Savage on Boxer: "[Y]ou little weasel, you. You harridan, you"
On the January 8 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called Sen. Barbara Boxer* (D-CA) a "weasel," a "harridan," and a "lying little witch." Savage also asked of Boxer: "How many different Botox treatments do you have to get till you realize that nobody believes you?" He then suggested that the reported "stink in New York" happened because "Boxer and her family had visited New York and opened up the bedroom door."*
As Media Matters for America has documented, Savage previously claimed that the Senate has become "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it. In 2003, Savage was fired by MSNBC for telling a gay caller to "get AIDS and die."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the January 8 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
[begin audio clip]
BOXER: I'd like to cut taxes for the middle class. I'd like to cut taxes for the families who are struggling with the kids with college tuition and the rest. But I certainly don't think that we should extend tax cuts to people earning over millions of dollars. It's ridiculous. They don't want it, they don't need it. We have deficit --
[end audio clip]
SAVAGE: Wait, wait, wait. You mean like yourself?
Who are you fooling? Just who do you think you're fooling, you little weasel, you. You harridan, you. Who do you think you're fooling with your new hairdo and your lipstick going up to your nose? How many different Botox treatments do you have to get till you realize that nobody believes you, that you're just part of the Democrat [sic] machine, that's the only reason you're in power? No one believes you in the whole world. You lying little witch, you.
Who does she think she's fooling? I can't take it anymore. You talk about the stink in New York. I thought maybe Barbara Boxer and her family had visited New York and opened up the bedroom door. That's how I feel about them.
*Correction: The original version of this item attributed an audio to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [D-CA] when the clip is of Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]. Media Matters for America claimed Michael Savage called Pelosi a "harridan", a "weasel" and a "witch". Additionally, Media Matters asserted that Savage asked Pelosi: "How many different Botox treatments do you have to get till you realize nobody believes you?" In actuality, both the ad hominem attacks and the question were directed at Boxer. Media Matters regrets the error.
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
What a despicable human being. He's competing with Rush for woman hater of the year award. I think Savage won this round, that ugly C word is probably right on the tip of his tongue.
any attack on a woman in power makes you a woman hater, any attack on a minority group makes you racist. Did it ever occur to you that these people are not beyond reproach? Do you really want a hugfest and everyone to be nice to her because she's a woman? That is sexism if you ask me. True equality is getting trashed whether you're a man or a woman. If you actually listened to Savage's show you'd realize he trashes everyone. He calls OReilly "The Leprechaun" and calls Limbaugh "Hush Bimbo" and a bushbot. Liberals are so quick to judge without having all the facts aren't they.
Let's stop fooling ourselves with this website too. MMFA is mad at ABC for deleting a liberal blogger, yet MMFA deletes accounts here all the time. MMFA is mad because Beck got hired for a new job while Brock is ignored.
If men like Savage and Beck would ever apply the same level of discourse toward our male leaders in assessing them (ie the type of insults), then I would think that your assertion has merit. I doubt that David Brock would ever be jealous of a weasel like Beck.
"If men like Savage and Beck would ever apply the same level of discourse toward our male leaders in assessing them (ie the type of insults), then I would think that your assertion has merit. "
Savage does.
If you think that this kind of language is good for anyone, whether they be an elected official or not, is ridiculous. There is nothing gained from gutter insults such as this is......except the obvious one > he is begging for publicity which he hopes leads to more listeners.
As for this website, I have issues with many items they post here and say so. But they provide a service and an exchange of ideas from all points of view are welcomed.
He's not attacking her policies, he's attacking her physical appearance. He's not making a sound argument as to why you shouldn't believe Pelosi, he's talking about her botox injections, and her lipstick. He's calling her names, he's not having a debate, he's making woman hater remarks.
Show me one little piece of evidence in his rant that says anything about her policies, and the way she's running things in the House so far. There isn't one shred of it in there. He's just ad hom attacking her for her appearance of all things.
Pelosi, is not above reproach, nobody is. But if he's going to attack her personally, and not her governing and leadership, and her policies, and the laws that she wants passed, he's just a pathetic little whiner. Now, if he said something intelligent about why he disagrees with her as to why she wants to cut taxes for the middle class in this little passage of his, that would be fine. But he doesn't. It's ad hom, all day, all night. Surely, you can see the difference.
True equality is getting trashed whether you're a man or a woman
Only in the mind of a warped right winger does this make sense.
When a 40 year old woman bald and with a pot belly can look in a mirror and say Yeah, I look good.
"As Media Matters for America has documented, Savage previously claimed that the Senate has become "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into" it. In 2003, Savage was fired by MSNBC for telling a gay caller to "get AIDS and die." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Please defend this sexist garbage, and yes if women are attacked simply for being a women I kind of figure the attackers don’t like women. That goes for you guys always running to the defense of the bigots of late when they attack and promote hate of a religious group (MUSLIMS) simply because they belong to that group than that's indefensible try as you guys will.
He did not respond to Nancy Pelosi's statement about taxes, he went right into attacking her appearance and then ripped into Senator Boxer.
That's not the behavior of a man. That's the way a spoiled little boy reacts. It is inexcusable and hateful. People like Savage not only make me ashamed to be a man but also ashamed to be the same species as they are.
Anyone is above reproach, another weak strawman. Did Weiner make a valid complaint about Pelosi's actions or policy stances? NO with his typical mix of insanity, stupidity, and jr high heckling he called her names. Weiner is a waste of precious oxygen. An embarrassmen to America
Has said the the Senate has become more vicious because women have been injected into it. That's an actual quote from him.
He isn't even taking an issue with Pelosi here. He's just doing childish attacks on her without trying to dispute her on the issues.
i love how
any attack on a woman in power makes you a woman hater, any attack on a minority group makes you racist....If you actually listened to Savage's show you'd realize he trashes everyone.
-------------------------------------------
Yeah, make the world safe for white racists! Yay! There's still some humanity left to trash! Devils thou art loosed!
and once again a conservative fails to see the nuances that signify hate speech. What makes him a woman hater is that he ascribes Pelosi's repulsiveness to the fact that she is woman, and then generalizes about all women in this manner, how about this chestnut for instance: "Senate is more vicious and more histrionic ... because women have been injected into it". Likewise he makes negative statements about gays out of hand and makes no secret that he thinks their gayness is enough reason for them to be hated. He does not call O'Reilly names simply because he is a man, while it seems he acts that way toward women.
I know this is hard for some poeple to believe, Savage is no woman hater. He will scrutinize he like most of the media will. Only he will call he like he see's it.
Think about it.
She wants to tax the wealthy.
1. Does that include her?
2. Because of he status, will she be excempt from those increases?
Because, we all know money feeds the feeble politicians. If it was to affect her, and she voted for it knowing it , my respect level would climb. Otherwise, she can like the rest of them, "Go to hell in a bucket"...
He's not attacking her policies, he's attacking her personally. He has shown time and again that he indeed hates women in power, and is afraid of them for some reason.
I don't know whether Savage hates women or not? His personal dislike of likes are irrelevant. But his style is so transparent, it's hilarious. He is the textbook definition of a "shock jock" - his schtick is to purposefully personally insult and use provocative and offensive language, for it's own sake. He has no real interest in furthering substantive debate on anything, or solving or addressing any real issues in a meaningful manner.
His only concern is himself and his self promotion. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that - just don't cloak it in some other lofty goals about your country and what's best..........he just comes off as a hypocrite.
I understand he is one to throw out insults like I throw out the trash. I get tired of hearing it at times. With that said, he does get some very intellegent people on his show. More latley then in the past. So, I look past most of the name calling.
Judging by some of your recent posts, you tune right on in when he's on the subject of immigration, eh?
Illegal Immigration - you bet your a@s I do.
His disrespectful statement against women certainly is relevant; at least it is to me. Savage can take issue with Pelosi on policy, but I'm sick of these bigots spreading hatred and this is a hateful statement" Savage previously claimed that the Senate has become "more vicious and more histrionic than ever, specifically because women have been injected into it. “ It's easy when you’re not the target of these stereotypes you have the luxury of dismissing them as no big deal, but Savage plays on the simple minded who may not VOTE for a smart capable competent woman who shares their political beliefs by the way simply because they are a women. I know you guys say Savage and Limbaugh don't have much influence anymore, you're wrong and I know they are my enemy because their rhetoric fuels a behavior and a belief that is detrimental to me. I don’t think I’m over reacting when I take offense at this statement. I also know that if you replaced the word women with the word conservative you would be irate and you know it Tommy.
I said that Savage's personal likes or dislikes are irrelevant to me, as are yours or anybodys. We all have them, but our character is how we act on them........it appears that Savage has very little character. I don't argue what he said was offensive, of course it was.
My point was his tirades are all self serving.
I think it's sad that you are this indifferent to bigotry. That's a huge difference between you and I. Bigotry truly does saddens me, but hey I'll survive!
Don't assign false assumptions to me, you have no idea. I said I don't know what Savage's likes are, I did not say what he said was no big deal. By saying they are irrelevant to me, they are. What is relevant are his actions, not his private bigoted thoughts.
his private bigoted thoughts are not private. They are right out in the open.
Lynn's assessment is spot on.
''Don't assign false assumptions to me, you have no idea. I said I don't know what Savage's likes are, I did not say what he said was no big deal. By saying they are irrelevant to me, they are. What is relevant are his actions, not his private bigoted thoughts.''
Boring. You're trying to differentiate between his actions and his opinions??? What do you know about his actions? He kicks peoples dogs when he's out walking, that would be bad, right?
The truth is, as you attempt to ignore, that Savage's opinion, expressed on a national radio show, ARE his actions. What he has to say, and his bigoted attitudes, expressed on air, are the actions we are here and now judging him by.
Your semantics, in attempting to steal the argument to an irrelevant sideshow, are extremely frustrating.
>>"I said that Savage's personal likes or dislikes are irrelevant to me..."<<
No, you said they were "irrelevant", not "irrelevant to me". NOW, when someone responds that it is relevant and should be relevant, you're trying to weasel out of what you said.
Are not serious? Ya right, I meant they were not relevant to Mickey Mouse.
Is foolish argumentativeness a hobby of yours?
>>Is foolish argumentativeness a hobby of yours?<<
This isn't an "argument". It's a fact you didn't say "irrelevant to me", you said "irrelevant", period. Rather than simply admit it, you say I'm foolish.
Let me admit this. Your foolish argumentativeness doesn't matter.......or should I say - doesn't matter to me.
Even grownups get this.
>>"Your foolish argumentativeness doesn't matter.......or should I say - doesn't matter to me. "<<
I couldn't care less whether it matters to you or not. And again---I wasn't "arguing" with you. There is nothing to "argue", since I stated a fact. You just can't admit it and won't let it go.
As for argumentativeness, it's the sole reason you are here--to be argumentative.
Anyone and i mean ANYONE who actually takes time out of their day on a regular basis to listen to this vile, moronic little insect is doing themselves and their community a serious disservice. Whether or not Mr Weiner has mildly intelligent guests on his "show" is totally irrelevant! He is a bile spewing little hate-monger. The relative merits of his occasional guests mean nothing as he clearly picks them on the basis of how much they might help to further his own prejudices. He rarely, if ever addresses issues of substance. Rather he prefers to hurl personal insults at public figures who, regardless of how much you like or dislike them, have proven a commitment to public service and intelligent debate that this insult to rational thought could never possibly understand. Savage appeals to people who are so frustrated by their inability to express an intelligent thought that they pray for a commentator who sees things in the simplest, most childish terms; one who can paint a picture of the world in black and white (crayon); cheerleading and pure hatred; faith and pure evil. People who view the world this way have wasted the wonderful opportunities of education, growth and wisdom that a rich society like the United States offers its citizens. Utterly revolting.
Anybody who believes any intelligence is produced by this show is a damned fool. A fool is one who values ignorance over knowledge.
who believe in something to their deaths, you decadent animals. Get fatter on your couch while good men and women die for your entertainment you pigs. O'Reilly suckers - you are not patroits but killers!!! Shame on you!!!
Until you "actually know" that it will not include her, his attack is pointless and your point is mute.
1. Of course. 2. Of course not.
There. Next question.
how do you know this?
Since no law has been passed yet, we have no way of knowing what it includes. But, on what basis do you assume Pelosi favours a law increasing taxes on everyone but her?
I agree that it would be a rotten thing to do; I also think it would be bad if she were found drowning puppies, but I have no more reason to suspect the former than i do the latter.
Are they on the same Social Security plan we little peons are?
No......
Members of Congress have been paying into Social Security since 1984:
[link to www.snopes.com]
Not as I have heard. They passed thier own damn retirement plan, right? A real cushy one if I remember right.
Why assume they are evil because they get good benefits? Last I checked, lots of civil servants get good benefits and enjoy excellent retirement packages. Do we really need to call someone evil because they get a good retirement package? I understand they wrote it themselves... but I'm curious... if you had the opportunity to write your benefits package, would it be a lousy one? Frankly, I'm tired of attacking politicians just because they are politicians. I'm not willing to give them a pass, but perhaps we could move on to how we feel, substantively, about their records.
And a good retirement package, one that my union negotiated so I guess you could say we wrote it ourselves, in fact I am not even IN Social Security, does that make me a bad person? I hope I dont drown puppies, that would be bad
They are already fat as cats, and make it so they have no worries for thier future. Most important,
Do you feel they deserve it? Them being the politicians?
I do not feel most do. Self serving slobs they are.
This has nothing to do with the average Joe.... No insult meant SOLON, :0)
I thought we were talking about tax increases. I swear man, sometimes you go off to a place of your very own...
For what it's worth, I think Congress should not be able to set their own salary and benefits, that's just ridiculous.
what the hell does botox have to do with that or the smell of Barbara Boxer's bedroom?
This is what Savage does. Why not just ignore him? Frankly, after reading the transcript, I didn't find any media distortion in it, just vicious attacks without merit. In fact, it sounds kind of like some of the vitriol that gets thrown around on this site from time to time. It's best to ignore people like that.
People like Savage are cartoonish entertainers. To give them more importance or relevance than that is just feeding their egos.
Why I'll agree that he is a cartoonish entertainer, one only has to listen to his show and hear his callers chiming and, and realize that there are indeed a flock of people who follow him, and hang on his words, and take them to truth. And since there are a lot of people (8 million or so) that listen to him, that's a lot of dangerous rhetoric getting out there, even if you say only 1/2 of the folks listening take him seriously, that's still 4 million people believing his rhetoric and his vile.
That's dangerous, especially when he does add nothing but hate and vitriol to the mix.
---"Why I'll agree that he is a cartoonish entertainer, one only has to listen to his show and hear his callers......"---MAGNOLIALOVER
ig-nore: To refuse to take notice of....
their elected leader? Gosh, that worked so well for them...
I didn't realize Savage held office but then I've been busy ignoring the wealth of others and working for a living. PLEASE don't ask me what I do for a living. It's none of your business and I'll just ig-nore you.
I wish you were correct, but you're not. Savage and Limbaugh have huge audiences and their audience are dedicated voters from what I understand. Savage and Limbaugh have a detrimental effect on our country because -
1.) They promote ignorance and bigotry.
2.) They send these ignorant bigots to the polls.
meant members of their audiences are dedicated voters.
Mass media conglomerates are using these Ku Ku Klucks to socialize (brainwash) the masses while the enlightened stand aside and look.
If they did, the Dems never would have taken over Congress. Most Americans know that it's better to give new leaders the benefit of the doubt. And the kind of attitude that says "Who do you think you're fooling" is completely contrary to that American attitude.
...I think you're right. Although I share some of Lynn's anger over this guy Savage's bit... He's a non-player. And, by his desperate tone... he's not going to be around much longer.
my concern is that Savage is such a vile hatemonger that having his much spread acroos the airwaves is likely to one day spawn another Tim McVeigh. Ignorance breeds more ignorance which eventually breeds hatred and in the end violence. The issues isn't Weiner, its that there needs to be a rational debate about what is and is not public discourse. I'm not talking about restricting free speech, I'm talking about public standards - we don't broadcast hardcore porn on daytime T.V do we? HATE HAS NO PLACE ON OUR AIRWAVES.
How many people read the persoanl, immature, irrelevant attacks posted here? A few 100k maybe? Savage has millions of listeners, including people who are'nt specifically tuning into hear his show. One may stumble upon his show by scanning the AM band. No one posting here is paid to do so by a huge multi-national conglomerate. No one here assume the pseudo legitimacy of a "talk radio personalty". No one here is using a federally licensed publicly owned radio frequencie to broadcast to the entire solar system. Mr. Savage must be held to a much higher standard than a poster to a web site that is one of a few billion. Duh
>>"just vicious attacks without merit"<<
Oh, is THAT all??
The right, as usual, imposes very low standards on like-minded creeps like Beck, but much, much higher ones on the left, on like, say, Dan Rather or Sean Penn. When it comes to someone on the left making even a mildly negative comment, the right somehow just can't seem to "ignore" it or "look the other way".
Slanthead's first "Enemy of the State"
I really just don't understand where all this hate comes from. This rant was just over the top.
I read the transcript, however brief, and while it certainly was a "hateful rant", I simply could not see what the guy's bark was all about...
...with whatever it was the Speaker was about to say (as the transcribed part that was apparently an audio clip on the guy's radio broadcast)...
...about to say about tax cuts for America's wealthiest taxpayers (it appears the audio clip was terminated at the word "deficit").
Is that what keeps this guy employed by whatever the "Talk Radio Network" is...
...his being some kind of vitriolic pitbull for the interests of whoever (and however wealthy) owns the "Talk Radio Network"?
Me, I'd just as soon see a vicious dog put to sleep, as to hear it growl and bark and maybe bite someone.
How about all those voters that put her party in power? I would calling that believing her.
Has what to do with what has been happening in DC since the democrats took over? Nothing at all. It's all an ad hom attack. In one breath he says about Pelosi, "Wait, wait, wait. You mean like yourself?" when referring to increasing taxes on the more wealthy of people in the US instead of the middle class. Yes, she does mean herself in this case. She's willing to pay more, and to charge the middle class, who need it more, less. What's the problem with that? I dare say that most folks reading this are probably middle class, and would agree with that. And most people listening to Savage's show are probably middle class or lower (I'm sure he has some wealthy listeners), and would like to have more money in their pocket as well.
What does her hairdo, her lipstick, or her botox injections (if she did get any to start with) have to do with cutting taxes on the middle class? Nothing.
Just more vile and spew from the closeted woman hater that is Michael Weiner Savage (hey, nice made up last name there chump).
---She's willing to pay more, and to charge the middle class, who need it more, less. What's the problem with that?---
There's nothing wrong with Pelosi wanting to pay more. She can right a separate check to the government and include it with her taxes any time her little heart desires. The problem with her rhetoric is that it divides Americans into classes and stirs up envy. I'm happy that Pelosi makes a lot of money. That's good for her, her family and the economy in general. What torques me is the way democrats like her and the other class/race/gender hustlers in congress continue to divide Americans. You know, the same way democrats have pitted Americans against each other for decades by coining terms like "African-American", "Chinese-American", Hispanic-American", "Rich-American", "Poor-American", "Middle-Class-American", etc, etc. They haven't started "classes" of "Balding-Americans or "Fully-Haired-Americans" yet but that's probably not too far off if they can figure out a way to gain some political "advantage" from it.
like n*****-lover, c***, k***, feminazies, democRATS, and all those other lovely ones your type of loser likes to use...
"...with her rhetoric is that it divides Americans into classes and stirs up envy."
No, I think it's the pro-business-screw-everyone-else policies of this Government that do that.
When I get the equivalent of a huge pay cut because the price of gas skyrocketed, and I see what Exxon's earnings were last year, the resulting feeling is not one I would characterise as "envy."
When there is a problem the villian is never the ones that CAUSED the problem only the ones that point the problem out. So its NOT dividing Americans to cut taxes on the wealthy while cutting programs that benifit the middle class or to use tax dollars to create bussiness opportunities for private profit, its pointing out that those things are happening that is the problem. When the rightwing read the old saying that where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise they only read that ignorance is bliss, and made it their mantra
Your very post screams out "envy". Life will be a lot happier (and probably more prosperous) if you stop focusing on what others have, continue working your butt off and counting all of the blessings that result.
...that I am working five days a week instead of seven, that I have a Bachelor of Science (thanks to a government subsidized loan), that I breathe (reasonably) clean air and drink(acceptably) clean water, is because whiny, complain-y, "envious" activists fought for these rights to be enshrined in law.
I do, regularly, count my blessings and am justifiably proud of what my hard work has brought me. But I am also - unlike you - humbly thankful for the hard struggle and sacrifice of those who fought for my right to enjoy many of the blessings I have today.
---"But I am also - unlike you - humbly thankful for the hard struggle and sacrifice of those who fought for my right to enjoy many of the blessings I have today."---
I mean no disrespect but what do you mean? Who are those who fought for your right to enjoy many of the blessings you have today and why do you automatically assume that I'm not equally thankful for these people? I'm probably just dense. Will you clarify?
The labor movement!
My point was that it's not just about working hard - a lot of the benefits we enjoy now were achieved by people who fought the status quo.
All sarcasm aside, again, I am not motivated by envy, but rather a desire for justice.
Of Sir Isaac Newton saying if I have seen farther than others its because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. The sacrifices of the working people in this country have brought us a lot of benifits lets share them. Lets see how much I can get from these benefits and screw everyone else is just so tawdry.
Now I get it; it's only those in a "union" who are part of the "labor" movement. US auto companies are doing pretty well under the union extortionists are they? San Diego, CA is a heartbeat from bankruptcy because of gold-plated government union benefits and health care that can't be paid for. Some "inconvenient truths": [link to www.unionfacts.com]
are in trouble because, for the most part, their cars are crap compared to the imports. Blame unions all you want but it's poor decisionmaking by management that's the real culprit. Example: GM and Ford put all their eggs into the SUV basket, and had nothing to go to when gas prices spiked (as they inevitably had to) and the customers stopped buying. Unions' fault? Nope - management.
---Blame unions all you want but it's poor decisionmaking by management that's the real culprit---
Management: "Should we try to increase our R&D budget this year so can beat our competition?" Union: "What??? You just try it and we'll sit on our asses and shut you "CORPORATE PIGS" down!!!"
How do you explain that the (more successful) car industries of the other industrialized nations are equally (and often) more heavily unionized than than the American one. And I find it funny that you characterize collective bargaining as "extortion" althoug it is considered a human right for workers to organize. In 1980 the only industrial country that was more often condemned by the ILO for breaking this right was South Africa. By the mid 90s America was officialy the worst.
Great post! These are my sentiments exactly. I'm so glad that there were people who cared enough about others to expand and facilitate opportunity to those of us who otherwise wouldn't have had it. I like most of the people I know who went to college went with the help of government loans. I also worked and my parents assisted as much as they were able to on a working class income ( A Postal worker and a Factory Worker). I am very grateful for that, and may God bless America!!!
A minimum of financial security, enough food to eat, access to good education for their children. I have all those things and much more. I want my neighbor to have them that is envious how? No in fact it is YOU who show the envy. Like the poor schlimeal pressing his face on the window of the fancy restaurant hoping if you kiss enough wealthy butt you will get some crumbs. Like my two friends in high school. Our QB was a rich good looking jerk, he treated everyone like dirt, no one denied this but one of my friends would call him on it and another of my friends would always make excuses. He is under a lot of pressure, his friends make him act that way. Now we can all see which of my friends was being envious and which one you are like. Projection is not your friend
A few weeks into my freshman year of High School, I saw a bunch of senior football jocks "pants" a freshman and throw him into a trash can. I still remember how utterly pissed that made me and I can't even imagine how that poor kid felt. A few days later one of these seniors (who was more than a head taller and outweighed me by at least 50 lbs) was barreling down the hallway at full speed right towards me trying to make a class. Just as he reached me, I stepped out of his way, put my foot out and sent the oaf flying. I'll never forget the sound of his wind being knocked out as he bellyflopped onto the marble floor. It was delicious. Not just for me but in a tiny way for that kid who let himself get pantsed. I hope you were never that kid who got pantsed, Solon.
...offer this anecdote with so much juvenile pride if I were you.
It's juvenile to expect the world to be a place free of bullies where only flowers grow and soft, fuzzy bunnies scamper about in the warm Spring air. Sometimes you have to step up and thump the bullies to make the world a better place. Like we just did in Somalia.
Sean Hannity.
Your suggestion that it is envy that motivates dissatisfaction with the economic and political structure of the nation is predicated on the assumption that the accumulation of material wealth is the chief aim of all Americans. Sadly, that assumption is for the most part true in the case of Republicans. Americans who are not interested in voting Republican on those grounds generally end up doing so purely because of the tactic of instilling fear about the threat to what they have already accumulated (ie: Democrats want to tax you into the poor house etc. etc). One of the clearest indicators of this is the way that Republicans consistently push their supposed protection of Family values, claiming to be looking out for the little guy and aligning themselves with traditional Americans, all the while taking bribes from the likes of Jack Abrammoff or chasing young congressional pages or diverting tax dollars to benefit powerful business interests in their district instead of improving educational opportunities for hardworking families in the Heartland. You need to realise that politics is about more than simply supporting your team against the other guy - that sort of thing is Fox news thinking (if you can call it thinking) - politics is about paying serious attention to the words of your representatives and holding them to those words. It's all very well to talk about family values, the heartland, think of the children and all that empty rhetoric, but when the people who spout that go on create a massive deficit, send decent patriotic kids off to a futile death in the oil fields of the mideast, trash the country's most beautiful natural gifts and do nothing to help the poor to lift themselves up into a more culturally rewarding existence, you need to ask yourself - "why should i ever trust them again?"
Go ahead and call me a "loser". That's fine. Just don't call me any of the names you just used asterisks to 'spell' out.
But there is class warfare in America. What Pelosi, and some others want to do, is to make it a little more even between everyone, at least this is the way I understand it. It's not like this is a made up thing. There is a huge yawning gap between the richest folks in the US, and the middle class. She's trying to close it, even a little.
it might be more correct to say "there was a class war in America."
The investing class won, by default, because any attempt to restrain their total dominance if this nation's economic policy was attacked as "class warfare."
Thats what happens when you have a war and only one side fights because the other side was convinced the war was so mean to the poor guys on the other side. Class warfare is wrong so dont look at the guy behind the curtain busting unions, sending factories overseas and giving your tax money to Halliburton, Bechtal et al while cutting THEIR taxes.
Solon. That's all. Cheers.
it's a totally inequitable distribution of wealth and services that divides Americans into classes and while Speaker Pelosi can WRITE a check whenever she likes, this misses the point. One of the mottos of the American Revolution was "no taxation without representation" - today it should be "equitable taxation and equitable representation" - that's why Americans have thumped the GOP for dropping taxes for the richest 1% of the country and sinking themselves into a despicable mire of corruption - "Jack Abramoff....oh no i never heard of him."
The problem with her rhetoric is that it divides Americans into classes and stirs up envy. I'm happy that Pelosi makes a lot of money. That's good for her, her family and the economy in general. What torques me is the way democrats like her and the other class/race/gender hustlers in congress continue to divide Americans. You know, the same way democrats have pitted Americans against each other for decades by coining terms like "African-American", "Chinese-American", Hispanic-American", "Rich-American", "Poor-American", "Middle-Class-American", etc, etc. They haven't started "classes" of "Balding-Americans or "Fully-Haired-Americans" yet but that's probably not too far off if they can figure out a way to gain some political "advantage" from it.
- gttntoobed
--------------------------------
And white racist cons have been looking out for us for oh so many years - ah the good ole days when the N-word was enuf.
Wake up pal. Pelosi didn't create classes, races or ethnic groups. You're just mad because we took the power to define ourselves whether you like it or not.
I'm wide awake "HURU". You don't know me or anything about me so don't assume things. I'm actually glad the "republicans" got thumped in November. They deserved every last black eye and fat lip they got (except for Santorum). They spent like drunken democrats (an oxymoron), they kept the borders wide open with illegal cop-killing, child trafficking, drug dealing, car stealing, raping invaders roaming the country freely. They thought "power" was their birthright and some of them used illegal ways to keep it. But guess what? They're gone and it's a great thing.
And what do you mean by: "And white racist cons have been looking out for us for oh so many years - ah the good ole days when the N-word was enuf." ???
Do you really need someone to "look out" for you? If so, that truly is pathetic. And what is this "us" business?
tell us a little about why Santorum didn't deserve the big black boot.
I guess he really did "deserve" it since he was voted out. But voters get the government they deserve. Santorum is an honorable man who ran in a state that doesn't deserve him. Sort of like Tom McClintock in California.
"Santorum is an honorable man who ran in a state that doesn't deserve him."
The afterglow of the midterms has faded a bit for this lefty, but there are still things to be happy about.
Happy: Bush has to at least pretend to listen to others. Happier: My student loan interest rates will drop. Happiest: Rick Santorum has to dust off his resume.
You can cry about MM standards being flouted if you like, but your take on him is unadulterated rubbish. I try to give credit where credit is due, and there are quite a few honorable, intelligent, reasonable, respectable, and respectful voices on the right--and Rick Santorum has never been among them. Ever since his first term--spent gleefully blue-slipping Clinton's judicial nominees--down to his last act in the Senate--voting against Gates' confirmation as Defense Sec--Santorum has been one of the most deliberately divisive and partisan figures in our government. His medieval social agenda--and his bullheaded, hateful, and diversionary attempts to promote it--have borne out the worst social-conservative stereotype in every imaginable way. No state deserves Rick Santorum. (Please note that these are not attacks on his looks, aroma, or education level, but rather on his policy stances.)
Your half-hearted defense of Savage here ("Just ignore him") makes somewhat more sense now.
I called Santorum an honorable man. What, exactly (no hyperbole) has Santorum done that is dishonorable, other than holding political views that are the polar opposite of yours? Remember, no hyperbole.
...pertaining to hyperbole. If there were, you certainly wouldn't last long here. I'll say what I like, thanks. Feel free to offer direct refutations if you can.
Two less-than-honorable positions:
1) His naked, thoroughgoing homophobia, and his idiotic insistence that gay marriage and gay rights are undermining the fabric of our society. His direct participation in efforts to distract voters from the real business of the country by whipping up marriage amendments that he knew full well would not pass. Political pandering sideshows are not the actions of an honorable politician.
2) (Not entirely unrelated to the first.) His vicious and repeated attacks on international charitable organizations that attempt to deal with issues like overpopulation, HIV transmission, prostitution, etc. with strategies other than abstinence. His brimstoney rhetoric toward the Red Cross and other orgs that (gasp) promote condom use and realistic sex ed is, um, pretty dishonorable.
I'm guessing that his "honor", as you see it, lies precisely in these issues, and that his rigid, ignorant pietism and homophobia are, for you, honorable positions.
Good luck with that.
Your idea of "honor" seems to be someone who agrees with everything you do. I can't help you with that.
As much as I'd love to hear all about the troglodyte definition of "honor," I'm too busy imagining all the little weeping Santorums at the podium, supporting Daddy as he thanks PA for his 12-year stint representing his views rather than those of his state's citizens.
And if you honestly mourn him, that's pretty much the last nail in the lid of the coffin of your credibility. Or maybe the whole lid.
"Troglodyte"??? That's so...so Seventies. And suggesting I "mourn" him? Just a tad melodramatic, don't you think? Have fun with whatever your odd imaginations about Santorum's kids bring you. Good bye.
but Santorum and his ilk have revived it with a vengeance.
Go to bed, already.
They put him in a straight jacket & took him back to his padded cell at the asylum.
Seriously, what on earth was he going on about? Botox? Open bedroom doors?
Pointless, foul mouthed gibberish.
No one likes foul mouthed gibberish more than I do, but this clown made no sense, and as you said it was pointless.
He's ranting and this is what happens when you’re spewing hatred from the guts. You can't even think clearly so everything comes out disjointed and incoherent; I can just imaging that spit was flying everywhere. Damn women!
Only a weak pathetic person speaks this way about women. I almost said a weak pathetic man, but then I remembered I was talking about Dr. Weiner.
In otherwords, talking about a man like that is ok?
If she was a right wing host would you care?
Man or woman. He offered nothing against her stand on taxes. He attacked her appearance. Only a pathetic person behaves this way. Some people lose it in the heat of a debate, but to ignore the other side and just attack based on appearance or smell or whatever this clown was getting at is childish.
thanks.
it would be the blind, slavish repetition of GOP talking points that we'd be discussing. Look at Ann Coulter for instance....sure it's easy enough to say that she's a skeletal manalike with a huge adams apple, but the more relevant points are about her ignorance and biggotry or the fact that she advocates the execution of public officials or refers to a former VP as a total f#g and so on and so on. That is clearly the more important front to approach her nonsense on.
...people listen to this without getting physically ill, let alone agree with him? For me it's almost impossible. After reading the transcript, I decided to listen to him saying, and i feel so disgusted by it. I'll always wonder how the people, that listen and agree with this guy, are in daily life... do the millions of listeners he has spew forth this kind of garbage on a daily basis too?
This hatemonger last week also said that he was sick and tired of seeing Betty Fords face and sick of the funeral coverage of President Ford, saying he should just be buried allready.
He is the most vile, disgusting person on the radio.
Actually for anyone asking "what does it matter if Weiner hates women and broadcasts it nationally."
There are some very sound and non-political research projects involving hate speach and its affects on the average person. So far the ones I have read (I'm try to find the links as I type this) all say that any time hate speach appears in media the levels of violence against the group mentioned "surges" (like my use of words?) or spikes.
(For example each time a state votes on a anti-gay marriage amendment, the level of violence against the LGBT community in that state increases. Or as in the case of the repeal of the ban on gays in the military and the hostile homophobic public remarks many lawmakers made the level of attacks reached a all time high, which has not been reached before.) Read this for an example of hate speach and its affects: [link to www.splcenter.org]
So if mr. wiener (his real last name BTW) is not able to see women as his equals, he should not create a climate in which possible violence is the result.
Okay can't find all those links I saved, but if I do I will post them later.
guarding the treasure of his corporate masters.
Lots of spittle and noise, not so much logic.
He's a sweetheart and resents his breed being mentioned in the same post as the rabid human, Dr. Weiner.
That's our boy Michael Savage. I think he needs to seek immediate psychatric help.
Must we go through this again?
From MMFA's Do's and Dont's:
"We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. Please express your opinion without insulting other posters."
From ZEROSUMGAME0005 to this poster:
"do you ever have anything on-topic or even half-way awake to say?"
"can you read english at all?"
And this gem:
"as opposed to 'reasonable' label cons 'coin'? "like n*****-lover, c***, k***, feminazies, democRATS, and all those other lovely ones your type of loser likes to use..."
If MMFA's rules mean anything, can we all please abide by them? I guess we'll see.
gttntoobed5295.
Is that a good thing or can I expect to be shot in the back if I say something "wrong"? There seem to be some hair-triggers around here...
I've been saying the same thing for a few weeks now. For example, as much as I dislike everything she says and stands for, I wish posters would refrain from using the same language about, say Ann Coulter as Savage uses here. It reeks of hypocrisy.
Well said. But you find too many who agree with you on this. Their standards for lowly posters who sling offensive slurs around here is far different than those who spew the same on talk radio - they will say their audience and influence is far greater........and on that they may be correct. But gutter language and childish insults are equivalent in their senseless nature and weak minds, no matter who utters them. It has nothing to do with their affect or how many people hear or read them.
Best to ignore those that can't help themselves.
But you WON'T find too many who agree with you..........
If MMFA's rules mean anything, can we all please abide by them?
Just FYI, there is a "Flag this Comment" link at the end of each comment.
I think that's reserved for people who have been here for a long time. Besides, there's nothing wrong with speaking for yourself.
Several notable wealthy folks have expressed their desire to pay more in taxes if it means that general societal conditions can be improved. I imagine that Speaker Pelosi's wishes would be congruent with what she has campaigned on, and what her voters believe: that tax cuts can be better targeted to provide relief to Americans with lower incomes, and that Bush's tax cuts cannot be made permanent unless we want to exponentially worsen our nation's economy.
Newsflash, kids: trickle-down economics is so 1983. Revenue spikes tied to tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans are negligible in calculating the health of our economy. Economy will improve if workers can feel secure in their occupations, make enough to afford their lifestyle, and enjoy the opportunity to save some money for when they are no longer able to work.
The economy suffers when workers fear losing their jobs, can't afford the things they need (like regular doctor's visits), and increase their debt to make ends meet instead of squirreling away money for that imminent rainy day. Oh, yeah. Senseless war and a government body swimming in corruption don't help either.
...the significance of Savage's verbal attack on Pelosi's body. If a woman is young and lovely and therefore appears fertile, posters will invariably comment on her beauty. If she's flawed in some way (Age alone is considered a flaw in women.), people focus on her physical shortcomings. Because this occurs much more with women than men, it's sexist. And women suffer.
All women hear: "She's not pretty enough, young enough, thin enough."
Even if it's not aimed at us, we suffer collateral damage.
Women are twice as likely to be depressed as men and twice as likely to be mentally ill. Of course, I can't confidently correlate these conditions to systemic sexism, but I do suggest the possibility.
Few posters here are female, so trust me, fellas: we have to swallow a lot of sheet. We all hear the attacks on the faces and forms of various women and we fold that into our flesh, just as we hear of some woman's rape in our hometown and we carry the knowledge of that rape wherever we go. We also know that rape is least prosecuted crime. 3% of rapists go to jail. You're more likely to be jailed for stealing a lawnmower than raping a woman. So, we understand our value and when men like Savage attack a woman's face, we understand how we are valued.
When men let this kind of comment pass, they are in a way setting up their wives, daughters and mothers for the same type of treatment.
All women are lovely. Men too. Every shape and size.
It's some people's minds that are ugly.
you, you, you (I can't say, or I would be banned from here). If your rants work for you, so be it, but if I were you (thankfully not), I don't think I could sleep at night.
I am one of the rare people in all of America who actually listens to both left-wing media (air america, democracy now, Bill Maher) and right-wing media (Rush, Medved, Beck, and Ingram).
What I can tell all you liberals about Savage, if you actually listen to his entire show, is that you would agree with 40% of what he says. He thinks the media is controlled by too few corporations, he is pro minimum wage, he has called for corporations to stop being so greedy so the american worker can do better, he is against free trade, he thinks our Government is controlled by a bunch of high society frat boys, and he thinks the war is not going well. The truth about Savage is that overall, he tells it like it is. You liberals however, may just disagree with his way of solving the Nation's problems. Try listening to an Entire show once. You'll agree w/ me.
If I would agree with 40% of what he says if even 10% or less is this hatred, bigotry, and inane namecalling. If I like 40% of my dinner and the rest disgusts me I wont go back to that restaurant. Your point makes no sense whatsoever. I bet Mrs Lincoln liked 90% of the play but that shooting her husband in the head thing just ruined it all. Weiner is insane, bigotted, and obnoxious. Why in the WORLD would I want to put up with that for a few kernals of something I like?
Too often I hear the "hate speech," "bigot," justification for not listening to a show. As you probably can tell, I'm on the far right on economic issues. But, nevertheless, I have listened to entire programs of Democracy Now, and Air America. Both these shows were equally hateful toward Bush or any other so-called conservative (which Bush isn't - conservatives believe in cutting spending, not going to war unless your own Country is in danger, not creating a "Plan D," securing the border, etc.)
All that I ask is that if you disagree with programming. You listen to the WHOLE show. I disagree w/ Media Matters, and yet I still read what they write.
If you are going to respond to this blog, please refrain from telling me that no form of "hate speech" should ever be tolerated. Otherwise, media matters would have to remove 80% of the blog posts on the website.
"Too often I hear the "hate speech," "bigot," justification for not listening to a show. As you probably can tell, I'm on the far right on economic issues. But, nevertheless, I have listened to entire programs of Democracy Now, and Air America. Both these shows were equally hateful toward Bush or any other so-called conservative- ldoren"
I too listen to many different shows. The difference though is in the speach. On the liberal media (with the exception of the Daily Show) they do not like Bush and the neo-cons. But unlike Savage and Rush, they do not resort to childish name calling to prove thier points.
Rush and mr. Weiner do not use facts or figures to back up what they are saying. They just launch into personal attacks at the start and believe that proves thier point. Which it does not, please show me in the article where mr. weiner actually talks about tax plans or how the proposed legislation is incorrect. He just attacks her looks and age.
The few times I have heard liberal commentators get abusive (which has been very rare BTW), it is usually after talking about a new law passed by Bush and friends or something like that.
Maybe it makes liberal commentators not as popular and not as fun to listen to. At some points its like listening to a shopping list being read on air. But liberals tend (and I do too) to enjoy hearing facts, over the rantings of some loud mouthed...etc.
Some of the best debates I've had have been with true conservatives (not neo-cons like rush and mr. weiner). They at least can argue in a civil manor. But usually when you throw someone like weiner into the mix it turns into a "I can shout the loudest" contest or "Who can come up with enough personal attack against you (the liberal), until you leave and my point is correct by default."
BTW mr. weiner is listed as both a racist and anti-semite (funny since he's jewish) by the Southern Poverty Law Center
Too often I hear the "hate speech," "bigot," justification for not listening to a show.
And it's a perfectly valid position to take, as Solon pointed out.
As you probably can tell, I'm on the far right on economic issues.
What's the relevance?
But, nevertheless, I have listened to entire programs of Democracy Now, and Air America.
Your willingness to listen to a wide range of programs certainly does you credit. I do have to wonder where you manage to get the time. Most of us have to pick and choose.
Both these shows were equally hateful toward Bush
This needs documentation. Give concrete examples of this happening, please. And remember, the vitriol has to match Savage's or you utterly fail to make your point.
or any other so-called conservative (which Bush isn't - conservatives believe in cutting spending, not going to war unless your own Country is in danger, not creating a "Plan D," securing the border, etc.)
Agreed. Bush is a neocon, not a true conservative. I think most people here would agree with that.
All that I ask is that if you disagree with programming. You [sic] listen to the WHOLE show. I disagree w/ Media Matters, and yet I still read what they write.
Why would you disagree with Media Matters? What they consistently do is quote people in their own words and in their own contexts, and recognize patterns of verbal behavior. You seemingly want everyone to do the same. Besides, until you can come up with documentation of equal hate speech from the left, your exhortation to us that we should listen more rings rather hollow.
If you are going to respond to this blog, please refrain from telling me that no form of "hate speech" should ever be tolerated. Otherwise, media matters would have to remove 80% of the blog posts on the website.
Well, 80% of those from the trolls, maybe. I've seen it happen many times that liberals will take one of their own to task if they step over the line. And the more thoughtful and reasonable conservatives will do the same. But if you truly think that 80% of the posts here are somehow in the same league as that which you're apparently defending from Savage, I really doubt that you are capable of being reached with any reasonable argument. Perhaps you should just save us all a lot of grief and simply go away.
I like to make clear where I stand politically before I write. That was why I stated I'm on the far right on economic issues.
I do recall Al Franken writing a book called, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot...and other observations." Al Franken has called O'Reilly blotchy. Air America was a nonstop shouting of Bush is an idiot, Bush is a dumb C average student, drug addict, Rush is a fat slob, etc. (I have heard this with my own ears a few months ago...I wonder why I can't hear it still on Air America today?)
I disagree with Media Matters and Democracy Now because their programming is used at well-known Universities in the classroom. Media Matters does not disclose their mission statement from this webpage to students, nor does Democracy Now, and consequently, students like myself, when I was in school, assumed Media Matters was just another nonprofit media group. When I learned the Media Matters only dispelled misinformation from the right, I realized I wasn't getting an education, but my professors were attempting to indoctrinate me into thinking like them.
"I disagree with Media Matters and Democracy Now because their programming is used at well-known Universities in the classroom. Media Matters does not disclose their mission statement from this webpage to students, nor does Democracy Now, and consequently, students like myself, when I was in school, assumed Media Matters was just another nonprofit media group. "
Is it your professor's problem that you can't do a little reading to find out more about a source. Any time I have had questions about information presented in class I always try to find out more (being a student and all, you know that who learning thing).
"I do recall Al Franken writing a book called, "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot...and other observations." Al Franken has called O'Reilly blotchy. Air America was a nonstop shouting of Bush is an idiot, Bush is a dumb C average student, drug addict, Rush is a fat slob, etc. (I have heard this with my own ears a few months ago...I wonder why I can't hear it still on Air America today?) "
As far as I know we are talking about radio show on the air, Al Franken can publish any book he wishes. You don't need to buy it. Every time I have heard comments like you describe "Bush is a dumb C average student (BTW that was a while ago), they were talking about his education. I have never heard the rest unless it was a guest on the show, sometimes guests can get a little out of hand. But if you have a clip to share or a source, please share.
If you saw the Media Matters programming in our classroom, you would understand what I mean. A video would be put in, we'd see the Media Matters Headline for two seconds, think nothing of it, and then listen to "scholars" discuss the "truths" of the media. There was no reason for any student to suspect an agenda. Moreover, since we were expected to learn the information in the video, most students just figured we were watching non-biased reports. (While media matters may highlight actual instances of misinformation, only highlighting misinformation on the right is the definition of bias.)
Okay since I was never in your class I will give you that.
"If you saw the Media Matters programming in our classroom, you would understand what I mean."
(yes and I know this is a little off topic)
Although I have found (especially in political science classes) that far more professors are conservative. Not neo-con, but conservative, i.e. smaller gov, not spending money, etc. (I have a funny story about one of my professors and his apparent lust of President Reagan, but it might get cut out if I included it here. Lets just say I wanted to tell him, "if you need to, take the picture and there is a bathroom down the hall.")
85% of charges of "liberal" bias in universities (that I've read about or been involved in) are usually made by neo-cons. They scream about the liberal universities not including thier material (homosexuality is a sin, abortion is evil, women are inferior, etc.). While their claims that thier material not being included are true, it is less bias and more an issue of "find actually facts, by actually objective scientist to back up your claims and we will talk about it." "And not one of those fringe scientists (like NARTH), who make broad statments without actual evidence and have been kicked out of every scientific association, for false results and/or acedemic dishonesty."
Okay that last post got off on a tangent.
"since we were expected to learn the information in the video, most students just figured we were watching non-biased reports."
In some cases yes professors do have a little bias and yes it can enter the classroom. It would be impossible to not have a little bias either way.
But did anyone question this material? In many classes the teachers present material to make a point.
Okay I got cut off before I finished last time.
....some times teachers bring up material to show a point and than open it up to discussion.
Indoctrination is a harsh word. Call it more "showing the word through my personal lens." A lot of neo-cons whin "but they arn't showing the world as I see it." Well my advice is simple, become a professor at a university. That way you can share your ideas! Its actually very simple, and look ma no need to pass legislation!
I actually enjoyed the classes taught by more conservative professors. I have my own views regarding many issues (conservative economically, more liberal in social issues, etc.). Having a teacher share their own views is a good thing overall.
Take ether for example, in physics for a very long time it was believed light and heat traveled throught this invisible substance called ether. Yes some people just accepted it as truth (especially those who had no interest in continuing with physics as a profession). It was the best theory at that time. But still a group of scientist asked "is this true?" After debating and maybe even arguing about it, it was found that it was not true.
But back to broadcasting, when people like mr. wiener stand up and attack personal traits. And never talk/debate about actually ideas or theories, that's whats wrong. Unless botox is a new economic theory I missed in all my classes.
When Savage says, "I thought maybe Barbara Boxer and her family had visited New York and opened up the bedroom door. "
Maybe I'm just a naive Southerner, but maybe someone could help me out here...
FYI - Would'nt old Mike be a male version of: Noun 1. harridan - a scolding (even vicious) old woman common scold, nag, nagger, scold, scolder - someone (especially a woman) who annoys people by constantly finding fault
Why is it you got the sound bit wrong then?
That was Boxer's voice not Pelosi. Try fact checking your crap every once in a while morons.
"No one believes you in the whole world." That's not even funny coming from this ignorant prick. Any judge who claims Savage really believes the lies he tells daily is lunatic. Savage and Bushco belong in jail for treason.
Yes MM has a liberal bias in most if not all of its stories. If you have a real issue with that, why are you here?
My current theory of why this is site covers only the mistakes of the far-right is simple. The neo-cons (notice I don't mean conservatives, just the neo-cons) just make so many errors and create so many simplistic/hate filled ideas, that to include the handfull media mistakes made by liberals would overwlem the site's servers.