Savage: "Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus"
Michael Savage declared that "[l]iberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus" because it "weakens the defense cells of a nation," such as the police, the military, and the church.
On the July 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage declared that "[l]iberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus" because it "weakens the defense cells of a nation." Savage described the "defense cells of a nation" as including the police, which have been undermined by the "ACLU viruses," and the military, which has been weakened by "[Sen.] Barbara Boxer [D-CA] viruses." Savage also claimed the liberalism "virus" has weakened "the church ... particularly the Catholic Church."
Upon re-airing the monologue on the July 7 broadcast of The Savage Nation, Savage boasted that it was "one of the best verbal pieces I've ever done in my years in radio" and that the monologue was "almost flawless."
From the July 7 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE [clip from July 6 broadcast]: How do I relate the rise of radical Islam, with its restrictions, with its throwback mentality, and with its hatred and its murderous nature, with the progressive movement in the West? It's quite simple. You have to think about biology to understand it. You have to think of the AIDS virus, which is symptomatic, actually symbolic rather, of what I'm talking about.
The AIDS virus is actually quite symbolic. It's a retrovirus and it invades the body but it doesn't really cause infection for awhile. It lays in wait. And while it lays in wait, the retrovirus, the HIV virus, it starts to attack the immune system itself. And only after the immune system itself is weakened can infections arise within the human being that has been infected with the HIV virus.
This is what liberalism is. Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation? Well, the church. They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years. The police, attacked for the last 50 straight years by the ACLU viruses. And the military, attacked for the last 50 years by the Barbara Boxer viruses on our planet.
[...]
SAVAGE: Welcome back to The Savage Nation. That monologue that I just gave on the rise of radical Islam and how it is a reaction to, or an ugly twin of post-Christian cultural barbarism, I would consider one of the best verbal pieces I've ever done in my years in radio. I just gotta tell you that it was so good I wanted to join that guy's religion. I replayed that from yesterday because I asked the guys to get the best pieces from the week for Friday, and some things are worth replaying. That, I thought, was one of them. I listened to it, and when I listen to some of my work I like it, sometimes I don't, sometimes I would edit certain things. It was almost flawless.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
having been a snake-oil saleman trying to sel 'cures' to desperate AIDS and cancer pitients, Mike would know about being a human virus...
personal attacks you attack him but don't attack his point???? Why is he wrong??
"personal attacks you attack him but don't attack his point????"
-----
Wow. Four question marks, it must be an important question. Now three other questions are going to have to go unpunctuated.
Your question states the only way conservatives argue. They can't go after the substance, only the messenger.
And, in order to address Savage's point, we'd have to see the top of his head more clearly.
Just mock me for using a few too many question marks..........
I won't mock you for too many question marks. Too many ellipses, on the other hand...
We mock you for being simple-minded?
you would be a simpleton.
Actually, it takes intelligence to mock. It would be beyond a simpleton. For instance, I don't think you should try it.
He's exactly right, if one's idea of the "PERFECT SOCIETY" for safety is the police state, with totalitarian control and NO rights for citizens. Also, no FREEDOM.
It is also true that the problem of terrorism would be solved if EVERY HUMAN BEING on earth were killed. No more terrorists!
Where Savage is WRONG is that we are living in the United States, where we VALUE freedom and individual rights and are (supposed to be) suspicious of governmental powers and intrusion. Our CONSTITUTION is what Liberals (and in particular the ACLU) champion, against the advocates of totalitarianism who will, they claim, "make us safe".
Another world leader used the same approach as Savage advocates, and he called this form of problem solving a "FINAL SOLUTION." And rightwing supporters of THIS leader could be depended upon to, like you, challenge where the leader was WRONG. After all, you would say, he defined the problem and then devised a bold solution.
As far as Savage's analogy, I would counter that the REAL virus eating away at America is the incidious corrupting of our liberties encroached upon more every day by would-be tyrants in the name of "national security".
The pants-wetting scared are persuaded by this appeal to abandon their claim to FREEDOM and turn their lives over to their "saviors". REAL AMERICANS realize that American can be both STONG and FREE ... and in fact, without freedom, strength will only be used to subjegate the citizens.
Do you ever wonder why Rightwinger's greatest complaint about Liberals and the ACLU is that we liberals demand that our leaders follow the LAW?
More like vCJD (the prion disease believed to be linked to mad cow) ...it rots the brain.
Do you feel the ACLU is always in the right?
Since it is OFF TOPIC
" Where Savage is WRONG is that we are living in the United States, where we VALUE freedom and individual rights and are (supposed to be) suspicious of governmental powers and intrusion. Our CONSTITUTION is what Liberals (and in particular the ACLU) champion "
WOW! That couldn't be a more perfect example of what Dr. Savage is talking about. Only a liberal would say we are "supposed" to be "suspicious" of government powers! And, let's consider how long the aclu has been around, hmmm about 50 years? That would explain the hiv virus comparison. There isn't a more corrupt organization around than the aclu. They've taken away more freedoms from the average person than they have given to the secluded few. Comparing liberalism to the hiv virus is a brilliant piece of work. He laid out the comparisons and all fit perfectly. The nation would be so much better off if the aclu had never been opened. And, it will be a huge step forward for our nation when they are finally shut down by the people who actually CARE about how this nation was formed and why. Freedoms are what a real citizen wants. Not your paranoid/liberalized version of a freedom. You want to live in a paranoid nation? Go move to one. Don't change my nation into one and say it's what we all want.
"Only a liberal would say we are "supposed" to be "suspicious" of government powers!"
?????
Guess that makes the people who WROTE the Constitution and ran the 1776 Revolution liberals...right?
What do you mean, redking? Didn't the revolution happen because of an overbearing government? You know...taxation without representation...blah blah? How could that relate to being "suspicious" of a government? In one instance the government is forcing actions upon you, in the other you are fearful of what a government may do. I think the latter sounds a bit paranoid, don't you?
I get taxed and I'm not represented. I don't have a K-street adress and a few million to spread around in DC on buying favours. As far as overbearing governments, I think this one certainly qualifies. In fact, George Bush likes to make all these new offices to run this and consolidate that....one of the articles of secession in the Declaration of Independence is for old King George doing exactly that to the colonies. I think the Tories are back.
Have a seperation of powers? Why does it have an apparatus for impeachment? If we arent supposed to be mistrustful of government power why not just make a Monarchy its much more efficient than our combersome democracy. IF we can TRUST the government not to abuse power why inshrine the rights to redress the government of wrongs. Why make it explicit that we have the RIGHT to freely express ourselves and assemble. No your whole argument is ludicrous. Our very government was set UP on the idea that power corrupts so the power of government must be checked by the people that only THEY are a worthy repository of true power. Any true student of history would laugh himself unconcious over the sillyness of your very point. Tell me do you think the John Birch society trusts the government? Do you think they are liberal? What about the militia groups, trust? Liberal? Not even a good try
Yours is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read on this site, and that's saying something. You know nothing about the ACLU. Probably because all the information you have came from "Dr." Savage and Bill O'Reilly, who lie constantly about it.
....LL-Time. You say that the ACLU takes way freedoms. Name ONE freedom that you once enjoyed that the ACLU has taken away from you.
It's kind of a trick question, you see. The ACLU doesn't give or take away freedoms. The COURTS, through the law and the Constitution, have the final say. If you think that the ACLU is taking freedoms away, then you're looking to the wrong organization. However, you can depend on the ACLU to defend you, LL-Time, and your free speech - no matter how hateful it might be.
I would suggest that you do a bit of research before you begin spouting off idiocies...again.
" ....LL-Time. You say that the ACLU takes way freedoms. Name ONE freedom that you once enjoyed that the ACLU has taken away from you. "
They have taken away my freedom to enjoy the Christmas celebration (nativity scene ) at the local park.
Sponsoring sectarian religious events is beyond the government's limited powers. The "freedom" you lost was illusory.
What? You're saying my 1st ammendment rights are "illusory"? When did my right to exercise my religion become that? That sounds a lot like the ACLU at work...."we don't want you exercising your rights on public land, we've got to protect this land for the athiestic religion". Next, I'll have to vote in a corner garage, down the street. At least according to your thinking.
No, you have every right to express your religious beliefs in your city park. Go down there and sing "Silent Night" 'til your heart's content. Stand on a soapbox and read the bible. Get on your knees and pray. However, the GOVERNMENT doesn't have the POWER under our system of government to endorse sectarian religious beliefs. See the difference?
You are implying that I can "set up a soap box" and read my Bible. Does that mean I can set up a nativity scene and read my Bible, too? Or, is there a difference between my soap box and a nativity scene, since it is ME setting it up and not the government?
Or, is there a difference between my soap box and a nativity scene, since it is ME setting it up and not the government?
Yes, that's the difference. Well done.
Mr. Shackleford, why does the aclu say that it isn't important "who" put it there, but that it "is" there is the point? So, while it is noble of you to say it is ok for one to set up a nativity scene (themselves), the aclu says it is NOT. And, that would be taking away Mr. Time's 1st ammendment rights, would it not?
A nativity scene on public property (for instance a courthouse lawn), even if it is set up by private individuals, may convey to a reasonable observer a message of government endorsement of religion. Then again, it may not, depending on the specific circumstances. The outcome of this type of Establishment Clause case is very fact-specific, as we saw in the two Supreme Court cases on the Ten Commandments last year. (One display was found to be permissible, the other was not.) To the extent that one can speak generally about the matter, religious displays on public property are unconstitutional because they violate the Establishment Clause.
LL-Time's right to freely exercise his/her religion concerns, obviously, the Free Exercise Clause, as well as the Free Speech Clause. The analysis is different, although all of the clauses do work together. LL-Time was making the mistake a lot of people make - confusing his/her individual constitutional right to free exercise of religion with the constitutional restriction on the government's power to endorse religion.
for the common people that WHAT????? Name three. The ACLU exists solely to protect the Bill of Rights your rantings are borderline insane
"Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation? Well, the church. They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years. "
--------------------------
Yes indeed, Catholic churches are the defense cells of the nation. My God what a gripping metaphor. Oh those evil liberals for attacking the pedophile priest protection racket. If those virulent liberals had left it alone, our holiest could have enjoyed fondling their flocks for another 30 years. Shame on loud mouth liberals for attacking one of our finest traditions.
yes there has been some corruption in the Catholic church...but I doubt you have the same vile contempt for the American public school system who I am sure has had more attacks sexually on children than the Catholic church. We have followed the liberal doctrine and have pumped more money into the public education system than ever recorded in history and it still sucks. Yet,...unions still complain that its no enough.
"American public school system who I am sure has had more attacks sexually on children than the Catholic church. "
Since public school teachers far outnumber Catholic priests, the only fair comparison would be per captia.
According to the best numbers I can find:
There are approximately 46,000 Catholic priests in the United States and 300 cases filed to date, which is under .7% of the priesthood. [link to www.allaboutreligion.org]
By my best estimate, there are approximately 4,346,000 school teachers in the United States. [link to www.census.gov]
I was unable to locate any national statistics on how big of a problem sexual misconduct is in schools.
Perhaps you'd be willing to share the source of your data that makes you so sure.
that's 'per capita'.
You just made his point....yes there has been some corruption in the Catholic church...but I doubt you have the same vile contempt for the American public school system who I am sure has had more attacks sexually on children than the Catholic church. We have followed the liberal doctrine and have pumped more money into the public education system than ever recorded in history and it still sucks. Yet,...unions still complain that its no enough. - Evil Conservative
---------------------------
Yes of course! Why didn't I think of that? Even if there is nothing to back up the accusation that there are more pedophile teachers than pedophile priests, who cares; it is such a wonderful nutty diversion you deserve the Karl Rove Award. And why should we keep financing the education of America's children? If they aren't smart enough to educate themselves why should we pay for it? We need as much ignorant cannon fodder as we can get for our future conquests. After all, marine recruiters aren't gonna go after rich educated kids.
Yeah thats the ticket! Thank you O Conservative One for showing me the error of my ways (and saving me lots of money too cuz greed is good)!
Without our public school system, we'd have a literacy rate of about 50%, maybe less.
Personally, I think the public school system is under-rated and under-utilized. The facilities and staff places a large amount of possibilities at the hands of small communities for all-around education and cultural usage. Our public school was used for adult education, theater performances, and hosting local activity clubs.
I'd like to see more more course choices. The kids need more language training for the instant global communication environment we now exist in. I'd dump "social studies" and bring back old fashioned History. It's the US's worst subject and needs attention.
And what I really hate is all those small stadiums sitting idle across the land when they could be hosting amateur and fourth division sports. That's jobs.
An ad hominem attack and a baseless assertion ARE NOT POINTS. They are the desperate rantings of a psychotic moron. You arent far behind. I mean you DO know that you are criticising US for attacking him personally for making personal and insulting comments about us liberals. I mean you do have enough brain cells left to realize this dont you? If not seek professional help immediatly. The sanity you save MIGHT be your own
How would you respond to such an idiotic statement when everyone knows that it is [neo]conservatives who weaken the defense cells of a nation?
..is far too broad to be covered in a single post.
who said that?
There to see for all who could read
I see.
Savage.
So, that's the way you would like to address the substance of his points (such as they are)?
you must have read his novel...
read a couple.
How do I relate Michael Savage, with his throwback mentality, and with his hatred and his murderous nature, with something that smells bad and has no value? It's quite simple. You have to think about biology to understand it. You have to think of poo, which is symptomatic, actually symbolic rather, of what I'm talking about. You take rational thought and ideas and stick them in your mouth (symptomatically, or rather, symbolically). Then your digestive system removes everything useful and substantial from them. What's left is something useless, disgusting, and smelly. This is what Michael Savage is.
Poo has a far higher purpose than that, being the stuff we used for millenia to fertilize our crops. What keeps these guys going is anybody's guess.
Your right, Lady. Poo has infinitely more value than Michael Savage.
You're right, not "your"
Well then I'll say conservatism is an autoimmune disease. It pretends to be on your side defending you from danger but then one day it turns on you and destroys you from the inside out all for the sake of bodily security.
Leave it to Savage and the conservatives to set such a low bar. They established the lowest bar for elected office by electing W to any office other than dog catcher, with the only possible lower bars being Santorum, Sensenbrenner, Cornyn, Coleman, Tancredo.... man, I'll be at this all day - I'm sure y'all get the point.
Savage's only "point" is that liberals are destroying his fantasy of "AmeriKKKa." Well of course we're destroying his fantasy country, because it has nothing to do with the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave. His hatred and yours are based on cowardice, and are the furthest thing possible from bravery. Does that make me an angry intolerant liberal? Damn straight, because I love the United States of America and I don't tolerate schmuckheads who are ruining my country.
I have no hatred, and I don't think my perfect "Amerikkka" would be spelled like that. Once again instead of telling me why he is wrong for thinkin that liberalism is a disease that is eroding away everything that made this country strong you call me someone who has hatred in their heart and I guess a racist even thought you have no idea what the origin of my ethnicity is. So what is your argument???? Oh and who ever said something about their Civil Liberties, Name some that have been erased and effect you during your day to day activities.
Liberalism a disease but have no hatred. I guess its just a seething cauldron of ignorance taking the place of a cerebral cortex
of his medulla oblongata tied behind his tail.
you win your so much smarter than me.
to know the difference between 'your' and "you're". Personally I am a counterpuncher you dont want to do 15 rounds stay out of the ring
" We are smart enough to know the difference between 'your' and "you're". Personally I am a counterpuncher you dont want to do 15 rounds stay out of the ring "
But, I guess not smart enough to know the difference between "dont" and "don't". Personal attacks certainly build your case against Dr. Savage to an all-time high. Given your ability to use large insignificant words to make profound points about nothing, I'm sure liberalism will survive another 10-20 years.
I am just too lazy to put it in. And no they dont. You like many of your intellectually challenged rightwingnut compadres just think ONLY wingnuts have the right to personally attack someone. Savage made NO POINT. Savage made an ad hominem attack and YOU are repeating the propaganda parrot nonsense that when WE do the same thing to Savage that HE is doing to us it makes some ephemeral and totally imaginary point. We are returning serve. Savage thinks liberalism is a disease. I think Savage is a psychotic moron and pity anyone that thinks the man has anything to offer other than pschosis. We are both doing the same thing ad hominem attacks worthless and useless. The difference is I am doing it on a message board and Savage is exploiting the gullibility of people who should know better. People like YOU apparantly.
" Liberalism a disease but have no hatred. I guess its just a seething cauldron of ignorance taking the place of a cerebral cortex "
Why would there be hatred involved in calling liberalism a disease? Since when does pointing out the obvious become hatred? Isn't that what Dr. Savage' point is all about? That liberalism is taking normal conversations and changing them into hate filled monologues campaigning against America and those who love America (One Nation Under God). EC is correct in pointing out that no one has given a reason why Dr. Savage wrong in his assessement, just that he is a ____ (you fill in the blank). That surely shows that liberalism is harming America when liberals can't even discuss a point without lowering themselves to childlike name calling.
It's 50 plus nations under a constitution and God cannot be called to give witness in a courtroom to that other ascertation. Ya know, if you add in the Indian nations and the Pacific territories, could be close to 100 federal level polities in the United States system. One nation? Nah.
Why would there be hatred involved in calling liberalism a disease?
For the same reason that calling conservatism a disease would also be an example of hatred. Certainly you'd think so.
Since when does pointing out the obvious become hatred?
What's obvious is that it is hatred. If you can't see your way out of that, you are seriously deluded.
Isn't that what Dr. Savage' point is all about?
Wait a minute. Savage had his education under the name Weiner, so you can call him Mr. Savage or Dr. Weiner. There's no official record of his being "Dr. Savage."
By the way, it's "Savage's".
That liberalism is taking normal conversations
In your pathetic world, calling liberalism a disease is merely "normal conversation." How sad you must be.
and changing them into hate filled monologues
I doubt that this, or any other logical statement, is ever going to penetrate, but your side is the one that's cornered the market on hate speech. Read the entries on Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others on Savage for examples.
campaigning against America and those who love America
Get this straight, LL: nobody loves America more than we liberals do. That's why we're so keen on making it work well.
(One Nation Under God).
Don't try to sneak in that late red-scare-era addition to the Pledge of Allegiance as if it were, or had always been, a truism. Your atheist neighbors are just as lawfully Americans as yourself.
EC is correct in pointing out that no one has given a reason why Dr. Savage wrong in his assessement [sic], just that he is a ____ (you fill in the blank).
No, Evil Conservative was dead wrong about that, as are you for parroting him.
That surely shows that liberalism is harming America when liberals can't even discuss a point without lowering themselves to childlike name calling.
First of all, it's "childish," not "childlike." Look up the difference, and you may learn something.
Second, if you could take your blinders off for a moment, you'd see that the name-calling by the neocons on board is far greater in vitriol and in per capita amount than that of any other group.
Third, how does it harm America? Freely-expressed differences of opinion are one of the things that have kept our country strong. If you're going to be consistent--which frankly, I don't expect--you'd say that the kind of childish and cruel remarks by Savage and his followers are what's actually "harming America."
"why he is wrong for thinkin that liberalism is a disease that is eroding away everything that made this country strong?"
Liberalism brought us:
Freedom for the slaves
Voting rights for women
Working rights for women
The end of segregation
Workers rights
The New Deal
Social Security
Medicare
Which one of these things has affected you or a family member?
Do you have any parents or grandparents who depend on Social Security or Medicare to make ends meet?
Did your mother ever have to work so your family could make ends meet?
Savage's claim that liberalism makes our country weak is absolutely baseless. It is liberal ideas that have unchained us, empowered us, brought us together, put us back to work and kept us out of poverty.
THAT is how you make a country strong.
The Bill of Rights, child labor laws, liberalism saved democracy AND capitalism thanks to FDR.
the GI bill, free speech (while it was encoded in the Bill of Rights we had until the sixties a malicious libel law which made criticising the government illegal, this is what put Eugene Debs in prison for six years for making an anti war speech) Worker Safety laws, Medicare. This is actually a VERY long list
is comedy.
Its only comedy on Planet Wingnut where reality has no ability to penetrate the atmosphere
Is a lame comback.
You asked the question, I answered it using basic American history...
and all you can do is call it 'comedy'?
No elaboration, no explanation.
You're talking a big game and you can't bring it.
" Liberalism brought us: "
Freedom for the slaves -- Lincoln did that, he and the northern states that fought against slavery weren't liberals. The southern ones that wanted slavery were.
Voting rights for women -- That's in the constitution, they had them all along, just didn't use them. Like being able to smoke.
Working rights for women -- They've been working at raising families for centuries. You don't consider that work?
The end of segregation -- Southern liberals are what CAUSED sergregation, now you're taking claim to ending it? Sen. Byrd still wishes there was segregation!
Workers rights -- To do what? What did liberals do here?
The New Deal -- That was a democrat, not a liberal
Social Security -- I don't know, so won't say anything
Medicare -- ditto
Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, first recognized government in the world to do so. Lincoln was a bit late...83 years late. Abolition in the North American colonies began in Germantown, north of Philadelphia, amongst pacifist immigrants from the Rhineland. William Penn freed his slaves over a hundred years before Washington did. The Revolution was not even over when we enacted the world's first abolition law, a phased abolition that saw the last slaves on the books in 1833...the same year England and New York finally abolished. And when Ben Franklin returned from Paris after the Revolution, he became president of the Abolition Society.
So that's Ben Franklin, a bunch of Pacifists and a Quaker....yep, that's liberal. I think we scored on ending slavery.
Freedom for the slaves -- Lincoln did that, he and the northern states that fought against slavery weren't liberals. The southern ones that wanted slavery were.
The Southern states have NEVER been liberal. They may have been Democrats (Dixiecrats) back when that was the party of racism, but that didn't make them liberals.
Voting rights for women -- That's in the constitution, they had them all along, just didn't use them. Like being able to smoke.
No, women didn't have voting rights until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920.
Working rights for women -- They've been working at raising families for centuries. You don't consider that work?
What a bizarre change of subject. You should be on right-wing radio.
The end of segregation -- Southern liberals are what CAUSED sergregation, now you're taking claim to ending it? Sen. Byrd still wishes there was segregation!
Those are lies. Southern liberals did not cause segregation, and Sen. Byrd does wish it still existed.
Workers rights -- To do what? What did liberals do here?
Read about the U.S. Supreme Court's early 20th-century decision in Lochner v. N.Y. and its aftermath.
The New Deal -- That was a democrat, not a liberal
Why wasn't FDR a liberal?
LL-Time: "Social Security -- I don't know, so [I]won't say anything"
Funny, it never stopped him before.
I had to come to a compromise with my brain cells to address it at all they adamantly demanded the right to commit mass suicide if I address more than one of your incredible flights from reality. I chose this one.
Voting rights for women -- That's in the constitution, they had them all along, just didn't use them. Like being able to smoke. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
If that is true why did it take a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to allow women the vote?
[link to www.law.umkc.edu]
Nineteenth Amendment Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920. Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
People have only the rights they can apply, only those rights. Its just dumb to say they had the right to vote when they COULDNT VOTE.
Amendment XV - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
[link to www.usconstitution.net]
They HAD the right to vote, but chose not to excersize that right until they had sex in the constitution. If you pay attention to the first 4 words of this ammendment, you'll see it says "the right of citizens", it doesn't say the right of men citizens. And it doesn't say the right of every citizen except women.
So you're saying that, prior to 1920, a woman in a non-suffrage state could go vote? If they tried to stop her, all she had to do was invoke the 15th Amendment and they'd let her vote?
You said the right was IN the constitution. IF it were in the constitution all it would have taken would have been a court decision instead it took a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Your attempt at logic is an embarassment. It took the 14th amendment to give the franchise to African Americans and the 19th to give it to women. Again you make the mindnubmingly inane argument that women HAD the right to vote and CHOSE not to use it. That is astonishingly dumb. Why wouldnt they just CHOOSE to start voting instead of CHOOSING to go through all the trouble of getting a constitutional amendment passed. You really are not very good at this.
We had this thing called the Bill of Rights once. It had all this cool stuff in it like the right to know what our government is up to and to not have it torture anyone and not to think it could just arrest us and kill us without a trial.
Well, now we got the world's largest prison population, our govt is torturing people, and has signed a law into effect that allows them to arrest, try, and execute in total secrecy. Those are not things we're supposed to have, according to the rulebook.
Yeah, I think we've lost some rights.
love useing the race card... What the hell does hte KKK have to do with it?
KKK is often used as a synonym for hatred, racism and bigotry.
Savage is a hateful racist bigot.
This man is the most horrible vile person on radio today.
And the evidence is the quatity and severity of ignorance and hatred that spews from the trolls that invade this site to defend him on most Savage threads.
Y'know, it's exceptionally difficult for me, a thinker, to rebut such an ill-devised analogy, for I would have to lower my standards of thought down to Savage's savage level in order to even begin to dissect the malfunctioning mechanism which produced such flagrant idiocy.
To wit: Savage is an archetypical throwback. I say seal up his cave, and be quick about it!
Why of course, it doesn't matter what 'church' you're talking about, just so you attend one! They're all the same big structure, anyhow. The Church is what makes America strong! And liberalism hates The Church! It attacks The Church! (you know, Catholic, Baptist, World Chutch of the Creator, Mormon Church, Methodist Church, Christian Science Church, Unification Church...they're all good!)
Liberals are Godless, people! They destroy America! They're a disease that must be stamped out for the good of the body politic!
Now go to The Church!
the Constitution and not being held accountable for it helps defend America. Expanding presidential power and breaking the balance between the three branches of government is what threatens America, even more than any terrorist can. Tell me how liberal who defend the Constitution destroys America.
Liberals defend freedom of religion. To defend it, the government must stay neutral and not endorse any Church.
...but now I've ruined a good dress shirt for nothing.
It's kind of absurd, isn't it, to lump all churches together into One Generality--especially since they've tended to attack each other with real weapons over the centuries.
It's a weird combination of shallow Eisenhower piety and right-wing eliminationism, isn't it?
Does tomato juice get this stuff out?
Some conservatives really do think the way that you spoofed.
as a slogan at all for many, many years.
"RULE OF LAW"
I can't imagine Savage or his minions are down with the World Church of the Creator... oh wait, yes I can.
The church of the subgenius, Bob Dobbs rules, the eternal seach for slack.
for the freedom to worship as you see fit. God Bless, Jesus was/is a liberal. Read the words in red, Jesus is surely saddened for being hijacked and used for hate and bigotry.
I would hardly call Jesus a "liberal". He did NOT support abortion and He did NOT support gay marriage, I see nothing that leads one to believe He supported unions, either. He advocated action, too, not appeasement. Read the whole Bible, not just the words in red. It is ALL from God, not just the red lettering.
Jesus didn't oppose gay marriage or abortion or unions either. If he did, please show where. As for action vs. appeasement, what does the following mean to you: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Sounds like appeasement to me. As for the non-red part of your bible, that's not what CitizenBing was talking about, was it?
He advocated changes in the Church structure to allow the poor and the sick into the Temple. He talked of feeding the people, the symbology of the fish is about feeding the masses. He went around healing people. He wanted to remove the corruption of money from the holy places, the thing that angered him most. After he left the scene, his followers set up in communistic villages in the Lebanon hills. He was the Che of his day, a rebel liberal doctor.
He never mentioned abortion or homosexuality...ever. It's not in the first four New Testament gospels or the Gnostic ones either. There is no record of his opinions on the matters at all. But his "Do unto others..." would apply I think. He was pretty consistent ethically.
I think a lot of the US's "christians" need to get back to Jesus. Rediscover him again, without the other books involved, realize the core message. I do plan on reading the Gnostic gospels soon....they say the one by Thomas is very good.
the words in red are all that matter, the rest is hogwash
Somewhere a bridge is missing its troll.
"Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation? Well, the church. They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years."
At the risk of sounding crass and unsensitive, I really have to ask as a Roman Catholic, what the hell does Michael Savage, a Jewish man know about Catholicism? My guess is he knows about as much on Church doctrine, as I know on the subject of herbal medicine.
Savage is entitled to his own opinion's no matter how much they make me cringe, but really you're not going to appeal to me as a Catholic by promoting intolerance.
Gee, what group was all up in arms about the Catholics a few years ago, accusing them of covering up?
"Gee, what group was all up in arms about the Catholics a few years ago, accusing them of covering up?"
People who have a problem with child molestation. That's who.
was people who molest children angry at the competition. They didn't really care about the molestation, they just wanted to put the catholics down. After all, the reich only claims catholics in their total counts of christian vs muslim to boost their numbers. otherwise, they just hate catholics.
are way to sensitive. If you take him seriously you need to get a grip on things. His words may be harsh, vial, rude, ect. But look past all that and he is simply tired of the way things are ran in goverment. JUST LIKE YOU AND I.
I personally, HATE the ACLU. My reasons area quite simple. They will back up any fight, GOOD, BAD, WRONG, or RIGHT. Where do they draw the line? Where do they draw the line? Before you know it, cops will have to protect themselves with water guns..... Arrrgggg
What do Liberals have against the Church? I dont understands that one.
Christian has nothing against the church. He just wants it kept a country mile from our government. Look at the history of Europe and how the internecine religious wars washed their shores in blood for a couple hundred years and you can see just one reason why. Also the country was founded that way. Jefferson once said he knew of no priest ridden people remaining free. I love churches. I dont want them having ANYTHING to do with GOVERNMENT and niether does the ACLU
" I dont want them having ANYTHING to do with GOVERNMENT and niether does the ACLU "
Explain to me, if you can, why the ACLU finds it so offensive for San Diego to have a cross on government land? What religion is this cross "forcing down your throat" that the ACLU finds so offensive? How does a cross create the impression that the government is endorsing a particular religion? And, what religion is it endorsing by having a cross on government land?
Explain to me, if you can, why the ACLU finds it so offensive for San Diego to have a cross on government land?
Because it is a violation of the First Amendment for the government to endorse religion by having religious displays on PUBLIC property. That property belongs to Jews, atheists, Muslims, everybody. Not just Christians.
What religion is this cross "forcing down your throat" that the ACLU finds so offensive?
It's not the religion that's offensive, it's the forcing. And the religion is Christianity, in case you were unaware what religion the cross represents.
How does a cross create the impression that the government is endorsing a particular religion?
Gee, I don't know. How could a huge Christian symbol on public land create that impression?
And, what religion is it endorsing by having a cross on government land?
Christianity. You must not be familiar with it. It's a popular worldwide religion, the symbol for which is the cross.
So why is it ok to show pagan symbols on government property? The pagan religion is OK, but others are not? Typical, the ACLU picks and chooses what to argue against. They'll argue against religion in public places, yet allow religion in public places (as long as it agrees with their agenda). They spout off about being the campaigner of equality, yet bar "certain" groups of people from holding leadership positions (and even membership) in the organization. In other words: "I can be intolerant, but YOU can't be and I'll sue you till you aren't!". That's an organization you call fair and seeking justice? Well, I don't. They are what they fear...communistic.
" The ACLU/SC also threatened Los Angeles County, California if it did not remove an image of a cross from its seal, yet the centerpiece of the Pagan goddess Pomona was not mentioned. "
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
And, what religion are the Ten Commandments endorsing? Have they suddenly become only a religious decree, forcing religion down your throat, too? From some of the ACLU's battles, I guess they would NOT want "thou shalt not murder" touted in public buildings, huh?
The Ten Commandments are Jewish and Christian. Government displays of the Ten Commandments on public property are government endorsements of sectarian beliefs. The Ten Commandments do not mirror actual laws in any jurisdiction in this country. Find a jurisdiction in which it is illegal to have graven images, to covet, or to disrespect your parents and we'll talk.
Even though you HATE them, the ACLU will still defend your right to "vial" speech. Savage's too. The "line" you're looking for is the Bill of Rights.
--"[Savage] is simply tired of the way things are ran in goverment."--
But Savage didn't say he was "tired of the way things are run". He compared "liberals" to a disease.
to him, you would know he is tired of being taxed without representation. But your opinion(s) simply come from the comments MMFA cares to share with the thier heard of sheep. BAAAAAAAA BAAAAAAAAA
Between us, and you Wanker. Personally, I have not the time nor energy to listen to a bigoted, racist hatemonger, not to mention absolutely zero interest.
We are sickened by his hate-filled rants. You think they're funny. That's another big difference.
His position on taxation is irrelevant here, and used as a distraction by you. But hey, that's what you guys are best at- changing the subject when it becomes uncomfortable, untenable, or indefensible.
at the Bill of Rights, sometimes that means defending Rush Limbaugh, sometimes a kid who wears a tshirt with Jesus on it and gets kicked out of school. The ACLU and groups like them respect the Bill of Rights across the board. If you look at the cases they take, they are nothing if not consistent. I don't like some of the arguments they make regarding certain things, but those arguments need to be made in a free society.
"Before you know it, cops will have to protect themselves with water guns..... Arrrgggg" --the wankler
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Before accusing liberals of being "too sensitive", why don't you try to avoid using an imaginary grievance against the ACLU.
Get back to me when the ACLU actually tries to eliminate handguns from the police force in lieu of water guns. Then you may have a valid point. I will be right here holding my breath.
The ahh, "water gun" commment. But I guess liberals really are not that tollerlent.
But I guess liberals really are not that tollerlent.
We're a lot more tolerant of dictionaries, that's for sure.
Goodness, it happened again. Sorry, again.
I do wish that things were set up wherein a little gaffe like this wouldn't change the appearance of subsequent entries. How about it, tech guys?
You guys are way to [sic] sensitive. If you take him seriously you need to get a grip on things. His words may be harsh, vial [sic], rude, ect. [sic] But look past all that and he is simply tired of the way things are ran [sic] in goverment [sic]. JUST LIKE YOU AND I [sic].
I personally, HATE the ACLU. My reasons area [sic] quite simple. They will back up any fight, GOOD, BAD, WRONG, or RIGHT. Where do they draw the line? Where do they draw the line? Before you know it, cops will have to protect themselves with water guns..... Arrrgggg
What do Liberals have against the Church? I dont [sic] understands [sic] that one.
The scary thing, Wankler (I suspect you may have meant "Wanker," but misspelled it), is that your ideas are on a par with your presentation. You may have hit a new low on this board, and that's impressive!
Sorry about that, folks. Having to do so many of them, I managed to miss one.
What comes out of your mouth Michael is, in essence, diarrhea...
Is, indeed, a historical anomaly. It has sprouted up in various forms throughout history, only to be crushed by the oppressive, reactionary norm. Our founding fathers were liberals, despite what the Christofascists try to tell us.
If Liberalism is a disease, then the only cure is Fascism.
I think the founding fathers would rebuke that, if not puke at the attempt of the liberal democratic party trying to make the government bigger than the people. If you want me to start throwing some founding father quotes at you I will.
You can just keep puking up GOP talking points...wouldn' t want you to hurt yourself.
would I hurt my self I all have to do is type their names into google and they pop right up.
I especially like the quotes warning of the dangers of organized religion. Goody!
Both sides can find founding father quotes to support their point of view. You have to look of the entirety of their writings and their actions to properly understand each of them. But I'd venture a guess that the founders would find the current majority party to be a strange acculmation of weirdoes. Remember the founders were the intellectual elite of their day; you guys would have hated them.
I meant to write accumulation
Would have been what they called "royalists" in those days.
conservatives cannot be part of the intellectual elite. I guess its because we are backwoods rednecks. But... I have read a lot about the founding fathers and I don't think I would hate them at all. Sure there are some things that I don't agree with from the likes of some of them. However, there view on the involvement of the government was clear. The less the better and we have done nothing but move in the opposite direction of that.
Is limited to those who increase government waste and government intrusion into our lives, then George Bush must be the biggest "liberal" of them all.
I certainly think William F Buckley would be considered just that. They however have no place in the Bush administration nor on a website appologizing for and supporting Micheal Weiners insane rantings
hate your handle. I wasn't saying that a conservative intelligentsia doesn't exist. The DC right wing think tanks employs many of them, they’re the ones who devised the so called Bush Doctrine and the disastrous Middle East Democratization experiment. But you know the conservative intellectual ELITE kept quite silent while the right wing political operatives encouraged the Republican base to hate the liberal Professors and Liberal Reporters who they often lump under the category the “liberal intellectual elite” I suspect you know exactly what I'm speaking of.
there are plenty of conservative elites. They make up the bulk of the military and media, despite your beliefs to the contrary. The media never contradicts the messianic mission of the U.S. government and overlooks all of the atrocities this nation has wrought on people on foreign soil in favor of nationalisitcally proclaiming America's benevolence and selfless sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. The owners of capital in this country are all run by power hungry conservatives who have no regard for workplace safety and unionization laws. The conservative elites run this country, the leftist elites have little influence 0n anything, and never did.
That would explain why the current government has grown to it's greatest size ever. Gee, maybe it isn't big government you fear, just liberal government. Makes sense, after all, liberal government is for all people, yours is only for you people. Zeig Heil!
I know and I am not a complete Bush backer I disagree with him on many things. This discussion isn't about Bush though its about liberalism. I think Bush has taking a step backward in keeping the government small on spending but is doing a good job in other areas.
I meant to type old instead of HOLD.
au·thor·i·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-) adj. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian regime. Of, relating to, or expecting unquestioning obedience.
Why discuss liberals when conservatives are obviously the greater threat to the constitution?
Why is Micheal Wiener so psychotic
Where? By whose definition?
Said Jimmy Carter was like Hitler so he is fair game for a return serve, you rightwingnuts sure hate it when yours are treated the way they treat others. Typical and sad
And your ignorance is appalling. The founding fathers were clearly liberal. They set up our government along enlightenment values.
stop calling me ignorant and prove it.
--"stop calling me ignorant and prove it."--
You're doing fine all by yourself.
with you people. Always calling me stupid or ignorant. I have yet to call anyone ignorant here. I might diagree with you but I don't think your dumb. You guys do find job of skirting the issue to call me dumb.
“He who knows best knows how little he knows” -Thomas Jefferson
You are supporting calling liberalism a disease, you are saying I am diseased then snivelling like a six year old girl on the playground WE are calling YOU names. Here is a clue you desperatly need. Conservatives are NOT entitled to an exclusive franchise on insults and personal attacks. I know you would LIKE it that way but realistically that just isnt going to happen. You want a more temperate debate climate dial down YOUR rhetoric.
I agree with your point. To add to your point, I do think that conservatives tend to throw insults and spew their vitriol because they don't really have anything of substance to say. They have no clear agenda. They have nothing to bring to the table. If they did, they would truly talk about the issues instead of spreading lies, reporting rumour as news and hurling insults at those who don't agree with their twisted opinion.
In debate, the one who leaps to insults, loses. Ad hominem attacks are classic logical fallacies. Conservatives just choose to ignore logic and go for the juggular (sp?).
CSL
Ignorant is not synonymous with dumb. You can be quite intellegent but be uninformed. Dumb is not having the ability to process information but being ignorant is being unaware of the information. He didn't call you dumb.
Haha, That's a good one. Read about the alien and sedition act and what Jefferson did to REPEAL it.
Then grow a brain.
of YOUR baseless assertions I might take the time to do just that but rather as Dave so graciously pointed out your every post proves it as much as looking at the sky proves its blue
" stop calling me ignorant and prove it. "
Don't even bother trying. All that person does is call people names. A lot like he/she claims Dr. Savage does, only it comes from a liberal so everyone thinks it's ok. I've never read a decent discussion from that person since I've been in this site, only name calling...constantly. They try to rile you up into a heated arguement, then "flag this comment" to get you kicked out. That's how these liberals deal with conservatives. I know I've scored major points when that person "lectures" me on how "_____" I am (fill in the blank with any derogatory word).
And YOU and Evil. YOU guys are telling me that as a liberal I am diseased. I am saying that makes you both morons. And Wiener based on his past insanities a pschotic moron. Doing the same thing. The difference is I am returning serve I didnt START calling him a moron or Evil until you guys began telling me being a liberal made me diseased. The other difference is I never made any claim to higher purpose. YOU BET I will call you names if you tell me being a liberal means I am diseased, I am not Ghandi. YOU dont get an exclusive franchise on personal attacks. I know you rightwingnuts THINK it is your God given right but that is just one more in your long line of delusions. I also do MUCH more than these personal attacks. I have been here a long time and if they were ALL I did I would have been banned long ago. No, I am reasonable to those who are reasonable. Wingnuts who want to define whatever insults THEY make as just obvious then snivel like six year old girls that they dont like being treated the way they treat others are pathetic and not worth giving any anlysis which I do often and well. I dont treat Jeter this way, nor usually Righton. Nor Another American. YOU however are not worth wasting brain cells on so you get the short treatment, you throw mud I throw it back. Its cheap but I amuse myself that way. And perhaps, if I am lucky, one day you will wake up and think wait if *I* dont like being insutled maybe, just maybe, I shouldnt insult other people. I wont hold my breath.
I guess this is what passes for cherished wisdom in his twisted world. Adolph would be proud. Weiner (Savage's real name) learned his lessons in hate filled simplistic rhetoric well.
evil conservative, if you agree with savage that liberalism is a disease, etc., do you feel that our liberal soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq are somehow unfit?
why is it that almost none of the conservative leaders or pundits have served?
I never served either but I still have as much combat experience as bush, cheney, rumsfeld, o'reilly, hannity, limbaugh, etc. combined. hell, so does my cat.
...he probably has more combat experience than any and all of them.
of course they are not unfit and I see them as I see all people whether they are conservative or liberal, human beings. I don't see liberalism as a disease in the physical sense but as a mental dichotomy that could tear down some of the values and princples that made this country strong. We didn't become the most powerful and successful country (while being one of the youngest) with doing things wrong more than we did right. Both parties are at fault for riping the very fabric and policies/philosophies of our founding fathers. As far as serving, I have served in the Military and so has my father(who is actually in Afghanistan as we speak). However, one of the most influential people in my life did not. My grandfather never served in the military however I never held it against him. Our Army is made up of volunteers and they deserve alot of credit for what they do but to say that people who have not served have no right to make military decisions is absurd. I guess we could just have the military run our foreign policy though if you would like.
Have been torn down by Liberals and only liberals...be specific please.
I already called him out on his accusation of widespread misconduct by public school teachers and answered his challenge to point out why Savage is wrong.
He never responded to the former and all he had to say to the latter was "that's comedy". He had nothing interesting to add, no further debate, no 'game'.
This is just another person who makes mindless, idiotic accusations about progressive liberalism that he can't back up and can't debate.
Was anything but an object of pity and a psychotic with delusions of adequacy
As syphlis eating away at the brain of America. Demanding we conform. That we care only about ourselves and deify economic Darwinism. People like Savage wont be satisfied until we all have pin up posters of Ebeneezer Scrooge over our beds. And worship at the alter of President Gump. No criticism must be allowed of the fearless leader, the one that hid under the bed in a bomb shelter in Nebraska on 9/11. Until the idea that we are all in this together is replaced with the holy grail of conservative thought that selfishness is the highest ideal. I got mine get yours or starve becomes our national motto. Unitl fighting wars for corporate profit is seen as patriotic. Criticising the President becomes a crime punishable by imprisonment. That would of course only apply to conservative presidents moderates like Clinton would still be fair game. Until America looks just like Big Brothers America of 1984 where inconvienient facts are immediatly consigned to the memory hole and we have always been at war with Eurasia, or is it Oceana? It doesnt matter because our fearless leader can switch from one to another just like Bush switched from WMDs to 9/11 to collaborative ties to al Queda to whatever todays excuse for invading Iraq is and his mindless minions will just repeat the new storyline with no qualm about what it was yesterday or that yesterdays excuse turned out to be hogwash. To me that seems to be Savage and by extension YOUR vision for America. I think I will pass
depressed. Has anyone gone to prison here for criticizing the President?
Of that whole long post, that was the ONLY thing you respond to? Typical.
supposed to respond to? How I hope he conforms, and that we we went to war for corporations and such and such....come on. I'm not going to waste my time I'm a conservative I know what conservatives believe in and none of that is true.
I don't see liberalism as a disease in the physical sense but as a mental dichotomy that could tear down some of the values and princples that made this country strong. Or supporting Wiener telling us liberalism is like the HIV virus. You arent wrong about baseless assertions like this being entirely useless to an informed debate. You are however perpetuating a double standard when you criticise ME for doing EXACTLY what you and Wiener are doing. How in the world isnt this crystal clear to you?
on like this. We have different opinions, I don't believe your assertions to be true and you dont believe my assertions to be true. So lets agree to disagree, I do see it as crystal clear the only problem is there is no way to solve it. I don't believe we are at war because of some type of corporate stranglehold, you do. I believe conservatism is the right philosophy, you don't. So whats the answer? I'm not saying you as a person are equated to a disease, I think your philosophy is. I have attacked your philosophy and you have attacked this sniveling 6 year old girls intellegence. I would never call you ignorant because you are misinformed but I would call you wrong. I won't call you or anybody on here a moron because they don't believe what I believe. Attack my beliefs all you want but don't attack me. Its debate not high school.
Ok and mine as venal. No dice. I am a liberal, you are saying my political philosophy is a disease. I am saying that makes you a moron. Both are the same thing, worthless, baseless assertions. The difference between us is I am returning serve and you are snivelling that we are treating YOU the way YOU are treating US. Repeat after me WAAAAHHHH is NOT a political argument. Do you REALLY believe that if Iraqs major export were artichokes we would be there? Why DID we overthrow democratic governments in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Chile ( a partial list)? Why DID we replace them with dictatorships? Iran (oil nationalization) Brazil (the Hanna mining company and ideology in general) Guatemala ( the United Fruit Company, now Chiquita) Chile ( ITT and one of the most important copper mines in the world). This is the way the world works and has for some time. I dont care that you dont see it that way but I certainly have a lot of factual evidence to back up my claim. You want to have THIS kind of discussion? I am all for it. IF you really think though that you should be able to come in here and tell me I am diseased but hey dont call ME names you arent even worth my time.
You come on here and support baseless assertions about what Liberals believe and defend someone who refers to Liberalism as a disease. And you wonder why people are calling you ignorant?
Just give them time. Several have been "forceably removed" for wearing t-shirts. Does that count?
the veteran coffee incident. That is laughable.
Sheehan was also arrested at a Gump speech for wearing a tee shirt and two federal employees were arrested at a Gump speech in Tenessee for wearing anti war tee shirts. Do you EVER know what you are talking about?
Have you ever heard of a "dress code"? Probably not. Those were "suit-tie" dinners that they were kicked out of, not back yard barbecues.
The one in Tennessee was a political rally Sheehan was arrested at a SOTU address. NEITHER was a formal event people were wearing tee shirts at both events. Here is an idea why not at least once in your LIFE trying to know what you are talking about. Give it a try you might like it.
For just that. Dont get discouraged though, it takes time to ripen a true Fascist state and you guys are well on your way.
we are fighting fascist states. you should go leave in a country ruled by a fascist and then maybe you will realize how far we are from that.
for lack of trying.
And the REASON that is true is people like ME and the rest of the liberals here understand that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance that power concedes nothing without a demand NOTHING. And that only by holding accountable the very government and every administration, which works for US by the way, will we STAY that way. Dissent is THE crucial ingredient. The very dissent that the right wing has been attacking viciously since they did the 180 the day Clinton left office and a conservative president entered. Why dont YOU go live in one of those capitalist paradises that we created like Guatemala, where your black fascist heart would fit right in then tell me how well our military misadventures for corporate profit have benifitted the people there. Brazil, Iran, Chile, all of them had the US end freely democratically elected governments and installed dictatorships. Iraq is just another example of the same pattern.
Not yet, but I seem to recall hearing a lot of calls for journalists to be imprisoned for doing their jobs. As a Canadian I watch the American Rhetoric and I wonder just how far your government has truly gone. It's actions certainly don't seem to fit the American ideals that I've read about.
but many have been intimidated into silence and have received discriminatory treatment as a result of their outspoken views on the president.
Perhaps you should research how protestors at the 2004 RNC in New York were treated or how innocent Iraqi protestors were assaulted by U.S. troops on several occasions. The U.S. has a long history of limiting freedom of speech beginning in 1798 with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act. For a long time, it was a felony to distribute ANY information pertaining to abortion or birth control.
The military and those that make the money from it do run our foreign policy....haven't ya noticed?
Thas right.
in essence, the Ebola virus . . .
"but to say that people who have not served have no right to make military decisions is absurd. "
but I do think they would have done well to listen to the people with combat experience who advised them to initially hit with a tremendous ground force. Also, it seems that people who have seen war as less likely to jump into it so easily.
I think it's important to have both liberal and conservative viewpoints and policies but the crushing of the liberal voice over the past few years has been a concern. There are no checks and balances and even Republicans who are appalled at the Bush policies are afraid to speak up.
Weiner is equivelent to Mad Cow Disease. Enough exposure and you stop making any sense whatsoever, and think unfunny things are somehow funny.
Overzealous immune response: On the other end of the scale, an overactive immune system figures in a number of other disorders, particularly autoimmune disorders such as lupus erythematosus, type I diabetes (sometimes called "juvenile onset diabetes"), multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis. In these, the immune system fails to properly distinguish between self and non-self, and attacks a part of the patient's own body. Other examples of overzealous immune responses in disease include hypersensitivities, such as allergies and asthma.
Why would anyone care what this phoney has to say. Twenty years ago he was touting coffee enemas as a cure for viryually everything. He tried to make it big during the health food craze as a phoney nutritionist and now he is a phoney outraged conservative because thats where the money is.
...is, in essence cancer.