford is the cause of an increase in queers in the US and therefore our population is on the decline which in turn will make the US hate Israel?
I'm just trying to keep up with you and I'm really confused now.
So do you hate Ford because the make a crappy cars & trucks or do you hate them because they try to hawk their shoddy wears to gay folks and support some of their causes?
I hope that means that your just choose not to buy Ford, and that you don't put pressure on them to stop supporting gay people. That might sound similar to a boycott, which I know your totally against!
Do you think that maybe trackerbishop2xl is a repressed Gay person? It happens again and again, the most vocal of the Gay bashers turn out to be Gay themselves. We had a Congressman from the red part of Maryland (Eastern Shore) who was a staunch conservative who was spearheaded most of the anti-gay legislation at the time he was in office. This congressman was arrested for soliciting male prostitutes on the streets of Washington, DC. Apparently all the regular street guys knew him. Of course his career ended and he lost his cover, because his wife left and took the kid with her.
I was thinking the same thing. I just hope that the bishop in his name does not refer to him being a man of God.
There was also another gay bashing Republican Congressman on the Eastern Shore, but from Virginia's Second Congressional District. I was living there at one time and he was my congressman.
I do vaguely remember another scandal involving a closeted Gay legislature. I it involved taking young boyfriends on tours of the congress building after hours.
Mayor Jim West
I would almost think you are Weiner himself.
But, here we go:
"But what you fail to understand is that muslims pose a threat not only to this country, but to your liberal feminist agenda. they will kill gay people over here if they got the chance." Yep, and you too, because muslim extrimists kill without checking backgrounds and opinions. That is why we are fighting them. Of course: those who yells hardest are the face of a faith or movement, but does that mean that all muslims are bad? Nope. Evidence are those that are tried to death in Iran for interpreting the q'ran differently (e.g., Rushdie), whereas those who kill are praised.
Talking about yelling loudest, Weiners yelling makes him a poster child for many of conservative Americ: no tolerance, no different lifestyle, and everything that is deviant is a psychiatric illness that should be treated. Sounds a little bit like Iran to me, but Weiner has no political power what so ever, making his opinions less a threat. By the way, I just see that your yelling about gays also fits in here.
That you could illuminate for me. Muslims are NOT a threat anymore than Christians are a threat just because some of the nuttier ones blow up buildings like McViegh and the abortion center bombers and abortion doctor killers. Islam is a religion with mostly peaceful good God loving people and a few nutbags that get all the press. THOSE nutbags are certainly a threat. I get that so do the other people here. What is your obsession with gay people. People who are in the privacy of their own homes are doing things that are frankly none of your business. I have to wonder what is in your heart that makes you so afraid of the fact some people are gay. Some people have ALWAYS been gay. Exactly WHAT is the basis of your fear? I have to wonder if while you are in your mothers basement and you have stopped typing, who it is you are fantasizing about since a woman in your life, with your IQ and neandrathal tendencies seems a really remote possibility. Tell the truth its Tom Cruise isnt it?
It's so funny when socially maladjusted guys like this get a microphone because whenever the chance presents itself, their bottled up migongyny just spills out. I mean, being a racist, right-wing blowhard is pretty much yesterday's news, but boy when a news story prominently involves a woman, look out! She suddenly becomes a "whore", "bitch", "feminazi", and whatever else. Their trying to steal our essence, our precious bodily fluids!
Ye gods this guy is such a cartoon.
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Infringing on any part of it by the government is bad for all, no matter how bad or disagreeable it is. Fortunately, in situations like this, we live in a free-market capitalistic economy. It is far better for the public to go after the sponsors of this twit and the company that broadcasts him through something they really understand, money. Flood them with mail and boycott their goods and services; and make sure you inform thhme that you are going to do so.
It would be illegal for mediamatters to post this kind of stuff. So why aren't you mad at mediamatters for spreading savage to even more listeners? Plus if there were no oreillys, savages, or limbaughs, you guys would have no website. So relax and realize that the ones you hate are giving this website life and $. Brock makes it big by playing off of outlandish remarks. Its quite clever but a bit hypocritical to make $ off of those who you disagree with.
We'd love it if this site weren't necessary. It's based on a simple belief. Lies must be countered by the truth. Someone said, "Truth is the ultimate disinfectant". Call it naive. But that's what we believe. Maybe you are right. The forces of darkness that you and Weiner/Savage represent will win. This isn't a movie. There's no rule saying that us with the white hats on will prevail in the end. But we're going to keep fighting till our last breath.
"It would be illegal for mediamatters to post this kind of stuff." That would mean that the bringer of the news that someone committed, lets say, a murder is as guilty as the murderer himself. Again, that argument is not valid.
"So why aren't you mad at mediamatters for spreading savage to even more listeners?" Well, perhaps you should read the mission of MMFA. That explains why MMFA could be viewed as a forum for Weiner and others. However, it also provides links so people can make up their mind themselves and occasionally there is criticism at MMFA for providing information that can be regarded as out of context. I think what matters tto you is, like you wrote to "don't listen and stop having his stuff put up here".
"Plus if there were no oreillys, savages, or limbaughs, you guys would have no website." Perhaps not, and would anyone have missed it? Nope!
"So relax and realize that the ones you hate are giving this website life and $." Interesting that you start about money, because I think the big bugs are not here.
So, if "Brock makes it big by playing off of outlandish remarks. Its quite clever but a bit hypocritical to make $ off of those who you disagree with" he probably would have written a better book about Hillary than the one that just appeared. There were and still are the big bugs. As shown regularly on tv and broadcasted on radio, Brock and MMFA place themself at a vulnarable position. When something is mentioned here that is crab or smear, that will certainly be used against the site and Brock. And for outlandish remarks: which ones?
---"Plus if there were no oreillys, savages, or limbaughs, you guys would have no website."---
If there were no feminists, liberals, Fords, gays, or Muslims, Savage would have no show.
"So relax and realize that the ones you hate are giving this website life and $."
Gotta love the "LOGIC" of a Rightwinger.
Yes, you have a point, Bishop. It's also true that without rapists and drug lords and murderers and muggers and theives, we'd have no need for policemen. Those cops should ALSO "relax" and realize that without the criminals, they'd be out a gig.
Which makes criminal behavior OK in your book, because it creates jobs, right? Unbelievable.
He's a Weiner apparently...
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
If you read this stuff, you definitely get the impression that he is an imbalanced opportunist. Hate-mongering is a lucrative biz in the US. Or, is he just being sarcastic?
Just love those "Christians"!
and actually GO OUTSIDE and interact with real PEOPLE! Trusy me, it'll make you feel better..your generalizations about population segments are trite, boring, wrong, and make you appear reeeeaaaaaaaal dumb. Maybe you could take a college humanities course and find out what is REALLY going on with people..
Even though the FCC is run by Bush, Inc., wouldn't a series of complaints to them - about the indecency of these words - be worth a try?
Savage by nature.
once again savage tells the truth and the liberals go crazy.
savage is the best talk show on the radio hands down!!!
...is broken. Good luck in getting it fixed.
If you do get it fixed and are one day able to turn the dial, you'll realize that Savage is a lewd, rude, crude sack of pre-chewed food. His pap is old and moldy. If you don't believe me, then:
Learn German. Sprichst du Deutsch? Bald, bitte.
Watch footage of the Nuremberg Rallies.
--"savage is the man"--
Is it wrong for one man to express his unconditional love for another man? For a man named "Savage"? No, of course not. One can express closeted feelings towards a burly, bearded bigot in today's society without guilt.
"savage is the man. once again savage tells the truth and the liberals go crazy. Savage is the best talk show on the radio hands down!!!"
Of course, you are free to like and dislike you you want, so be my guest. When you like Savage ... Well, you are one af many. However, we can discuss about truth and what makes Savage's statements land on MMFA. What drives me crazy is preaching violence (under the flag of joke or whatever) and stigmatizing and smearing an alleged victim, and in addition demanding that the woman makes herself public ...... to be attacked even further. As for the best talkshow .... tastes differ.
You obviously need the help of a medical professional immediatly. Feel free NOT to keep in contact we dont CARE how it all turns out for you. Morons are expendable, I urge you to give yourself a vasectomy with a pair of rusty wirecutters so as to preclude the possibility of you polluting our gene pool. The NEXT time mr Weiner tells the truth will be the first time. The next time you UNDERSTAND the truth when hearing it will also probably be the first time. Then again we are a tolerant lot. Good luck with your demensia. Dont forget that little chore with the rusty wirecutters
Gee, now I feel like a piker. My local nut in SF, Brian Sussman, only calls for the death of 10 million!
[link to s88172659.onlinehome.us]
The thing with Sussman is that he calls himself a "Theocon" He won't call himself a Christian, because then you could go after his specific church/faith version.
I'm not sure why there wasn't the same reaction to Sussman's comments as to Savage. Maybe it's because he's a 3rd tier radio host on a 3rd tier station. Perhaps it is because only people who agree with him listen to the show. Possibly it is because Sussman hasn't attracted the attention of a large organization would start a letter writing campaign. It was Muslims he insulted and who he thinks should be killed (of course only 10 million Muslim should be killed--the ones he estimated are out to kill us.)
But if I could get a group together to protest him, I would want it to be a Christian group. Why? Because when I hear people call for radical Islamic clerics to condemn hate speech and violence I think we should ask the same of our non-Muslim radicals.
It wasn't until I saw the movie Hotel Rwanda and read Sharon La Franiere's article in the NY Times ([link to foi.missouri.edu] crtconvicts.html), that I started thinking seriously about how truly dangerous words on the radio could be to fan the flames of hate and to incite violence. Words matter. Talk radio hosts like Sussman can make repugnant things sound reasonable. Unfortunately, his comments about killing 10 million Muslims wasn't the first disturbing thing he has said about Muslims. His views and comments about torturing them are even more troubling to me.
(In the short audio clip below, Sussman laments that he can't cut off fingers and penises during a torture session)
[link to s88172659.onlinehome.us]
And for those of you who are screaming FREE SPEECH, I need to remind you that this is commercially supported broadcast radio. This is NOT the same thing as standing in front of the federal building on a public sidewalk speaking your mind. it is not paid satellite radio.
The radio industry has very specific rules about what you can and can not say. Sure, you physically can say F*ck or call Condie Rice a coon, but you will be reprimanded, fined or fired.
There are rules of the FCC, Rules of the station owner and rules of the individual stations. All of the DJ are subject to these rules. We have decided as a country that there ARE limits to speech on the radio. And for example I can say certain things on the radio only at certain times of the day.
Also, the advertisers may have guidelines as well for what is said on the shows they advertise on.
They probably don't know what Savage is saying. If they DO know what they are saying then they are tacitly endorsing what he is saying if they don't say or do something. The christian right has understood this for years. That is what AFA and FotF have been doing with sexual talk on the radio for years.
What Savage is doing is inciting violence. Don't think it will happen? In the past, like many people, I chose to ignore the rants of these people, I did as many suggested and changed the dial or turned it off. Friends said, "It's just talk radio, they are just radio hosts. What's the big deal?" I'd like to mention three names to you: Hassan Ngeze, Ferdinand Nahimana, and Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza. Maybe you've never heard of them, but the three Rwandans were convicted of genocide for media reports that fostered the killing of about 800,000 Rwandans , mostly of the Tutsi minority, over several months in 1994.
part two continued below
Working with other readers of my site, www.spockosbrain.com, we have successfully gotten 9 national advertisers to pull t heir ads off of Sussman's show. They are not herbal Viagra pill advertisers either. They don't want to be associated with this nut after they find out what he is saying. The same goes for Savage. He is welcome to keep spewing his hate on the streets, but not supported by the companies that pay the bills.
Companies don't WANT to be known as supporters of hate. I wouldn't. Call the companies on their support. Savage got kicked off of TV because of stuff this. Dr. Laura did too.
He really should be wandering the streets spouting his nonsense like the other mentally unbalanced people that Ronald Reagan let out of the state hospitals (without any community support) in the 1980s. Maybe he can find a spot in a board and care group home.
I have to ask again -- who is this guy? Is the looney bin missing someone?
How does a racist and warmonger get his own radio show? Does this guy broadcast only in the Deep South? Does he wear a KKK cowl and robe to work everyday?
Only in the deluded mind of a neocon could speaking out against Michael Weiner be considered "hatred."
Dislike, certainly! Disgust, absolustely! Hatred? Someone pass me the Kool-Aid cause that one is just too hard to swallow without it.
" And you're also a little boy, in need of love. You didn't evolve. You didn't mature. You never became a man. "
Holly, I'm new to this forum, but I thought name calling and personal attacks were not allowed. Perhaps I could be wrong and some are allowed to do what they want.
Someone brought up a good point earlier, why is it liberals are allowed to protest daily (sometimes violently) and say it's their right, but a conservative protests and the very same liberals are claiming "no fair, destroy the bum"? I agree that liberals have no tolerance for the same people they demand tolerance from. Where's the love you claim to hold so strongly towards the inferior?
What's wrong with someone having an opinion about a person who yells "fire" when there was no fire? Who yells "race" when she is becoming the racist? More and more facts are being distributed about this rape case and it certainly IS leaning towards that possibility. Do any of the liberals in this forum ever contemplate that idea? Or, is it totally not possible that she is lying? What are ANY of you going to say when she is found to be lying?
"Holly, I'm new to this forum, but I thought name calling and personal attacks were not allowed. Perhaps I could be wrong and some are allowed to do what they want. "
Well, there is a difference between the MMFA site and mission and individual posts on the forum. As I see it, some persons (both on the liberal and conservative side of the spectrum) use name-calling out of frustration and I most name-callings I have seen are personal opinions in reaction to posts of others, which is different from personal smears by pundits that are posted in threads on MMFA.
"why is it liberals are allowed to protest daily (sometimes violently) and say it's their right, but a conservative protests and the very same liberals are claiming "no fair, destroy the bum"? " Give me some examples. What daily protests and what violence, and what are the conservative protests? Until then, your statement is a straw man.
"I agree that liberals have no tolerance for the same people they demand tolerance from. Where's the love you claim to hold so strongly towards the inferior?" This is an interesing one. I can only speak for me, because the 'liberal spectrum' is large and could go from left to right. I have no tolerance for preaching hatred and violence. When someone say: kill them all! I say: no! That is the same way that Iran and the like demand tolerance from the West for wanting to kill Rushdie and cartoonists because that is 'part of the faith'. And love for the inferior. That is a good one. What is inferior here???
"What's wrong with someone having an opinion about a person who yells "fire" when there was no fire? Who yells "race" when she is becoming the racist? More and more facts are being distributed about this rape case and it certainly IS leaning towards that possibility." Are you talking about the alleged rape case? First, pundits that are discussed on MMFA have smeared and stigmatized the alleged victim from the moment that news came out, without any information what further had happened. That is what is discussed here: stigmatizing and smearing and alleged rape victim. That is also what Weiner is doing here, even when the information that is available is taken into account. Further, demanding comming forward with a face in an alleged rape case makes no sense whatsoever. If that is demanded, very few women will come forward, because it rape is very shameful for women and directly attacks the bodely integrity and sense of control. With rape, the woman is totally humiliated. Is it strange that rape is taken seriously?
"Do any of the liberals in this forum ever contemplate that idea? Or, is it totally not possible that she is lying? What are ANY of you going to say when she is found to be lying?" Of course, she could be lying, but discussing that is beyond the mission of MMFA (and at least my own). By discussing that we have to have all information, and it diverts the attention away from the stigmatizing, smearing, demonizing, and misinformation and lies that are revealed by MMFA.
"What are ANY of you going to say when she is found to be lying?" Very simple: put her away in jail and let her make an excuse to the players, her back-up, and towards rape-victims.
She might be lying. She might be telling the truth. But to call her the names that Limbaugh and Savage have called her is wrong.
Now, I called the fellow (I can't remember his name.) that is afraid of Ritalin a child because he asked, "Was that wrong?" He communicated child like a child. And Ritalin is prescribed to out of control children.
What he wrote wasn't that far from: "Was that wrong? Will you send me into time-out?"
Just about every woman has perv-dar because just about every woman has had some man (or many men) try to get his kinky kicks offa her.
So, I called him a "boy" 'cause he talked like a lad. And that agitated you, but this woman that Weiner doesn't know and that Rush doesn't know has been called words that I can't even write here because the MM automatic editing mechanism considers them (rightfully so) profanity.
You wrote: "Where's the love you claim to hold so strongly towards the inferior?"
Yes, it is hard to harbor love for a man that calls for the deaths of 100 million people...for a man that savages a woman he doesn't know, but face to face, I could probably manage some love. All my life, I tended to damaged people. Weiner is damaged. A human being doesn't call for genocide from strength and mental stability.
That Ritalin fellow seems damaged too. One doesn't listen to a guy like Weiner from a position of strength. Unfortunately, listening to Weiner won't undo one's damage. Rather, it'll coddle it. Swaddle it.
To answer your question, if she's found to be a liar, I won't owe anyone an apology because I haven't labeled the accused as guilty. How could I? I don't know the players. I wasn't there. I've only reacted to the Right Wing pundits that have reacted to this woman as if it were still 1952 and a woman that happens to be a stripper can't be raped 'cause she's a **** and a ***** and she asked for it.
Now, goalball, I'm going to assume the best about you, but I am noting that your Right Wing posters have been responding to me. I think that chance happenings are rare. Maybe you guys are responding to me because I'm funnysexycool. And maybe because I'm provocative. But maybe, just maybe, it's because I'm obviously female (Holly) and I'm the rare female on this board and my embodying femininity is significant for you guys. Isn't a strong woman a nightmare for Rush, et al? And doesn't the Right apply dusty archetypes to women? I might be off: maybe it's just my charm. Or maybe not. If you Righties are self-reflective men, it's something to note and consider. After all, this is a thread about a man (Weiner) judging a woman (the alleged rape victim). It's an emotive case study. We should all be alert to what it's releasing.
"Now, I called the fellow (I can't remember his name.) that is afraid of Ritalin a child because he asked, "Was that wrong?" He communicated child like a child. And Ritalin is prescribed to out of control children. What he wrote wasn't that far from: "Was that wrong? Will you send me into time-out?" Holly
Holly, his remarks were pure sarcasm. I'm surprised you didn't catch that. It was so obvious he was being flippant
"Maybe you guys are responding to me because I'm funnysexycool. And maybe because I'm provocative." Holly
Gee think much of yourself? Funny? Sexy? Cool? Um, not really. Provocative, maybe. Interesting? Sometimes. Egotistical? Always.
Savage is a pig, or at least conducts himself as one on the air. He's entitled to his opinions of course, he should just clean up his language and tone down the inflammatory rhetoric.
you think it's sarcasm. And you might be right. You're guessing. I'm guessing. And that Ritalin guy is guessing about himself. However, if you're male, you probably don't have perv-dar. A girl can get false blips, of course, but time does fine-tune the perv-dar.
I admit that I'm not good at recognizing sarcasm. Most of my mates don't employ it. Why not say what you mean rather than say its opposite and consider that humor?
There are so many other more interesting ways to have fun.
As far as ego, I knew that what I wrote would provoke. I did so intentionally. This alleged rape case is all about ego: college athletes at an elite school hiring a stripper with an assumption of impunity. Pundits calling her a ho. The audacity of a stripper, a tainted woman, to level an accusation of rape.
Ego isn't always bad. It can do good. It can absorb some of the damage that is done to all of us. It can also have representatives of an elite university hiring a stripper and pundits denegrating her.
Women are trained to be demure: we have to untrain ourselves. Likewise, men should learn to be demure from time to time. That's the epicenter of feminism: more options for everyone.
Now, I really gotta do some real writing. It's a pity that MM doesn't pay me to post: I could do this all day.
Holly wrote: " You wrote: "Where's the love you claim to hold so strongly towards the inferior?"
Yes, it is hard to harbor love for a man that calls for the deaths of 100 million people "
Think about what you're saying. Are you saying that we should allow the Islamic extremist (terrorists) have their will forced upon the world? Or, should we simply put them in jail for a couple years until "they cool off"? What would "you" do with the 100 million terrorists that are part of that religion? It sounds like you are saying that terrorists don't exist, if that's the case then I could see how you feel he is calling for genocide..l.otherwise, it isn't genocide, it's survival of the world that he is advocating.
Holly wrote: " Now, goalball, I'm going to assume the best about you, but I am noting that your Right Wing posters have been responding to me. "
Now, holly, my wife would be very upset with me if she thought I was conversing with another woman on the internet. "I" am not responding to "you" as just another "right wing poster". I responded only once to you and that was to question your ability to call fellow posters names and degrade them in this forum. However, you make it very difficult not to respond to you, since you are the only one who writes any posts. If you check, you have about 80% of all the posts in this thread...well maybe not 80%, but you get my meaning. I am new to this system and haven't had time to become "known", yet, but that will change as I find more to repond about.
Rather than framing "boy" as name-calling, you and the Ritalin guy could say, "Hey, his use of language is odd. He claimed that he's a doc or some sort of professional, but then he used a drug that is commonly prescribed to children for ADHD. Ritalin is speed. It wouldn't sedate an adult. It only has that effect on children. So, it's a strange thing to say...and reveals no professional-grade knowledge of this drug.
And "Was that wrong?" is also childish. It's obsequious. Adults don't talk that way."
I might be wrong. He might not be a perv, pretending that I'm his mommy and he's a bad boy. It might just be that we all revert under pressure. Any Righty in this forum is under pressure. So, it might just be that. In the end, we're all guessing and we're all wrong often enough to deserve self-doubt. Except for Weiner: he seems to be wrong all the time.
It's really simple if you think about it. Persecution of those who are different and abrasive to the social norm at the time is an ugly part of human nature. Humans have used civilization over time to distance themselves from such simplistic and animalistic tendencies. Cons like Savage and his Savagebots like to appeal to our base animal instincts such as greed, jingoism and xenophobia. Liberals believe that man can overcome these tendencies and use their higher brain when interacting with each other. Luckily, liberalism is winning and will continue to win over time even though it's often three steps forward and two back. That is what chafes the cons the most. They know they are on the wrong side of history.
I often wonder how this generation will be viewed. If we slip into full facism, Bush and the neocons will be viewed as the Fathers of our Neocountry. If we explode into revolution, Bush et al will be cast as the reason: the Marie Antoinettes of our era. But if we master our gluttony, if we constrain our imperialism, and serve equality, then the neocons will be seen as the George Wallaces of this period, the last of the old order.
Delbarton School in Morristown is run by Benedictines who presumably have not set the moral tone of the sports teams. I have seen Delbarton in action: the main rule is to get what you want no matter who gets hurt or what rules you have to break. It's just like American business. Yea, Christian values, rah-rah. But the black woman is a whore. Why? Guess.
Michael, maybe we deserve whatever we get.
"What are ANY of you going to say when she is found to be lying?" Very simple: put her away in jail and let her make an excuse to the players, her back-up, and towards rape-victims.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excuse to the players? I believe you meant apology to the players.
While I agree that her face and name should not be publicly exposed, she may be lying. I think that the two guys that were named in the indictment will be black listed for life, even if the case gets thrown out. If she is lying about this, as my understanding, filing a false police report is a misdemeanor in most states, while rape is a felony. She would be getting off much easier than two whose lives she would've destoyed. If they are found guilty, I have no problem giving them the max.
"Excuse to the players? I believe you meant apology to the players." Yep, that is what I meant.
"While I agree that her face and name should not be publicly exposed, she may be lying. I think that the two guys that were named in the indictment will be black listed for life, even if the case gets thrown out. If she is lying about this, as my understanding, filing a false police report is a misdemeanor in most states, while rape is a felony. She would be getting off much easier than two whose lives she would've destoyed. If they are found guilty, I have no problem giving them the max." I am not so sure whether the alleged rapists, if it is found that they are innocent are black-listed the rest of their lives. I think it will be big news and it will be repeated over and over again that she lied and the two or three players are innocent. As for her, she is also at a university and has a (or more) kids. When she lied, I think she will be forced to leave that university, will be shown with her face on tv, and can say good bye to her future.
I'm speechless- the male Coulter.
This all makes so much sense when I realize none of you folks are actually serious. If you were, you would never dare say the things you say...they're devoid of reason.
I've figured out this blog thing is like a drug. and you are all "users." You don't care what you say...just so you say something!
I just had a discussion with a gentleman who said "when you are arguing, words are not important." He was serious! And I thought he was "one of a kind..."
I dont see the requisite congnitive functioning ability. Otherwise why would you take ME to task for calling someone a moron who insulted me telling me Jesus wouldnt like it but NOT Weiner who called for 100 million murders, as if Jesus would be FINE with that. Peddle your false piety somewhere it MIGHT be taken seriously
You make my point...thank you!
Just the delusion of a point
These are serious times. The world has to figure a way to survive another 3 years of Bush. And those that voted for him have to serve their penance.
Poor holly...your analysis of my "child like" mental state was so way off. How, praytell, will you ever recover? Perhaps you should take a class on sarcasm rather than the classes of illogic, lower learning, and lower living that they taught at whatever liberal university you went to.
On illogic, lower learning and lower living by dint of the vast personal experience your own life has afforded. Let me be the first to offer you some advice. Stupid, bigotted, and obnoxious is no way to go through life. Get help. FAST
Thank you so much for your kind words throughout the past day. I have actually seen the light and become a liberal. How could I have been so stupid and judgemental? I have learned tolerance and love from this board.
Rather than focusing on judging and criticizing those who do sleazy things, I will spend the rest of my days allowing drug users, hookers, gay people, and all those who do things that I disagree with, to exist on without me criticizing their lifestyle. Who am I to tell them what is right and what is wrong...after all, good and bad / right and wrong/ are all relative things right? Evil doesn't truely exist, and it is nothing more than something man made.
I will now spend my time judging and being intolerant of those who judge others. Even though I will be one of those people, just from a different viewpoint, I will put myself on a pedastool and brag to others about how open minded I am. I will explain to them that I may judge the judgers because I let certain people live how they want. I may wish to put restrictions on speech and on Christianity, but none of my liberal friends will mind so what do I care?
I will also laugh to myself and brush off the fact that I hate judging even though I do it everyday of my life. I will ignore the fact that I judge a person when I decide to date or not date her, I judge a person when I decide to get married or become friends. I also make a judgement on people when I sit in a jury or go to vote. On top of all of that, I am judging those with liberal ideas to be righteous and true. But I will simply ignore this, because I am now among the liberal elite!
You lose.
Dude. You suck at satire. Don't give up your day job. Maybe Weiner will support you if you do.
Apparantly you dont like people talking to YOU the way you talk to them. The first post I saw from you was rude and insulting telling liberals like myself we hate Christianity. I ONLY responded to YOU in the tone YOU used to us. Your logic is weak. It is hardly a judgement of someones character to say you dont want to marry them. We all have different tastes. I have many conservative friends but I would never marry one ( see that is more how satire is done.) On the other hand saying gays are emotionally unstable is most definitly a value judgement. One I doubt SERIOUSLY YOU are qualified to make. Weiner called for 100 million murders. That would demote Hitler to the minor league of evil doers. YOU have no problem with that but me calling you a moron AFTER you insulted liberals what was that lower living lower learning, and so on, that hurts your feelings? Get a grip. This is a tolerant place. That does NOT obligate us to take your insults and say thank you sir can I have another. The days of rightwingnut, propaganada parrots such as yourself having the exclusive franchise on personal attacks is OVER. Now you may regret this but you really SHOULD get used to it. Insulting US then snivelling like a six year old girl we treat YOU as you have treated US is frankly pathetic. You want to talk issues, without the personal stuff, fine I much prefer that. You want a flamewar, bring it on.
Yellowbird, the reason replying to me is like replying to “weiner” is because I understand how he thinks. I know why he says certain things and I know how to provoke people in the same manner. In order to be effective and “stir the pot,” as I like to call it, you need to purposefully go over the top from time to time. You need to make bold opinions and try to pass them off as indisputable fact. Why? Because two things will happen – people will take what you say to heart and accept it, or they will get angry at you for being so arrogant and give you hell. Either way you get some interesting responses. It is all about fun and enjoying the discussion, in my view, and I think you understand this because you seem to be enjoying yourself too. On to Weiner. Why do liberals love to call him that? I find it perplexing because you are using his own name (or former name) as an insult. It just seems a little ‘6th grade’ to me and is sort of like me saying “hahaha bush’s last name is synonymous for a female body part! HAHAHA!, but hey whatever floats your boat. What studies do you need to show that liberals hate Christianity? Just stick your head up from time to time and look around, you will find that most liberal people are atheist or agnostic. This is the general trend. Why would a feminist want to believe in God, when the teachings of the Bible describe him as male and the teachings can also be patriarchal? As for muslims invading Europe, did you not see the recent row over the Danish cartoon? Muslims have legally immigrated into France, UK, and other parts of Europe in droves. They have been pretty peaceful up until we (non muslims) made them “too” angry. We went a bit too far and they went crazy. Isn’t this like having one of those family members living with you and if you do or say the wrong thing, they blow up on you (pardon the pun)? The Michael Savage admission of him hating blacks, gays, and women is was a freudian slip, excuse that;). Actually Ritalin doesn’t work at anything other than giving people heart attacks and making little boys act like quiet little girls. If you do some google research, you will find that boys are prescribed Ritalin on about a 3:1 ratio compared to girls. Is this “disease” simply attracted to boys? Of course not, it is a concoction of the drug companies in order to make billions off of drugs (see we both hate the drug companies, I may be conservative but I’m not pro big business scamming). Lazy parents love Ritalin because it gives them an easy escape over discipline. Liberals love Ritalin because if a boy acts too aggressive and “threeeaaaatening” to a weak minded fool, it can turn him into a zombie and force him to fall in line. Ok I could keep going but I will finish this later. Class dismissed.
Wow. Use paragraphs. It's easy. You just put a "p" in between the lesser than sign and the greater than sign.
Class over.
Lighten up, I'm not submitting this for a grade. It had paragraphs before I pasted it in but it got reformatted. What do I care if you have a difficult time? Not like you can follow good logic anyway;)
I'm waiting for any logic from you. I suspect that I'll be waiting a long time.
Wow your ignorance is appalling
What studies do you need to show that liberals hate Christianity? Just stick your head up from time to time and look around, you will find that most liberal people are atheist or agnostic. This is the general trend. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A majority of my liberal friends are religious people where did you get this statistic? Let me guess, the dept of Rushs ASS
Wrong again buddy. I dislike Rush, O'Reilly and to a lesser extent Hannity. How dare you make such a sweeping generalization about me! I am offended and I think we should censure, then censor you.
I dislike partisan hacks very much. As a true conservative, I would much rather see the good of the country be put ahead of the "good of the party."
Ever hear of a metaphor. Look it up, then pay a six year old to explain the big words to you. The point is YOU are not only amazingly wrong, but in a way no one with an IQ above that of a dustbunny would be wrong. It is purely ignorant to continue with the stupidity that liberals hate Christianity. As I said a MAJORITY of my liberal friends are religious. One is a Quaker, another a Southern Baptist another Assembly of God. I could go on but I think even YOU should get the point. Bottom line your brain is capable only of a record and regurgitate function. The in between step that of actually THINKING about whether what you hear makes sense is completely LACKING. So you sit like the mindless propaganda parrot you are to whoever your superior is, I guess at least Weiner. The you say, that sounds good I cant wait to regurgitate it all over some liberal. I can go and teach them a lesson. If you think for one second the stale talking points you spew here have not been heard and dealt with before it is just one more delusion among many you cherish.
Are you actually claiming that Quakers, Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God are liberal denominations? Each one of those would claim they are strongly conservative evangelical.
I must have misunderstood that post
Adult education, look into it. I am claiming I have liberal friends in ALL those denominations and more. I actually chose those because they were more conservative demoninations. The point is, and anyone with any sense whatsoever could see it, that there are many religious liberals even when they are conservative in their religious observations. Either you were trying a VERY WEAK strawman or you cannot read very well
Solon wrote: " It is purely ignorant to continue with the stupidity that liberals hate Christianity. As I said a MAJORITY of my liberal friends are religious. One is a Quaker, another a Southern Baptist another Assembly of God "
The devil is "very religous", but he certainly hates Christianity. Just because someone claims to believe in God doesn't make him a Christian. If those liberal friends didn't hate Christianity, find out if they support the parts of the liberal agenda that call for the weekening of Christian values. Maybe these Christian values are too "restrictive" to liberals, and is (I'm sure) where "trackerbishop2xl" gets his opinion from.
If you are Christian ask yourself if you can support aborting babies (as a form of birth control), allowing same sex marriage and continual homosexuality without questioning whether you are Christian or not. I think there is a difference between liberalism and Christianity. It's is very hard (if not impossible) to be both.
I couldn't help but comment on your post about how liberals cannot be Christians. I posted earlier in response to 'bishop' what the true meaning of the word 'Christian' is. Maybe you didn't catch it. Christian means 'Christlike'. Now, whether or not you want to believe it, you don't have to be a conservative to be a Christian - and there's no requirement that if you're a Christian, you must be a conservative. I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist faith - a faith which accepts the validity of almost every major religion. I don't consider myself a Christian, but when I was younger, I was raised in a mixture of Catholic and Pentecostal (AofG) dogma. I am a liberal and I am NOT an atheist. Your sweeping generalizations (Damn, it seems conservatives like sweeping generalizations) do nothing to further the intelligent debate we try to have on these fora. Further, with the advent of the WWJD bracelets, backpacks, necklaces, etc., we see many people who are liberal Christians trying to be as Christ-like as possible. So, with regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc., tell me, if you're a true Christian, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? Would He condem those who have had abortions? I would think He would forgive. Would He condemn those of the same sex who want to commit to each other as a sin? No, I think He would approve of the love that bonds them. If conservatives didn't have their heads up their a$$es, they would see that being a Christian (as so many of them claim to be), they would eschew wealth, learn to love and forgive everyone.
Get real. You're another one of those morons who believes that those who don't agree with you should be eliminated. If you were a true Christian, as you claim, you wouldn't be using the words that you use.
CSL
CSL said; " I couldn't help but comment on your post about how liberals cannot be Christians. "
I didn't say they "cannot" be Christian. I said very hard (if not impossible). I, also, did not say you can only be conservative if you're Christian, although many Christian ideals are considered conservative. I did say that to believe abortion, homosexuality and same sex marriage is acceptable then you will have a problem being a liberal and be Christian.
CSL said: " Would He condemn those of the same sex who want to commit to each other as a sin? No, I think He would approve of the love that bonds them. "
I guess we differ there. I do not think He would approve of a lifestyle He taught was wrong. Yes, He would forgive, but I don't think approve. Just because a large number of people choose a lifestyle doesn't mean it is ok. But, that's just my opinion, I don't do the judging.
Also, Jesus did not say it is wrong to be rich.
Jesus never preached against abortion of homosexuality. However he preached a lot in support of the poor.
It's the conservatives that have trouble reconciling their ideology with true Christianity. Evengelicals like Falwell don't know Christ, or they wouldn't be supporting right-wing policies.
Christians go across the spectrum on their beliefs. What YOU consider to be a Christian agenda is only what YOU beleive. YOU are not the moral arbiter for Christianity. Did God personally tell you that you were? If he didnt your taking it upon yourself to tell other Christians they hate Christianity or arent good Christians because they believe differently is pure arrogance. I would ask if as a Christian could someone support a war of aggression like Iraq then again I KNOW different people see things differently, I also get that the narrow minded among us have a problem with that concept. If you thought though that it was up to YOU to define an agenda for ALL CHRISTIANS then you have delusions of granduer, actually delusions of adequacy is probably more like it
It's that simple. Either you aren't a true Christian, or you choose to believe only what you want from the Bible, and the rest you ignore or chalk it up to "mistranslation." It is either all or nothing. God cannot be right some of the time and wrong others. God is also not a deity that exists as how YOU wish to view him, God is not some anti-war pro poor people socialist. The only reason you think these things is because you have been brainwashed by the atheists who say "well if you must believe in a god, make sure your god is non judgemental and espouses liberal values."
It is in fact you who has trouble thinking for himself. I've been on the liberal side of things, until I decided to truely follow Christianity and start using my brain. Liberals = me me me. I want abortion, my body. I don't care about anyone else. I want welfare, I want brain medications, I don't want to be offended. Try growing a pair.
Bishop, this book you put so much faith in is nothing more than a book of myths and fairy-tales - much like Hans Christian Anderson's. If you believe that you have to believe everything that is in the bible, you have truly lost a sense of reality. So, if you believe yourself to be a true Christian, tell me why your book of myths teaches in favor of slavery, commands that women cover their heads while in the church, making sure women who are in the middle of their menstrual cycle don't come to church, as that is seen as unclean. You can't cherry pick what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe. It's all or nothing - you cannot pick and choose. You're just another mouth-breathin, knuckle draggin' neanderthal who cannot think for himself. Further, your book of myths and allegory have no power over me. I choose not to believe it, but that doesn't make me the godless liberal that you dispicable conservatives say I am. And NOWHERE in your precious bible did Jesus Christ preach against homosexuality. I don't know which bible you're reading, but the words that Jesus was to have allegedly said are printed in red letters. You should bone up before tossing around falsehoods about the bible. God wouldn't like you breaking that whole "bearing false witness" thing...
you are right. I enjoy myself and do not like namecalling (at least, try to prevent it). As for Weiner ... I just use it as his name, and not as namecalling. Thanks for having a look into your mind. I enjoy the post!
is not meant to be sarcastic!
The really interesting thing is that if O'Rielly gets his way, and SF is attacked and destroyed by terrorists, at least Savage will go with them.
Brilliant! Angry that I didn't think of it first!