Savage on Sen. Bernie Sanders: "a dirty socialist" who should "go to hell"
On the January 25 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage attacked Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT), saying, "Kiss my behind, you psycho," and "Screw you, you jealous loser." Savage also called Sanders "a rat," "a bum," and "a dirty socialist" and told him to "go to hell." These remarks followed audio clips Savage played on his show, in which Sanders addressed the issues of wealth distribution and childhood poverty. Savage asked: "Now, how did child poverty become an issue all of a sudden? ... Two weeks ago we heard that -- before the elections, three months ago -- that children were overweight and fat from eating too much McDonald's; they were dying of diabetes from being little piglets. Now, we hear about childhood poverty, childhood poverty."
According to The Washington Post, Sanders is "the first self-proclaimed socialist to become a U.S. senator," after being elected to the Senate in the November 2006 elections. He served in the House before that for eight terms.
During the same broadcast, Savage falsely stated that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "will not reply" to a report from InsightMag.com claiming that "sources close to [a] background check" supposedly "conducted by researchers connected to" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) found that Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia and spent at least four years in a madrassa, or a Muslim religious school. In fact, in a January 20 New York Post article, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, was quoted as saying that "[Obama] was not raised as a Muslim, and he did not go to a madrassa." Axelrod called the story "a complete contrivance," adding that it was "divisive, destructive garbage." Axelrod also stated that he did not "believe ... for a second" the idea that Clinton's camp was behind the allegation.
Obama's office also released a statement on January 23 that categorically denied InsightMag.com's report: "All of the claims about Senator Obama's faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story ... are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother."
During his program, Savage also said that, "assuming the world is still here" after a Clinton-Obama administration, Obama would then run for president with "Saddam Hussein's younger grandson" as his running mate.
From the January 25 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: But if you look at the attention that is being lavished on Barack Hussein Obama, you will see a completely unqualified man, who is being held up as a potential presidential candidate. Now, in spite of the media's attempt to push this anointed candidate over the top, Barack Hussein Obama is consistently outpolled by even minor entrants into the race like [2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and former Sen.] John Edwards [D-NC], a lawyer who made his fortune by suing doctors.
So, why does the media continue to position Obama as the front-runner? Here's Michael Savage's analysis: The liberal media is pushing Obama knowing he can't win. They're pushing Obama so that he becomes the target of critics instead of Hillary. Obama gets the attention, Obama generates buzz, and all the while Hillary flies along under the radar. Then after all of the conservative and other critics have spent all of their ammo to take down Obama, such as his years in a madrassa as a Muslim student in Indonesia, which he will not reply about, Obama then falls out of the race, but he comes back in a year as the VP candidate on Hillary's ticket. So, you'll have a Hillary candidacy with Obama as a vice presidential candidate, which will be a liberal juggernaut that will win in the absence of any real conservative opposition.
[...]
SAVAGE: Then after they get all of this press, and blah blah blah, then he says, "OK, now we're gonna run him as a vice president," and you say, "Well, you know, this guy could have been president. Why not?" They're grooming him for after eight years of the Clintons. Assuming the world is still here, then they give you eight years of Obama with Saddam Hussein's younger grandson as the vice presidential candidate.
[...]
SAVAGE: What should I talk about? Penny, is it time to call -- how about that freak from Brooklyn who lives in Vermont -- the socialist, who sounds like he's, you know, the ILGW: Bernie Saunders. I love him. Vermont socialist Senator Bernie Saunders, the guy who always sounds like someone's uncle. I had an uncle like this who I didn't like very much. No one in the family liked him -- he was a psycho commie.
So, this guy Saunders goes up, Bernie Sanders -- Saunders, is it? Or Sanders? What is his name? He's a complete and total lunatic. He goes up to Vermont; he pulls the wool over their eyes; he becomes their senator. When did Vermont become a socialist state? I don't know. What? When Ben and Jerry got there? I mean, are they crazy? Whatever happened to the rock-ribbed Republican Vermont with red barns? What are they making in those barns? They're not making milk; they must be making porno films.
So, here's Vermont socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, the commie from Brooklyn, and a voice on him, like -- this guy was like a ward chairman for a democrat in the 1930s he sounds like, or an ILGW low-level hack. He sounds like he could have been like Barbara Boxer's father. Listen to clip one.
SANDERS [audio clip]: We have got to address the reality that, in the United States today, we have by far the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major industrialized country --
SAVAGE: Kiss my behind, you psycho.
SANDERS [audio clip]: -- and that we have a moral obligation --
SAVAGE: Screw you, you jealous loser.
SANDERS [audio clip]: -- and we have a growing gap between the rich and the poor --
SAVAGE: Go to hell. How's that? Go to hell. I worked all my life for what I have and you'll have to kill me to get it from me, you rat. You know the thing about socialists that kills me is they're just jealous losers. They want the government to take away from those who made it on their own and give it to the schmucks or the idiots, or the lazy. Listen to this. It gets even worse. It's ugly. It's disgusting. Listen to this dirty socialist in clip two.
SANDERS [audio clip]: How often do we hear people say, "USA, number one"? And I share that sentiment. Unfortunately, in terms of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, we are also number one --
SAVAGE: Oh God!
SANDERS [audio clip]: -- and that is not being number one.
SAVAGE: Go to hell. How about going to hell? Get him out. Get him out of my headphones. Now, how did child poverty become an issue all of a sudden? The Democrats won by a hair and, suddenly, all of the old issues are back. Now, we're back to childhood poverty. Two weeks ago, we heard that -- before the elections, three months ago -- that children were overweight and fat from eating too much McDonald's; they were dying of diabetes from being little piglets. Now, we hear about childhood poverty, childhood poverty. Listen to Bernie Sanders, socialist bum, in clip three.
SANDERS [audio clip]: In 1999, the British government -- six years later, child poverty in the United Kingdom had been cut by 20 percent. Similar progress, as I understand it, has been made in Ireland.
SAVAGE: Ooh, wow. So, they've cured child poverty in the UK by -- what? Giving houses to Muslim immigrants and teaching the children how to set off a suicide bomb on an underground [subway train]? Poverty's over? All right, listen to clip four now from this lunatic.
SANDERS [audio clip]: Unfortunately, at the same time that Britain was taking important steps to reduce childhood poverty, in the United States, childhood poverty increased by about 12 percent.
SAVAGE: Right, that's the exact number of illegal aliens who invaded the country: 12 percent of the population. So, that's where the poverty came from, we imported child poverty.
[...]
SAVAGE: There is a solution, Bernie, to curing the childhood poverty: deport the 12 percent of children who shouldn't have been here to begin with because their parents came here illegally, and poof, there goes childhood poverty.
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
I ALMOST wish MMFA would stop giving this guy attention, but unfortunately I think it's necessary to keep documenting his hateful attacks on individuals.
"Savage asked: "Now, how did child poverty become an issue all of a sudden? ... Two weeks ago we heard that -- before the elections, three months ago -- that children were overweight and fat from eating too much McDonald's; they were dying of diabetes from being little piglets. Now, we hear about childhood poverty, childhood poverty.""
I shouldn't be surprised that Savage sees no connection there...
Maybe the kids are eating too many weiners, Mr Savage (weiner)
What's the connection between kids eating mcdonalds and poverty? You mean because the parents can afford to eat mcdonalds every day it puts them into poverty? Perhaps if the parents took some initiative and responsibility and actually cooked good meals for the kids there would be less of a problem.
Proud-Christian: "What's the connection between kids eating mcdonalds and poverty? You mean because the parents can afford to eat mcdonalds every day it puts them into poverty?"
First of all, if you're curious about the link between poverty and obesity, I'd recommend googling "link between poverty and obesity". You'll discover a number of scientific journal articles which find that the highest obesity rates are found among populations with highest poverty rates and least education, and that it costs less for producers to make more densely caloric food (Drewnowski and Spector. "Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79:1, pp 6-16.). In sum, the poorer you are, the less likely you are to have easy access to more nutritional food options.
So you're mistaking causes for effects: poorer people don't splurge by feeding McDonald's food to their children; rather, they can't afford not to. It's more expensive for a poor person living in a poor neighborhood to travel to where more expensive, more nutritional food options are available. Urban geographers have been saying this for a long time, but it's much easier to believe that poor people make poor choices out of irresponsibility (as you suggest.)
Proud-Christian: Perhaps if the parents took some initiative and responsibility and actually cooked good meals for the kids there would be less of a problem.
It's not a question of poor people being irresponsible: it's a question of unequal access to education and resources. When was the last time you saw a Whole Foods in a poor neighborhood? When was the last time you didn't see a fast food restaurant in a poor neighborhood? This unequal distribution isn't an accident -- there are very real (and well understood) material economic forces acting against the health of poor populations.
I'm curious, though: you have access to the information resources necessary to answer your question. Why didn't you use them? I 'm tempted to turn your own words against you: why don't you take some initiative and responsibility?
I'm not trying to be rude or combative. I'm just trying to point out that people don't always do what's in their best interest, and it's not because they are irresponsible: it's because social forces are rarely reducible to individual choices.
Give credit to many, classified as poor, who DO succeed in providing good nutrition and balanced diet to their families, with an objective of good health and avoidance of lifestyles promoting obesity.
Many others, not classified as poor, have none of the disadvantages you cite, yet adopt sedentary lifestyles, may not care a whit about good nutrition, MAY have good nutrition but just eat too much and/or exercise too little.
In both cases, giving a darn helps a lot. Parents play a huge role here, but everybody has to promote the message; hopefully you won't be called a hater for trying to get people to change their ways.
Gotta finish my Happy Meal.
I'm not saying it's impossible to resist economic forces -- I'm just saying that it's more difficult when you have less power to mobilize in opposition to those forces. Of course people can beat the odds, but to suggest that the correlation between poverty and malnutrition is nothing but personal laziness and irresponsibility is to give no credit to the poor whatsoever.
I'm giving plenty of credit to people who manage to fight their way out from under massive hurdles -- I'm just asking that we acknowledge that those hurdles exist, and that we not blame the failure of individuals to surmount those hurdles to individuals' bad choices exclusively. If you're working long hours for little pay and you live in a neighborhood where the food you can afford is the worst for you, then it doesn't even make sense to talk about whose "fault" it is that your economic interests are in conflict with your nutritional interests: it's a bad situation in which no choice is favorable. The fact that some people are able to get out of that situation is impressive, but we need to address the problem at a structural level rather than assign blame to the individuals in that situation if we want a solution that can effect social change. Otherwise, you're left with the conclusion that individuas must always deserve the conditions they're in... which ignores the fact that bad things happen to good people.
"SAVAGE: Right, that's the exact number of illegal aliens who invaded the country: 12 percent of the population. So, that's where the poverty came from, we imported child poverty."
So all illegal immigrants are children?
I know he is an idiot, but I didn't think he was that dumb.
But of course, everything is the immigrants fault. Like it was the Jews' fault back in the 30's in Germany.
Believe it. He is as dumb as he is bigoted as he is offfensive. A triple threat.
how was he bigoted or offensive here? If he offends you, don't listen to him or the mmfa posted clips. It's that simple, really it is. How was he bigoted? If you think about it, we have 20million illegals here and I bet about 5million of them are poor mexican children who came with their parents. This is more like 1.7% child poverty but you get the general idea. The other 10% comes from poor white families who cook up meth labs in their trailers or black families who feed their kids sugar.
Where do you trolls get 20 million illegals? I swear, are you all on the same misinformation listserv or what?
Next we will hear about how there is no hunger in the United States, that all our poor people are fat.
In 3.... 2.... 1....
...0...there is absolutely 0 hunger in the US. the bums standing at the intersection make about $20 a day and they only need $1 to get a burger from a fast food joint.
anyone who wants to get fat can get fat here, its actually EXPENSIVE to eat healthy.
"anyone who wants to get fat can get fat here, its actually EXPENSIVE to eat healthy."
You are absolutely correct. Your friend Savage, on the other hand, is arguing that being able to afford food at McDonald's is evidence that childhood poverty is not a problem.
No hunger here. Nope. Just fat people, who are going to hell with Jews and socialists.
Sounds good. But what is your source?
The United States Department of Agriculture... that well-known left-wing smear site.
WOW,
you could survive on a 1$ burger?
cool
I think he said they could "get" a burger for $1, not that they can survive on it. Ever watch "Super Size Me"? You should never want to eat fast food again.
Ummm...read the Cols post again. He was writing that there is no hunger in the U.S. He used the $1 hamburger to support his assertion. That implies survival.
It is well known the the 12-13 million is a soft number. Wake up.
Legitimate links please. Valentinian kindly linked to his source on a different thread ( http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/07/D8G6U2KO8.html ). Is it too much for you to do the same?
No, no...please don't ask him to provide a link to his source. I'm not interested in seeing a picture of his arse.
Exactly. "It is well known..." is usually followed by a phrase plucked from the writer's cloaca, which will magically end all debate in the writer's favor.
Sure you do...just COME OUT and admit it.
" Next we will hear about how there is no hunger in the United States, that all our poor people are fat. In 3.... 2.... 1.... "
You must not read or listen to current news. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#074 (table #74), then for fun look at table #73. But it's actually gotten better for adults since Bush took over. Too bad the kids aren't following their adult examples.
Non-sequitur. Poor children are more likely to be obese because of malnutrition, which means "bad" nutrition BTW. They may often be hungry because they do not eat the same quality of food as people from higher incomes. This is likely due to a lack of nutritional education and less access to healthy food in general.
This is a pretty common misunderstanding of the relationship between obesity and poverty. It doesn't mean the poor are well-fed, but it actually indicates the opposite is true. They often eat cheap junk food in place of healthier choices.
The argument that seems to be presented to us is that, if they are not lying in mud with distended bellies and flies landing on them, they are not victims of chronic malnutrition ("hunger").
Colonel: "This is more like 1.7% child poverty but you get the general idea. The other 10% comes from poor white families who cook up meth labs in their trailers or black families who feed their kids sugar."
Phew! It's a good thing that 100% of poverty can be attributed to personal irresponsibility. Until I read your post, I was living in this fantasy world in which individuals are at least partially affected by the structures in which they live. What a fool I've been! I mean, it's not like poverty is ever the result of corruption, state mismanagement of resources, global economic transformations, restructured labor markets, or anything else beyond individual agency. I can't tell you what a relief it is to hear that poverty is basically a proxy indicator for criminality and irresponsible behavior.
By the way: how is what you just wrote anything but bigotry? The last time I checked, claims that link bad behavior to racial/ethnic/economic identities and are based on nothing more than stereotype and prejudice are bigotry par excellence.
Och, Colin Roy, meet me on the road in Alpin.
FYI: if you don't have a refrigerator and/or cook stove or a landlord who'll provide one or fix one, then you can't cook. If you can't get gas or electric or utilities because you haven't paid your bill because you used the money to pay for prescription drugs or child care services, then you can't cook home meals. If you can't pay the rising cost of groceries on $7 an hour, then you can't cook home meals. If you haven't had a pay raise in ten years under the Republicans, then you might be eating the $1 children's burger at McDonald's, too or worse putting ketchup on crackers and drinking water in some restaurant while their help looks the other way.
I don't think Michael Savage is being bigoted, he's mad about what Sen Sanders said and he let him have it. The Sen got a tongue lashing on Michael Savage's radio show, big deal. Yes, it's intense, but his criticism was aimed at the Senator's viewpoints, not his race, religious creed or ethnicity. Be happy. It's America, the land where private citizens can get into trouble for saying such things but famous people get to duke it out on the airwaves all they want.
I certainly wouldn't disagree with you that Savage has a right to express his opposition to the senator in any legal way. But you've lost me when you say that private citizens "get into trouble" for saying such things. If Savage were a common ranting bozo, there would be no need to respond to him. What troubles me is that there's an entire broadcasting institution enabling and promoting him. Savage as an individual is insignificant. As a marketed product, he's something quite different, and worthy of public criticism. You'll forgive me if I'm a little less than thrilled that this is America, where major corporations promote "duking it out" over reasoned political discourse.
My quarrel with Savage isn't a legal one--he and his employers have every legal right to broadcast and profit off of this kind of expression--but one of morality and politics. The fact that he can be paid to say things like this doesn't mean he should.
" My quarrel with Savage isn't a legal one " .... " but one of morality and politics. The fact that he can be paid to say things like this doesn't mean he should. "
So, in essence, you're saying that because of the morality issue with what he says you have a problem? Does that mean you think everyone who says "those" words are immoral? Or just because he gets paid to say them? Then, if we equate 'paid immorality' to other aspects of life, say...for instance, strippers. You're saying since it is against "morality" and they get paid for doing it then it should not be done, that means you are against all types of erotic dancing and immoral movies. Well, I guess if that truely is how you feel then I commend you for taking a very bold step towards saving our country from the grips of immorality. Of course, if you think some types of immorality are ok, but other types of immorality are not, then you are just being hypocritical.
Well then, do you agree that what Savage does is immoral?
Proud-Christian: "Well, I guess if that truely is how you feel then I commend you for taking a very bold step towards saving our country from the grips of immorality. Of course, if you think some types of immorality are ok, but other types of immorality are not, then you are just being hypocritical."
Um... thanks?
vysotsky
There really is no point in discussing morality with "Proud Christian" - this person is themselves a moral coward who has neither the courage nor intellect to defend what are essentially spoon-fed beliefs sourced from the so-called "Christian" right. I think it is a waste of your time to engage in this discussion - it is clear that Weiner is attempting to launch yet another flawed argument based on what "we hear about" - whatever that means. The guy is living in a nasty fantasy land - the main challenge is defeat his madness with calm logic - I think that is best achieved by looking at the pure nuttiness of his words rather than the various types of nuttiness that might be used to defend him - just my opinion of course.
" this person is themselves a moral coward who has neither the courage nor intellect to defend what are essentially spoon-fed beliefs sourced from the so-called "Christian" right. "
And that explains why you can answer the question of WHO chooses what is moral. Since your morality is different from someone elses, you feel yours is the only "correct" morality. Time to get off you high horse and face the facts that Savage isn't the moral standard and neither are hypocritical liberals who pick and choose their morality.... "it's fine to kill babies, but you can't speak bad of anyone while on the radio" That's your morality??
With all due respect, darkerwiththeday, that wasn't so helpful. If you really think that Proud-Christian's argument is flawed, then there's no need to make an ad-hominem attack about his/her supposed cowardice or intellectual weakness.
Vysotsky,
fair enough, you're right - I got a bit out of line there. However, the reason that i say that about Proud Christian is that i can't stand the hypocrisy of people like that. Proud Christian knows exactly what I'm referring to when i say moral cowardice. This person picks and chooses exactly what they are prepared to respond to even when it is articulated in a calm, rational and logical way. I'll repost my last response to Proud Christian which is one of several that is met with silence by someone i truly believe has not got the courage of their convictions because their beliefs are, as i said spoon-fed.
As I have said before of people like "Proud Christian".........
It's really not worth arguing with someone who has the arrogance to wear their religion as a badge. I mean really, who calls themselves PROUDCHRISTIAN? For goodness sake, PRIDE is one of the seven deadly sins - they may as well call themselves LUSTFULCHRISTIAN or GLUTTONOUSCHRISTIAN or GREEDYCHRISTIAN or SLOTHFULCHRISTIAN or WRATHFULCHRISTIAN or ENVIOUSCHRISTIAN. I honestly believe that people like this are all about judging others in the belief that because of their loudly professed Christianity, they will not, themselves receive ultimate judgement.
At the time, Samuel Johnson was right to say that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," but these days I'm beginning to believ that professed faith now provides that refuge. More and more we are seeing people cloak themselves in a narrow understanding of faith in order to appear virtuous and decent - all the while spewing ignorance and contempt for other cultures and faiths - how many examples of hypocritical so-called Christians do we need to see before, as a society we start to view them with some serious scepticism? Look at the number of so-called Christians who cheer at gay funerals, who willingly send their kids off to die in an unjust, foolish war because a former alcoholic who claims to have found God tells them to. Look at the hatred so many so-called Christians spew at compassionate, open-minded progressives who are essentially following the UNIVERSAL spiritual principle of "do unto others." Ignorant, boastful Christians are so self-absorbed, so blindly sure of themselves that they don't recognise that "do unto others" is an essential element of ALL religions - it is the point at which the world can be united in various faiths - the real goal for these people is to have something that is all theirs; that defines an us and them; that fulfills the instinct to HATE, to judge and to feel superior; that facilitates the cowardice of not trying to understand or to reach out.
True faith is daily challenge that should take place inside the heart and the mind of the individual. It is not a collection of cheap slogans coughed up by some "preacher" whose qualification comes from a cereal box. It is not something you can buy at a discount from the 700 club. Faith is a matter of demonstrated character not a sound-bite, not a necklace with a cross on it, not a badge.
" I honestly believe that people like this are all about judging others "
And what are YOU doing? Judging me! Who are YOU to judge ME? I've explained my moniker before and have given my daily schedule to all those who question my "timeliness" of responding to posts. I will not do it every time some one claims to be more perfect than me. You want the explaination of my name? Look it up yourself.
I don't claim to be right every time I post. I do give my opinion on each and every subject I choose to post on. I do not require that you agree with my opinion. It seems, however, that I am required to agree with your opinion, or else I am a "moral coward". Sorry, I don't have time to post on every subject and/or respond to every poster. Perhaps you don't work and are able to post more often than I am. Good for you.
So, now let's put it on the other foot....how can someone with the name of 'darkerwiththeday' preach to me about faith? Wouldn't you prefer to be 'lighterwiththeday'? After all, if you're faithful to Christ you don't want to be 'darker', right? Now, have we got all that "your name is not Christian like" stuff off the table? Perhaps we can talk about subjects and not about internet names.
Thank you for your insight. I'm sorry to hear that you are less than thrilled that this is America. If you are less than thrilled that this is America, then fight for the America you want. And I mean that in a totally nonviolent way. This is the best country in the World. We can disagree over what we believe or think and not have to kill each other over it. I may not agree with everything Dr. Savage says but what interests me about him is that he has a belief in the way he thinks America should be and he expresses his idealogy with passion. And its definitely not all about money and ratings. He has a real disdain for SEN Clinton and Barack Obama.
My hope for you is that you will wake up one day and be thrilled that this is America and that we all have something to offer to make it better.
To be clear, I was echoing your comment, "Be happy. It's America, the land where private citizens can get into trouble for saying such things but famous people get to duke it out on the airwaves all they want." That didn't seem to me like something to be happy about (i.e. the antidemocratic condition your described in which greater fame affords greater freedom of speech) and I only meant to convey that not everything about the United States thrills me.
But I sincerely share your conviction that if one finds fault with the state of things, one should work to change things for the better.
TOMMY!!!!Should this *man* apologize for his remarks...???
they're burning in hell as we speak, yes. read the new testament.
Michael Savage is Jewish. By your standards, your beloved hero is charted for eternal damnation.
I'm a Jew and I find Savage to be an embarrassment to us all..
And to Col Campbell...my father came out of Bergen-Belsen...only member to survive. You have the goddamned NERVE to say half of my family is in Hell? You are one sick person...
who is sicker, me who is simply going by what the bible preaches (that you have to believe in jesus to go to heaven), or the muslims who will blow you up for being a jew OR a christian?
so much for liberal tolerance of christianity eh?? you are pretty much calling me 'sick' for believing in what the bible says. who is the hateful one?
You are right. It is wrong for anyone to say you are any different than the jihadists and Islamists who think only true believers will go to heaven.
Thanks for pointing that out.
You're half right. Or if I'm wrong, I missed the part where Colonel wanted to start mass murdering people who aren't Christian. And please don't categorize Islamists and jihadists (or radical islam) together. The jihadists are a minority cult who want to kill themselves and take everyone else with them.
The sad part is that the jihadists do not receive much censure from the moderates in Islam. Given the importance of this crisis, shouldn't we expect to see public protests and a general campaign of condemnation, by Muslim moderates, for the jihadists?
Such is not the case. The moderates are intimidated. Check out what has happened to Muslim women attempting to speak out in mosques in this country.
You might want to look up a little thing called "The Crusades" before you start lecturing us all about how your flavor of zealotry is different than those OTHER flavors.
that's the problem with libs, the atheists especially, they hate christianity and all religion so much that theyre overly judgemental. i simply stated my belief (and the belief of about 200,000,000 other people as well in this country) and i got called 'sick' - yet if i called someone 'sick' for being gay, i would be chastised all over this board and banned by flipflop brock
that's the problem with libs, the atheists especially, they hate christianity and all religion so much that theyre overly judgemental.
Oh, the irony.
Is 67% of the US population Christian? I really never cared much to check. In the small sample size of people I engage with in my life, I seem to run into a good mix of different races and religions and beliefs. If it is true that 200M people think like you do, I'm going to move.
No, wait. That's exactly what you would want me to do. I'm going to stay in this country and drive you insane with the "immoral" behavior that I will get away with. You may think I'm going to hell when I die, but I will have fun while I am alive, unlike you, you miserable turd!
OMG, that was hilarious and so true.
Hey Colonel,Who would Jesus tell to go to Hell? And is this your job, or Mr. Savage's job? I believe the Bible also tells us "Judge not, lest thee be judged". As for me, I'll leave it to our Lord to decide who goes to Hell, methinks you'd do better to do the same.
"...read the new testament."
I read Thomas Jefferson's version of it... the one with all of Jesus' miracles deleted. I guees poor Tom is presently suufering eternal damnation for that. Oh well... at least when I get to hell there'll be someone interesting to talk to.
Your ignorance is appalling but your hatred is just disgusting. Do you remember what it was like before your soul shrivelled into an unusable husk dried up and blew away?
You mean like Matthew 25?41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Sounds to me like the New Testament says feed the hungry, clothe the naked, befriend the stranger, or you'll go to Hell.
Interesting comment. God is not a respector of persons and won't be mocked. We all fall short of the glory of God. There's nothing you or I can do to earn a place in heaven. We could feed all the poverty stricken children across the world and it still wouldn't matter. In the Christian faith, the only way to get to heaven is through Jesus. I believe this to be the truth, that does not mean I hate people who don't believe the same way. And I definitely do not want to cut the heads off people who are not Christian but will most definately defend myself from anyone who attacks me or my countrymen.
Actually, I'm sure there is a nice warm place in hell waiting for you.
And don't give me any of your "Poor me, the liberals are picking on me" conservative crap. I have tried to be nice and patient to many of the individuals like you on this board, I'm done.
Actually there's that whole God is the only one who can judge anyone, or are you now God? Besides being a fake military officer?
Yeecch. If Heaven is for people like you, I'd rather go to Hell.
So, if I don't believe in imaginary places and don't believe in made up stories in a fabricated book, do I still go there? Very perplexing indeed.
And, if I go to the North Pole will I find Santa's house?
No. Thanks to global warming, it sank into the Arctic Ocean.
Perhaps a better explanation for the kids is that Santa moved to Canada.
Oh you better watch out, you better not cryYou better not pout, ok - eh?
Imagine there is no heaven...............................................
It's easy if you try.............................................................
No hell below us...............................................................
Above us only sky.
With All Do Respect, Colonel,
It's been more than thirty five years since I said this to an officer, but "Go to hell".
Worrierking, I don't think you have to "worry" about all due respect when responding to the troll who calls himself Col.RoyCampbell. I Googled the name and it turns out that "the Colonel" is a fictional character from a video game series called Metal Gear. Even if Roy Campbell is the troll's real name, the rank or title he clings to -- "Col." -- surely isn't. Considering how far up his nether regions the troll keeps his head, it's more likely that "Col." stands for Colorectal don't you think?
Thanks, Linus
I suspected that the Colonel was just showing everyone how big his "cyber" balls are. I found his "Christian" information to be pretty juvenile and I should have suspected that he wasn't really a badass, he just plays one on his mothers computer.
A real comedian!!!
You make Bill Maher actually seem funny.
I'd like to see you tell the good Col. to "go to hell" to his face. I'll bring the body-bag.
Name the time and place and I'll happily have a little chat with little Col.RoyCampbell. You children are all the same - all bark and no bite.
Just what is it about some of you adherents to replacement religions?!? Are you so insecure in your faith that your only comfort is to be assured and continually reassured that everyone who believes differently is condemned to some place of everlasting torture!?!?!? That's not faith, Colonel; that's fear, the coward's religion.
Imagine there is no heaven............................................
It's easy if you try.............................................................
No hell below us...............................................................
Above us only sky.
they're burning in hell as we speak, yes. read the new testament.
And you're headed for heaven, eh, Colin Roy? Mark Twain was onto something when he said,
"I'll take heaven for the climate, but hell for the company."
The New Testament never chides the Jewish faith. They are called in the many books by Paul to embrace Jesus, for that is good in itself, but Jews are nowhere diminished from their status as God's chosen people. Jesus Christ was a profound revelation of God, a sign that He yet loves the sinners of the world. Jesus did not come to damn Jews to hell you ignorant fool. It's the judgmental ones that really, REALLY need Jesus. Good luck with that.
Hey pal, save the f-word crap for Sanders the socialist.
Sanders IS a socialist and he IS going to hell because he isnt a Christian, so therefore he deserves to go to hell.
Sanders cannot go to hell because one cannot visit a mythological place, except in the imagination. Even the Bronze Age savages who manufactured the threat of going to hell are embarrassed for you. It was never their intention for supposedly intelligent people to believe in their lies, but as a means to control the masses, and with everybody trying to hump the capitalist dream, who needs religion? The elusive goal of upward mobility is sufficient opiate to placate the self-deluded masses.
Uhm, romans were iron age, greeks were bronze age.
Cept for that, I wanted to add that although I am not a christian and don't believe in god or heaven or whatever, but reading what some have posted I'd say Jesus, like Mohammed, was a loving and caring guy who's words were twisted and realigned to fit certaing goals over the last few thousand years.
Great guy(s), bad Management & PR!
Freedom is the opiate. Mobility, up down or sideways, comes with it. "Upward" mobility is, of course, a matter of definition.
But freedom is the opiate, all cynics aside.
Hey "Colonel," everybody who follows the only true religion knows that the only way you get into Valhalla is to die in battle.
Off you go now.
Wow thank you MMFA for posting the whole thing. Savage has such a great show and this was a classic. No sarcasm here, I love this guy.
Namecalling and hateful vitriol makes for a good show. Wow. I'm speechless.
The man is completly insane. I guess we know his demographic. Bigotted morons.
col.roycampbell,
I'm getting cootie vibes from you. And if you really are a fan of this vile awful man then you sir are a poopiehead.
There THAT felt good ;-)
For more of this kind of 'great stuff', just search for Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels on YouTube.
Remember, religion, race or nationality does not exclude you from being a fascist, racist or bigot.
Do people listen to Michael Savage? And how big is his audience?
about 8-10 million
Thats bigger than O Reilly. Wow what a sick nation we are.
I'm sure that's not the right figure. This col. guy has already shown he's ignorant and out of touch.
"about 8-10 million"
-----
Those numbers are usually given on a weekly basis, just like Limbaugh's. Savage's daily listeners are counted five times in a week, thus his daily audience is about 1.6 to 2 million.
Arbitron does the numbers for everyone that way.
Take it up with them.
300 million in USA...!0 million listeners....300-10 = 290 million who DON'T listen to the talking Weenie. A good situation...
How big is his audience? Intellectually or how bigoted?
Actually, about 7 million listeners, maybe from the sources I looked up (Google searches can be fun)
How do people sleep at night when they purchase ad time from people like Dr. Wiener?
Oops. Spelled his name wrong. No disrespect intended, Weiner boy.
"Now, how did child poverty become an issue all of a sudden? ... Two weeks ago we heard that -- before the elections, three months ago -- that children were overweight and fat from eating too much McDonald's; they were dying of diabetes from being little piglets. Now, we hear about childhood poverty, childhood poverty."
Oh, come on! Even my dog saw the flaws in his logic.
Diff, stop making your dog watch the Savage Weiner. PETA'll have your ass for that.
Sorry, I was listening to hear what he was saying.
Then My ears began to bleed from the total assult of stupidity. Next I fainted.
Lucky for me, my dog who is 14, nearly deaf and not all right in the head turned off the clip, before I died.
When I woke up, Max (my dog) asked, "who is that freaking lunatic and why were you listening to him?"
I am putting that up for Comment of the Year. A thing of beauty, that was...
I agree and it has my vote. I read it to my wife and we both cracked up, a thing of beauty indeed
Eat Weiners, don't listen to them!
Savage again. It was only a matter of time. I don't listent to this moron and I feel sorry for the idiots that takes his garbage as gospel.
Is it really so wrong to be concerned about childhood poverty?
Conservatives never fail to crack me up; they don't even know they're doing it. When you read through the statements by Sanders and the responses from Savage, is there really any doubt which of two is the lunatic? The only one who doesn't know which one is the lunatic is the lunatic, and how typical is that? The guy who hears voices always thinks everybody else is crazy because they don't hear voices.
One of these days, Ms. Weiner is going to absolutely scratch someone's eyes out.
Please
Don't confuse this lunacy for conservatism. Hateful, racist, classist, vile. . . . there are any number of accurate descriptors that apply, but to call him or his listeners conservative is unnecessarily divisive. Most of my family is very conservative, only one or two even know who he is and they think he's an idiot.
Joe your family members are smart!
I agree and I think its an important point. We neednt paint all conservatives with the same brush as Savage, the man is insane, nor Coultergeist. There are many reasonable and honest conservatives. Some frequent this site.
Yeah, I don't think of the Savage Weiner as "conservative" - if I think about him at all. He is just another Coulterian, Limbaughian blowhard, saying things he probably doesn't even really believe, just for the ratings.
Kind of like you do here on a daily basis; just to try to fool people into thinking that you actually know WTH you're talking about.
Nice try.
It's the Turing test for sanity.
Actually, his best line of thought is this:
When did Vermont become a socialist state? I don't know. What? When Ben and Jerry got there? I mean, are they crazy? Whatever happened to the rock-ribbed Republican Vermont with red barns? What are they making in those barns? They're not making milk; they must be making porno films.
Now that is truly one train of thought you must admit is almost admirably insane. I call dibbs on that bumperstick --
Vermont: They're not making milk; they must be making porno films!
i thought all you needed was a gay dude to give you a massage and other stuff while you huff up a bag of meth and think about jesus. oh wait...that's the Christian Right.
re: Col. Roy Campbell
When someone claiming to be military gets this loony, I get curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recurring_Metal_Gear_characters#Roy_Campbell
Hmm...perhaps our resident Col is an example for the case against violent video games. Anyway, ignore the troll, whomever he is.
He is probably little Timmy
Interesting item in the wikipedia page about him: Roy is introduced as a captured Green Beret whose unit was wiped out in an ambush by FOX members.
Hmm. Even Roy was ambushed by Fox. I'm sure with all of his military experience he will be Swift Boated as well.
Col. Roy Campbell, Solid Snake's commanding officer and close friend...
"Solid Snake?" Sounds like someone the Savage Weiner might want to get "close" with, too.
Just bring the Meth, Roy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Okay, I love my video games. But if this is the result that you get with weak minded individuals, show me the petition for a bill to ban all video games, I'm ready to sign.
Regarding Col. Roy Campbell
Christian Democrat, the more I think about it how dare you question Roy's military expertise. I mean, with all the experience he's racked up and all the imaginary missions he's been on; he probably knows more about imaginary militaries than any of us.
Actually congradulations Roy, I nominate you for the official MMFA Senior Fake Military Analyst. We will come to you for your opinions on any and all fake military actions taken by our government.
SANDERS [audio clip]: -- and we have a growing gap between the rich and the poor --
SAVAGE: Go to hell. How's that? Go to hell. I worked all my life for what I have and you'll have to kill me to get it from me, you rat.
=====
I wish someone would take him up on that.
-----------------------------------------------------
SAVAGE: Now, we hear about childhood poverty, childhood poverty. Listen to Bernie Sanders, socialist bum, in clip three.
=====
This guy is so vile it's hard to even know where to start. I mean he even hates kids? Geez...
I'm speechless or is it typeless?
What is so hard to understand?
Sanders the socialist wants money from me and you so he can "feed the children" that are "starving." Right!!!!!!
If the parents can't sacrifice their private lifestyles for the good of their children, it's the parents who should be FORCED to pay to feed their kids.
Sanders was called on the carpet by Mike perfectly.
You may not like it, but you know in your heart that Mike is right again.
I love the fact that anyone on the right can now be called a benign term like "conservative" regardless as to how violent, radical and illogical they are. Honestly, if you put up what he says every day and put it next to the Nazi platform there would be little difference. If the same semantics was applied to the left, anarchists would be called "liberals". To the poster who loves Savage: What exactly do you get from Savage that you can’t get elsewhere? Obviously he makes you feel better about the illogical choices you make and he allows you to take your aggression out on others, but outside of that, does he not articulate himself on about the same level as a pouting 7th grader? I listed to Savage before I had other options (thank you Air America). The only time he sounded like a semi articulate person, and taught his audience about ANYTHING, was when he talked about something that wasn’t political. As soon as he does, his emotions take over and it’s back to the stomping 14 year old idiot. By the way, did anyone ever read about the time he skinny dipped with Allen Ginsberg (who was gay) in the 60’s? Here’s a link to it, along with some love letters he sent to Ginsberg: http://www.michaelsavagesucks.com/default.asp "Dear Allen Ginsberg,Watched a tourist from New Zealand taking pictures of Fijian people in the marketplace " thought of inserting my cameras lens in your A hole to photograph the walls of your rectum. I really do apologize But the thought did occur.
By the way, did anyone ever read about the time he skinny dipped with Allen Ginsberg (who was gay) in the 60’s?
What is your point?
"Right, that's the exact number of illegal aliens who invaded the country: 12 percent of the population. So, that's where the poverty came from, we imported child poverty."
He has a point there if these kids where included in any kind of survey to reachinf the 12%. It is not fair to include them. Similar to the argument about minial wage and familes being raised on it. I always thought of inial wage a a way to get into the workforce. A temporary thing. Well, if you are unskilled, speak no to little english, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT? Those families will fall inot the Poverty status.
300 million Americans * .12 = 36 million illegal aliens. Sounds about right... 10 - 12 million is a "soft number," as is "well known."
Except... Sanders was talking about a 12 percent increase in the poverty rate, not 12 percent overall.
With reading comprehension skills like that, I'd be surprised if you make more than the "inial wage," whatever that is...
What an idiot. I don't know if this was posted, but the children of illegal immigrants are considered by law to be American Citizens if they were born here, and if I'm not mistaking. Therefore, Savage is now in favor of deporting American citizens based upon their economic wherewithal. Does this idiot really have 7 million listeners? Or are 5 million listening for a laugh?
"American Citizens if they were born here"
You have to be kiddding?
Of course he is aware of that. Damn libs like YOU picking every word in EVERY sentance apart until you can somehow justify the Right being crazy, racist, or stupid. How pathetic.
You don't have to pick apart sentances and words to see the manifest messages of racism from men like this. It has nothing to do with being "liberal" (what everthat means, and I hate that vague word). Furthermore, guess what...that's language. Once you say or write a sentence, you deliver a complete thought. Picking words apart isn't the issue.
Picking apart words to suit your agenda is exactly what goes on here. It is more than obvious what he means. Yes, the children are born Citizens. But there parents came here illegaly, and should not be here. Therefore, you really should not count those kids.
These kids should be counted, they are American citizens.
They come from families that have no right being here.
My grandmother came to this country from souther Italy in 1905, along with about 300,000 other Italians. No visa, no green card, no nothing, they just got off a boat and walked to Brooklyn. Why exactly did she have more right to be here than someone who hikes through the desert?
I call BS. They had to go through Ellis Island. Like my grandmother who is mentioned on the wall at Ellis Island. Back then the screening was intense. If you had the flue they would not let you in. Don't tell lies. I have a hrd time believeing your story. Notice the dates below.
"In April 2001, the Ellis Island Foundation launched an exciting new resource for anyone with family who immigrated to the United States through the Port of New York from 1892-1924. This resource is called the American Family Immigration History Center (AFIHC). The heart of the AFIHC is a searchable database of over 22 million passengers and crew of the ships that landed at the Port of New York. This database is affectionately known as the "Ellis Island Database" or, more simply, the EIDB. "http://www.ellisislandrecords.org/search/passSearch.asp?
Elise Island........ sorry.
It's called Ellis Island.
Yes, my grandmother went through there - I have her name on a passenger manifest. Still, she had, no visa, no green card.
Are you saying it would be OK with you if Mexicans came in, so long as they were screened for the "flue?"
So she went through a screening process. The illegals have not. Why is that so hard for you rto understand. Stop lying to me.
And what I was getting at with the "Flue", was how tough they where back then compared to now.
Actually there are a ton of reasons you can not get into this country now:
Health Related ProblemsCriminal and Related Violations
Persons who Seek Employment in the U.S. without Approved Labor Certifications and Employment Qualifications.
People Likely to Become a Public Charge on Welfare
Security and Related Violations
Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators
Document Violations
Falsely Claiming U.S. Citizenship and Draft Evaders
Miscellaneous Grounds
Thank you for an informative post.
Makes the case for border controls.
"They come from families that have no right being here."-ELHuman rights are unalienable rights. Everyone has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines. If you do not like it, take it up with the founders of this great country.
I'm not looking to support a view that the right is crazy and all that other stuff you said, cuz I don't believe that Savage represents the entire right by a longshot. But this Savage guy is whacked man and I'm not convinced this guy does know those children are citizens.
you guys a fools.
What I noticed was that Savage's rant was totally content-free: He never actually responded to anything Bernie said, not once. He didn't even deny Sanders' assertions. You would think that somewhere in there Mikey would have said something like "that's nonsense" or "what a crock" or something. But he didn't.
Apparently even he realizes the facts are against him.
Footnote: I was amused by the reference to Sanders as a "jealous loser." Sanders was a 4-term mayor of Burlington and was elected to the House eight times before winning a seat in the Senate. Would that I was such a "loser."
the funny thing about this is it all began with him calling obama unqualified...
...so perhaps someone can explain to me just how "qualified" Bush was in '00 when he became president?
He didn't become president-he was annointed so by the Supreme Court through the auspicies of Kathryn Harris, Florida Secretary of State. But I nitpick again.
evillib1727, if, after reading that, you don't get the point I won't bother. Mike Savage, knowing how he thinks, skinny dipping with Ginsberg and (in another letter) speaking graphically about a sexual encounter he had with a black man. Oh the irony.
As an above poster mentioned anyway, he (per usual) didn't address at all what Sanders was saying. It's ironic too. The Bible mentions taking care of the poor countless times. Yet, how many self described "Christian conservatives" attack anyone who does?
I think I do get your point. Many on here make mention of his past. So he was liberal, who give a flying hoot about it.
Ok. I'm pretty new to this web site. As a Canadian citizen who is currently studying quite a bit of political science, I would like to learn a bit more about the American side of politics. Yet, in short, savage is just insane. To asociate an increase of child poverty with an increase of of illegal immigration is simply assuming that correlation is related to causation. This is a claim with no empirical data at all. The fact that this man hosts a show that actually gains ratings and simpathy is revolting. Furthermore, on a minor note, people like Savage and O'Reilly keep on calling democrats "leftists", "far leftists", and "liberal". They tend to ignore the fact that these political ideologies evolved from classical liberal, to reform-liberal, to neo-liberal, and the same for conservatism. In a sense, Bush is a classical liberal, as he believes in free-trade and a small welfare state. In addition to this, supporting the war or gay marriage has nothing to do with being right or left. This refers to the equalization of property and state intervention. Perhaps Savage has an idea of what socialism is (although he describes it in a very pejorative sense), but men like him really ought to get their terms straight.
12 million poor people with little to no education. 12 million people which most are probably raising familes on minimum wage. You think those people live in Poverty? Do you have any idea how bad our Illegal Immigration problem is?
Does anybody have a clue to how bad it is?
I'll bite... how bad is it?
More to the point - just what do you think we should do about it?
I have tried to explain how bad it is. I ASKED THE QUESTION. SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER.
this is not an attempt to prove anything, but, one of my best friends is an illegal immigrant. He's got his whole family here. I used to be torn with that whole question. Then he lost his factory job. He took all of his savings and bought some big carpet cleaning van. Now? Two years on, he has three 'legal' citizens working for him. That sounds like a pretty good thing to me.
THAT IS A GOOD THING. But is he legal? I call BS. How can a illegal start a business and pay Workers Comp ect?
Evil
I read the post, and no where does it say anything about workers comp. It says savings.
Two years on, he has three 'legal' citizens working for him.
Yes, my question is valid.
He is runing a business. I am a X-landscape contractor. I understand what is takes to run a business.
The way I am reading it, the employees are legal but are being paid in cash.
Also, what is an "X-landscape?"
I worked in the Landscape business for almost 10 years. I had to get out after being hit by a drunk driver at a stop light. I had just passed my contractors license a year prior. That is what i mean by X.
And you seem to be reading it right. Alike the, "Illegals come over to work hard" argument, you never hear the negative affects.
If his guys Machine blows up in thier face, they are not covered by any kind of insurance. If the house burn down because of this, the homeowner is screwed. There are the facts. The poster above may think that he is stand up, but is overlooking basic responsabilities of a Business Owner.
mwolfson6024, the simple answer is that the right wing leaders focus a lot of their energies on words themselves, not to the meanings of the words. If you can make a word stand for ultimate evil in your audience's mind then every time you attach that word to someone THEY become evil. Socialist, Communist, liberal, left wing and environmentalist are just a few examples, I really doubt most of Savage's audience understand really what each of the terms mean. I don't say that in an elitist way, many of them might be naturally intelligent but are too emotionally attached to their political philosophy to ruin their anger, anger’s easier. If you're new to this country, get into a discussion with a Savage, Hannity or Limbaugh listener about the Mid East or economics. Better yet, call yourself one of the words I mentioned above and try to get them to articulate what that word means and what they’re problems are with those words. If you get anything other than historically inaccurate generalities, simplifications or outright hostility consider yourself lucky.
You are a pompous ignoramus.
But you already knew that.
evillib1727, do you realize the connection between NAFTA and the increase in immigration to the US, illegal and otherwise? The effects aren't subtle or open to debate, they're obvious. Before you respond, do some reading on the effects that NAFTA has had on Mexico. If I'm not mistaken immigration has increased 7 fold since its signing. Think, if you were in their position, if you would do any different.By the way, I have never in my life (I have a degree in economics and am now in grad school) read of a free market economist who is in favor of liberalizing trade and finance and at the same time in favor of stopping the flow of labor across boarders. If they are, they couldn’t speak a word about “efficiency”. When I say never, I mean never. I can give you quotes from Adam Smith saying this exactly. If you are for free trade deals like NAFTA, you should be quite and accept the effects. If not, you should rethink your support for NAFTA. You can't have it both ways.
I am and always have been against NAFTA.
Then why blame economic refugees for fleeing deblitating poverty when market fundamentalism is the actual enemy?
Go to Hell in a bucket you pansey.
That gets my vote for the most disproportionate response of the day. That was pretty funny. That ought to learn roundhouse to get multisyllabic with you!
Yup. He learned me good.
Then you're at least consistent on that front. I'd like to see some people right of center challenging these deals openly, instead of simply acknowledging their opposition. I hear a lot of the same in regards to welfare. Everyone right of center is against welfare but when you mention corporate welfare they say they're against it and then go back to ignoring it, focusing on the relatively small social protection we have here. Bernie Sanders, who Savage attacked without any rational given, has at least given his opinion on deals like NAFTA and has voiced support for ending it and replacing it with something different. What I hear from a lot on the right is basically ignore the effects of NAFTA and close the borders. That is immoral and completely irrational. I expect then that you'll venture over to the next anti-WTO/IMF soon then? Just playing.
If you want to bring home a new boyfriend from the wrong side of the tracks but know your parents will throw a fit, what do you do? Find someone from an entirely different race and bring him home first. ---- Hillary won't seem so bad.
I think the real problem is the missinterpretation of the 14th amendment to give the children of illegals automatic citizenship. Illegal ALIENS are not subject to the jurisdiction of America since they entered the country ILLEGALY. They should be rounded up like the common criminals they are and shown the door, after we militarize the border, of course, so they can't crawl back in there attempt to slowly regain control of the south east United States which groups like La Raza feels rightfully belongs to them ( even though we won it through a war and even paid for it). I think it is only fair that we have the same southern border policy that mexico holds with it's neighbors to the south...not exactly an "open door policy".
CTT2 (SW) timothy Mathis
Who will do the rounding up of ("soft number") 10 - 12 million human beings, genius? How will we "militarize" 5000+ miles of border?
Look, it's fine if you have a different opinion than me, but let's debate reality, not fantasy.
If China can militarize their borders I'm pretty sure we can pull it off. We have the man power and money to "round up" the illegals before they do more damage to our country but it would take the pulling out of our troops in Iraq, which I'm sure you'll be suprised to know I am for. It is my contention we should pull our national guardsmen (who shouldn't be there in the first place) and our soldiers back home and use them to plug the holes in our porous border before we become a third world country. A mine field wouldn't be a bad idea either
That's a good routine. What stand-up clubs do you tour?
That was deep....I'm hurt....is that all you've got?
Just figured that nobody could seriously hold such militaristic ultra-authoritarian far rightwing opinions. So, naturally I thought you're having some fun on the internet on an otherwise boring Monday.
I guess I have to apoligize for the belief that America has a right to defend it's borders from a covert foreign invasion....I apologize for assuming that America is a soveriegn nation.
Your material keeps getting better! Tinfoil hat alert! Now I know you're doing some kind of parody. Conspiracy theories are the solemn province of the looney left. Thanks for the chuckle, you're a sweetheart.
Yes conspiracy theories....unfortunately that is not the case here. It is sad that you are not aware that there is an actuall movement by a group of mexican nationals called LA RAZA (or The Race) that whole heartedly wish to reclaim the land that in thier mind was stolen from them
They're sort of like the hordes of Muslims that we keep getting warned about that are going to take over the US as well. Right? Please, the amount of people in that group have to number a lot more than they do to take over the portions of the US that they want to.
Any evidence your charge is true? NCLR denies it.
I have heard it, from my cubbie partner. She, Mexican, believes we stole the land, and should give it back. I try my best not to debate her in fear of wanting to CHOKE her.
It's sort of an irrelevant, pointless argument - the Southwestern United States are not, now or at any time in the foreseeable future going to be a part of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, and there is no serious, organized movement to bring about that ending.
However, as an emotional experiment, imagine how you would feel if oh, say, the Canadians were to invade the Northeastern United States, populate it with French-speaking settlers, and call Massachusetts "New Quebec" or something. Wouldn't you feel an emotional tug to the land, and feel it was "stolen" by outsiders?
No.
Yeah, the whole reconquista myth has absolutely no basis in reality.
But reality has a well known liberal bias.
I'm sorry...where are you from? Probably nowhere close to the border where kidnappings, gang violence and the Reconquista movement dwell
I used to live in Ohio. Now I live in Kentucky. Guess what? There are kidnappings and gang violence in Columbus and Louisville. What is your point?
It is exponentially worse in border towns you moron. I think it has something to do with this "drug trafficking" thing I read about once. I think the people that do it are prone to violence or something. They're probably good folks though
Not really. Check the DOJ stats. Violent crimes are just as prevalent in the midwest. In fact in 2005 the violent crime rate for western and southwest border state was about 12%. The midwest checked in at 14%. Again what is your point?
Ouch! Wrong again, perhaps you should look into the methods of calculation used. Secondly....2005? Can you at least use last year's stats?
I live in San Diego... one of the safest cities in the country. I can hock a good one and spit to TJ when the wind is up.
And thanks to Duncan Hunter you have a border fence. Thank you for proving my point of the importance of border security
Keep talking in circles. Your original argument was that violent crime is 'exponentially worse in border states.' You were refuted by valentinian's border town example so now you run away from your own argument and claim validation...somehow. Before val's comment I challenged your blanket assertion that crime is more prevalent in border states (I assume you meant southwest border states since you brought up some reconquista movement?) I'll admit my earlier crime stats were recalled from memory and I can't find those numbers anymore, so disregard them. However, you are still incorrect about your 'exponential' comment.[link to www.fbi.gov] As you will see in the graphics in the above link, the violent crime incident rates per 100,000 inhabitants are all well within a factor of 2 among all four regions of the United States. Hardly 'exponential'. In conclusion, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.Isn't it fascinating that violent crimes and property crimes are higher in the conservative south than the liberal northeast? (p.s. I hope this is posted with actual paragraph breaks.)
Wow. Use the military to round people up and sow our borders with land mines. And this, in your mind, is the way to not make us a third world country? Cause you pretty much just described North Korea...
Yes this will keep us from becoming a 3rd world country. The whole point is that we are IMPORTING poverty! Not to mention the adverse effect illegal workers have on the wages people are paid
Wrong . The adverse effect on wages is driven by employers who hire economic refugees.
Economic refugees? You mean Illegal immigrants? I do agree that the companies are a major part of the problem but we must close the border first and then fix the internal problems
Or, we could fix the problem internally first and create a disincentive. Or we could work for a moral economy that doesn't flood S. American markets with cheap, subsidized processed foods which displaces S. American farmers and laborers. Thus forcing them to flee economic oppression. Yes, economic refugees is apt.
They are still illegal.
Yeah fine, but what do you want to do about it? Using our soldiers and Marines to "round up" millions and turn our borders into killing zones is just not a solution. For instance, what about the coasts? Are we going to "militarize" every beach in the country?
You have to face up to the fact that there are no easy answers (even if you consider turning our country into an armed camp is "easy")
I think the coasts would be even easier...I mean we do still have navy and a Coast Guard. Maybe they could be couned on to Gaurd the Coast
Its hardly suprising you are so stupendously wrong since you actually think Savage is anything more than a raving lunatic. I bet you went to VDARE and accept their take on the matter. Savage is a bigot which is only part of his insanity Anyway here is what the 14th Amendment says directly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
How in the world can you claim with a straight face that even though it says DIRECTLY that All persons born IN the US are citizens of the US that it is a misinterpretation to say that children of illegals born here are not citizens? The next section takes care of the rest of your weak attempt at an argument that is pretty much garbage.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice it says PERSONS not citizens STILL get equal protection of the law. So to say they are not under their jurisdiction is nonsense. Savage is a bigot, only if you aspire to his level of bigotry should you take the things he says seriously.
Ah yes, the Bigot, argument. If your not for illegals you MUST be a bigot. JURISDICTION moron! If you are here illegally you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the counntry you are in. Secondly the 14 amendment was written at a time when we did not forsee this problem.
You keep using that word, jurisdiction. I do not think it means what you think it means.
WOW, your ignorance is awe inspiring. first your jurisdiction argumnet is very stupid. If that were true then an illegal immigrant who murdered someone in the US wouldnt be subject to our laws. yet there are many illegal aliens in prison. Second it was YOU who said it was due to a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment that justifies the claim children of illegals born here were citizens. When I show the plain language of the 14th amendment makes it plain there is NO misinterpretation and you are flat out WRONG, you try to change the argument to say it doesnt mean what it says DIRECTLY because of when it was written. I have a goldfish knows more about what he is talking about than you EVER WILL. If you dont want to be identified as a bigot I suggest you stop ACTING like a bigot. Pretending Savage is anything more than an insane ranting racist moron is NOT the first step in that direction.
the 14 amendment was written at a time when we did not forsee this problem.
And your beloved (I'm sure) 2nd Amendment was written when a rifle took about 20 seconds to reload, and no one could have forseen assault rifles. Let's get rid of them both, ok?
NO! I will not get rid of my assault rifles. If I had it my way, I would own m-16's, m-60's, bazookas ect. But yes, I am all for kicking the illegals to the curb. I can not even get my car washed without some filthy stinking illegals working on it and stinking up my cab.
Jesus Christ, EL. Even if they do stink, they're still human beings. Do you really hate them that much?
No, I don't. I am just angered by the ignorance of many posters. I love all cultures. I love all people. I own a timeshare in Mexico.
Love everyone, trust noone.
Evil, up the dosage man, you're getting really worked up.
I still don't understand what you think we should do about it.
I have said many times what I feel we need to do. Hit the companies hard that hire them. But didn't the dems just shoot down a proposal to get tougher on companies that hire illegals? I know they made it tougher for federal comapanies. Damn pansies. Guess they are afraid it may affect them of friends.
Did they? I don't know? How about a reference?
How will you "hit the companies hard?" Will you have inspectors at every workplace in America? Who will pay for that?
I'm not shooting down your idea... it may be workable, but it will not be easy and will definitely be expensive.
Expense is the reality bud. It will cost to push some of the illegals out, and more important, keep another 12 million OUT!
Google
Alien hiring fine fails on Hill
No. If you are referring to something specific, then provide a link. It is not somebody else's job to find out what exactly you have read to lead you to say what you have.
Help us out. It is your argument, you should have the decency to defend it. It is not our job to make your argument.
I have had to tell you this a few times before. I don't like lecturing you, but you need to at least adhere to a minimum amount of courtesy.
The Google search for that term turns up a Washington Times article dittoed approximately 1.2 bazillion times by right wing bloggers. It's about a poison-pill amendment to the minimum wage bill.
You try to sound intelligent, but you can't hide the fact that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
In short - the residence status of the parent is not mentioned.
But if the parents are not doing such things as paying taxes and are not contributing to social security because they are not registered and not under our jurisdiction their children are also not subject to the aforementioned jurisdiction and are, therefore, not citizens.
"But if the parents are not doing such things as paying taxes and are not contributing to social security because they are not registered and not under our jurisdiction their children are also not subject to the aforementioned jurisdiction" --savagerocks
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jurisdiction is not necessarily contingent on citizenship. Anyone (outside of a few exceptional diplomatic cases) in the US or its territories and some posessions is subject to US jurisdiction.
If your argument was indeed true, illegal immigrants could not be fined or arrested for any offense, ironically not even an immigration offense.
I think that is where you are making your mistake.
In many cases they are not allowed questioned on their status and are not arrested for their illegal status
I'm sorry, what are you saying? Illegals can't be arrested because they're illegal?
Seriously, do you think this stuff up beforehand or do you just type words at random?
"In many cases they are not allowed questioned on their status and are not arrested for their illegal status" --savagerocks
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you are a bit confused about the difference between municipal/local, state and federal jurisdiction. Often times local and state police will not arrest illegals on immigration charges because the police are not trained, or there is no facility under the local laws (the bulk of immigration law is federal law). Illegal aliens are usually detained by INS (or whatever they are now called under the Dept. of Homeland Security), which is a federal agency. Federal agents can arrest these illegal aliens any of the places I mentioned above.
If you have been listening to Savage, you have a lot to learn about the way the world really works. Savage is about the worst source you could have to begin any argument.
Cops have the right to question thier status. They simply ask for thier green card ect and call INS. However, most have been told NOT TO. Why, AMERICA"S COMMUNIST LIBERTIES UNION and a like.
No most local police dont want the added headache of doing immigration work if they want to solve violent crimes in the neighborhoods these people live in they need the co-operation of the people that live there and the people of those neighborhoods will be more co-operative if they know the cops are looking for violent criminals and they are not looking to deport their friends and neighbors.
Solon, I understand the need to find more violent criminals, many of which are illegals as well. But my feelings? Tough. And it is not the Cops. It is thier supervisors. I know many cops.
And should add, City Officials. Look at Richmond, and Pinole in Cali. The officials there are getting all worked up over the cathing of illegals.
Can you be more specific instead of providing one of your silly knee-jerk rants against the ACLU? Provide a legitimate link so I know what you are rambling on about.
Come on, what is the purpose of the ACLU? To protect civil rights yada yada. I know, but they tend to take it a bit too far.
I see. You are not being specific at all then. No link. Just another baseless rant against the ACLU.
When are you going to see that the ACLU is not the problem. They bring up legitimate points of law. It seems you just have some form of baseless reflexive reaction to them. I see it in conservatives frequently, but it always falls apart on the slightest examination. When are you going to give up fighting against the ACLU boogeyman? I am gonna call you on it every time I see you do it. Next time be prepared or educate yourself about reality and not what the conservatives are spoon-feeding you.
In many cases they are not allowed questioned on their status and are not arrested for their illegal status
He is right. I have many friends in law enforcement. They have all said the same thing. Afterall, wouldn't the ACLU have a fit if the cops where to ask the legal status of every MEXICAN they pulled over?
Yes, and rightly so. People have the right not to be harassed by local law enforcement just because they look "Mexican."
But my example applies even if they where pulled over for a bad registration tag. I think that would be a valid reason to call INS and see if they are legal status. If they are, what is the problem?
No problem, as long as it's done in accordance with the law. Didn't you say California law prohibits that?
Police have every right to check on the immigration of someone they have lawfully detained. Racial profiling is against the law - if you don't like it, work to change the law.
They have every right, but are discourage from doing so. If you have some cop friends that live in areas rapid with illegals, ask them.
Who is "discourage" them? Where do you get this information?
I am not going to leave my office and go fact check something you pulled out of your ass. You brought it up, you back it up.
Because a good friend of mine is a San jose cop, and was told NOT TO BOTHER THEM! Are you that stupid? I swear.... Read news articles, ITS ALL OVER! "Dont bother the illegals"......wa wa wa
Yes. I am stupid. Hell of a way to win me over to your point of view, Evil.
If it's all over the news, then you should be able to Google up one example in about half a heartbeat, right? How about you get back to me when you're done pulling stuff out of your ass and calling me stupid for not eating it right up.
And cons are getting their future voters KILLED in Iraq, with there lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy. By the way can you come up with some stat that only liberals get abortions? Even that MOSTLY only liberals get abortions. I am betting you cant. Then ignorance is clearly your strong suit so I wont hold my breath
Yes I would agree most soldiers are Cons and then the obvious would follow but it is a fact that Libs have less children per household (accepted fact) partially due to a greater acceptance of Abortion(think about it) as birth control.
Also African Americans who are 90+ % lib abort Babies at a much higher rate than the avg American .
And they are only about 18% of the population so the answer is no you have no corroborating evidence and pulled this directly out of your rectal database just like your heroes Limbaugh and the insane Weiner
Hey Solon,
ok 18 % of pop does whatever 4 times while the other 82% do it 1 times .... do the math.
You seem to try to incorporate abortion into nearly every post. That would be great if it was anywhere near the topic at hand.
Please try a little harder to stay on-topic.
Thanks.
OK Mommy.....Sorry!
No problem, sweetie.
Wow, youre Mom must have been real nice. Good 4 you!
I illegals come legally they would have to pay dues and get visas and so forth. This is so we know who is in our country and is an attempt to put these people under American JURISDICTION (the right and power to interpret law) if you don't know someone is in the country how does the country have juric=sdiction over them? The 14th amend. was meant for the naturalization of the freed slaves NOT the sons and daughters of people who BROKE THE LAW to get here
You really are an idiot, aren't you? I suggest you take a class in reading comprehension, and get back to us when you've turned 15.
Yes I'm a moron because I actually want people to follow the LAW of the country they are leaching off of.
They are following the law. It's just that your mind is too blunt to understand it.
I'm sorry what part of ILLEGAL can you not wrap your head around? If someone should not be here how are are they following the law?
You were talking about the 14th amendment. It simply states that anyone born here and is under this jurisdiction (which basically, with a few exceptions, everyone who is here is) is a citizen. It has nothing to do with the residence status of the mother.
Why is this hard to understand?
And I live in Southern Arizona, 60 miles from the border, so I do see a lot of immigrants, illegal and others. It really doesn't bother me that much, compared to other things I see.
Ohhhh, you are blind. Sorry. Use your ears then!
What laws are they following open.
Our border laws?Visa laws?Driving laws?Working class laws?
I think the entire "not closing the border" is moot if you look at the fact that people who wish to do the country PHYSICAL harm are sneking accross the southern and northern borders. It might just be my "backward conservative mind" but it might be a good idea to keep such people out
The 9-11 hijackers all had visas.
But, again, what do you want to do about it? The North American continent is not a house you can just lock up.
We know that "conservatives" like you SAVAGEROCKS admire China and North Korea already, where nobody has these crazy ideas about freedom and live to tell it. What's sad is that you think this is what America should do, even though it's contrary to the very reasons this country was founded.
Please, move to North Korea or China already so we don't have to subject ourselves to your moronic ideas.
You're right....oh my god! I've been blind for so long! Nonsecure borders are a great idea! I think it's great that anyone can jaunt merrily across our broken border and put a bomb in your child's school in the name of Allah that would be super don't you think?
Muslim Mexicans? You are all over the place.
Are you as clueless as you sound or are you just being facicious? It is a well known fact that the 9/11 hijackers got here through the CANADIAN border (hence were I said "northern" border). Is it beyond your shallow intellect that there MIGHT be a small possibility that terrorist would MAYBE take advantage of this or our other border again?
The hijackers were here legally. What is your point?
You're right....except for three of them. But I'm sure three people we don't know are here could never hurt us
Fine, how are you going to prevent them from getting in? Come up with some ideas that actually make sense, instead of acting like these are bugs we can keep out with some good screens.
No they where not. They came in legaly, but some had expired visas if I am not mistaken. That, would no longer make them LEGAL.
You are correct. So building a 20-foot wall across the border, putting land mines, UAVs, lasers, force fields, etc. along 5000 miles of our frontiers would have done absolutely nothing to stop those three guys.
That's a good point.
Did I say that? No.
Then what was your point?
You are the one who brought up landmines and crap.
No dude, it was the subject of the discussion we were happening when you blundered in with your smart-ass comment.
Where did you say northern border?
Is that really why you're against illegal immigration? I doubt it.
Then speak up.
Well, my work here is done. I'd like to apologize to any liberlas who might have migraines since I used logic....I know that hurts you guys. So Borders, language, culture.
CTT2 (SW) Timothy Mathis
BTW - How 'bout that Air America? How ya' like them apples?
LOGIC???? Now I know why you like Weiner. YOU are also insane. A block of concrete has more logic on a bad day than you have shown in your posts. The only thing you have made abundantly clear is that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. My cat could give you lessons.
Yes. Logic. Any sane and logical human being knows that it is imperitive that a nation controls it's borders and immigration. Just ask the people trying to get past Mexico's southern border illegally
Yeah, Air America got out of bankruptcy, thanks for noticing! It's pretty good news for anyone who believes in a free press.
Good night, Petty Officer Mathis. You obviously love your country, so you owe it to yourself to think about these things and not just parrot what somebody else told you.
He may love "his country", but he obviously doesn't love the principles upon which it was founded.
Actually I do. Go read what Teddy Roosevelt had to say about immigration. I know he wasn't a founder but I'd say he has some insight into the subject.
Wow, I hope Sen Sanders hears this. I'm glad you have the gusto to call a spade, a spade. Right on Dr. Savage. Deporting the 12% of illegals would be a good start to bringing those inflated child poverty numbers down. The way you make your points make me laugh hysterically. You are a joy to listen to.
LA
"Kiss my behind, you psycho," and "Screw you, you jealous loser." Savage also called Sanders "a rat," "a bum," and "a dirty socialist" and told him to "go to hell."
Remarks like this are not calling a spade a spade. They are fourth grade level namecalling and basic stupidity. Dr. Weiner is an insane bigot without a shred of decency. The man is in dire need of a Haldol/Thorazine cocktail.
Michael (Dr. Michael Alan Weiner) Savage is Jewish by birth I believe...but he is completely attacking Sanders and sounds SOOO anti-semitic its pretty scary how off this man is.
Savage is yet another one of these totally unoriginal wing-nut bigots who will say literally anything at all to keep his ratings high.What a degenerate asshole.
Some of you right winger's arguments are classic. We've never had a militarized border like you're calling for and seem to have developed as a country decently well. NAFTA is signed in '94 and immigration goes up 7 fold (at least). The US', Mexico's and Canada's economies go downhill for most everyone outside of investors (thank god for the housing and internet bubbles). What is your answer? Build a wall, put some explosives in the ground THEN re-consider NAFTA. Beyond turning my backyard, San Diego, into the DMZ (I want you right wingers to talk to property owners on the boarder about implanting explosives near their homes, close to where their kids would play, I'd love to see their reaction) there is no way that NAFTA would be overturned in enough time to not cause a humanitarian crisis in Mexico. Think about what NAFTA IS. It lets US and Canadian corporations treat Mexico like transfers within each country (same as transferring resources between states). What if, for example, people here created a law so that corporations could transfer capital and financial resources between Illinois and Indiana but the law at the same time stipulates that Illinois workers can't try to get work in Indiana and that there will be a wall between the states, along with explosives, to make sure it won't happen. What you've created is something out of Stalin Russia and there isn’t a single free market economist would call that idea anything but nutty, forget people who aren’t as indoctrinated. The only difference between Stalin’s Russia and that situation is the tyrannical body, not the state but multi national corporations and the rich investors who own them. There is no way anything close to your plan will work. You will create a war between and within this country before that plan goes through. If you were rational, and less angry, you’d join the people left of center calling deals like NAFTA into question. There’s a common enemy for working people in this country AND Mexico, left right and center, it’s the corporations pushing for these deals and the politicians who support them. For you to attack working people crossing the boarder is weak and cowardly. If you had any guts you’d join people like myself fighting more powerful institutions and individuals benefiting off the situation. You don't. You stand on the border with other people, hold guns and think you're doing something noble. It's much easier attacking poor families with nothing than sacrificing and challenging more powerful people. Your guns don't make you men.
Good analysis, doyoubelievinmagic.
I love Savage a real sage and Prophet you (guys) need to relax and enjoy his genius for what it is....pure Mad genius.
"pure Mad genius" --redstatedad
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pretty close. I would say you are 2/3rds correct.
so u don't think he is MAD? I'm Shocked.
We agree he is completly insane. The only genius he has is for bigotry and hatespeech.
Please increase your medication. Savage is an insane bigot without a shred of decency. If you take him seriously you are getting megadoses of stupid
Dr. Savage spoke...
And spoke and spoke and spoke..once again, he said nothing of importance to the "Thinking Class". Oh, that class warfare is still with us. Colonel Whatever and Savagerocks are two examples of the classes, little and none. I actually am amused by their continuing posts just to be ridiculous, and I must say funny. Good luck, Col. and Rocks I know it must be very difficult to face another day. Be afraid, be very afraid.
P.S. Colonel, saddle-up, looks like Pres. Bush is ready to "wag the dog" and go after Iran because the wheels of his Scooter are coming off.
Savage fans are not scared of life, society or whatever, i think Katrina has shown the true effect of the Liberal way of life and how it leaves one incapable of handling the broken levees of life- real or imagined. The Democrat utopia drowned in a storm. Shame we have no real leaders in Washington to point this out to the brainwashed and ignorant.
What Katrina showed is that when you elected a moron like President Gump to office he will screw up even what WAS a well run agency like FEMA and get Americans killed.
you blame Bush for the the demise of the democrat utopia, that's a laugh. Who has controlled that state from dog catcher on up since forever?
The problem was not FEMA OR any Org....but the PEOPLE, like caged animals at an abandoned zoo they run amuck looking for their keeper .
"Who will will feed me, who will shelter me & who will tell what what to think"
Poor souls, after selling their vote for a monthly stipend they are left with nothing. Welcom to Democrat America!
The GOP has been in control of virtually everything since 2001 and all of congress since 1994 so as usual you have no point. It is ludicrous to pretend the people or city had the resources to handle that kind of disaster on their own no city in the world does.
Were not talking about the last 10 or 20 years SoDumb but a generational thing. Face it, would u put your children in a NO school if u could help it? of course not, just admit it.
I'll say it again greater NO should be a Democrat utopia for all their control and spending but look at what it is, was and will be.
Sissy. You are afraid to admit that it was the failure of privatization that allowed New Orleans to suffer death and humiliation. And you are afraid to admit that individual responsibility is practically useless without mutual responsibility and a well maintained commons. It is amusing to hear rightwing market fundies beg and plead to transfer the health and general welfare of our national family to corporate hands. Essentially, they are grovelling for the right to cede their liberty to unaccountable profit driven private entities instead of exercising their rights in the greatest open public system of governance ever envisioned by man. Sissies to the last.
Coal miners Daughter?
You really believe what you just said. How scary is that. The Govt has a few roles it MUST perform and the entrenched establishment of greater NO flopped like none before.
how is any private entity responsible?
First off Michael Savage has never said that he is against immigration. His grandfather and his father who was a child at the time migrated here in the 1920's from Russia and they went through Ellis Island, LEGALLY. It is ILLEGAL immigration that he is against. Most of you liberal posters here seem to have this mindset that conservatives are against immigration. Anyone who has any common sense should know there is a difference between ILLEGAL and LEGAL. You people can just continue to judge Savage by only what MMFA posts and not by listening to his show itself if you want that is your choice. But I am going to try and fill in the gaps that this website continually cuts out. Savage has frequently told his audience on this particular subject that there are many people who come here legally and want to become a part of the American dream and CONTRIBUTE to this great nation of ours. But there are also those that come here ILLEGALLY and only come here to TAKE from our society, meaning abusing the healthcare system, welfare and things of that nature. Now you can debate this all you want but ask yourself this question. For those that want to become a citizen of the USA why can't they just do LEGALLY instead of ILLEGALLY?
Even if he WERE reasonable most of the time it would not excuse his bigotry, hatespeech, and overall douchebaggery. This thread is a perfect example it is about what he said to and about Bernie Sanders the Senator from Vermont and man with more decency and compassion in his little finger than Weiner will ever see in the mirror. I dont intend to subject myself to a man who calls for killing one hundred million Muslims or the vast array of blatant hatespeech and stupidity he spews. He is patently insane without a shred of decency. That he might act reasonable some or even most of the time (which I will take your word for) doesnt change the fact he DOES spew hatred bigotry and insanity. Feel free to swim in the sewer of his spewage, I will pass
Well, at least now we know why they call Michael Wiener Michael "Savage" I just don't understand why any radio station would want anything to do with him. He's beyond cruel, he needs help!! GO BERNIE, MY HERO!!
Was Michael the Savage Wiener in "Lord of the Flies"? If not, he should've been!
One other thing you should know about Michael Savage. Did you know that he is the only conservative voice in America that is completely opposed to adding the 21,000 or more troops in Iraq. You didn't know that did you? On yesterdays show he said,"Bush is the worst president and the worst commander in chief to ever set foot in office" Do you think idiots like Hannity, limbaugh or the blonde witch (Ann Coulter) would say such a thing, no. I would like to give a strategy that Savage gave his audience recently. He said,"Withdraw to the sidelines, let Iran get sucked into the vacuum that we have been sucked into. Then you back the Sunnis like we used to with conventional weapons. Let Iran get bloodied up for four years like we have. Then after Iran has been drained and weakend, you have a country that is easier to destabalize", meaning Iran. Another strategy that he has been saying for almost three years now is this one,"Leaflet the Sunni Triangle, give the women and children 72 hours to get out and then devastate the area with cruise missles. After that then you send in the men to mop up". This is why so many people listen to Savage because he actually has great ideas. You don't understand what you are missing. If you liberals claim to be open minded people, well it should work both ways don't you think? If you think Savage only spends his time attacking minorities and calling people names then you are a sorry bunch of humans. I don't understand how Savage is on three hours a day five days a week and the only things that MMFA can pick out is a few minutes or less of him. If they actually posted some of the great ideas he comes up with or how he attacks Bill O'rielly and Fox News, you may actually agree more than you disagree.
So I guess your point is if you make sense some of the time its fine if you are an insane bigotted moron the rest of the time. See I just disagree with the concept. Lots of people are honest most of the time then lie when it suits them, these people are known as LIARS.
chrisgubatan1699, Savage's only benefit to “liberals” is that he is less partisan than Rush or Hannity. He will sometimes question the Republican Party. Ok great. There are many fascists, in Europe there is an increasing amount thanks to deals like NAFTA there as well, who don't agree with either party not because they're more rational but because neither party is fascist enough. They don't attack immigrants ENOUGH. They don't try to impose THEIR view of what their culture is ENOUGH. They, like Savage and you, don't focuses on the rich and powerful causing the situation. They, like you, are cowards and attack the relatively weak. Their ideas, like Savages, are horrible, objectively illogical and have a pretty bad historical precedent. The problem I've seen with Savage listeners, well the biggest problem, is that they don't know tons about the outside world and, as a result, are open to ideas that appeal to them emotionally. If you don't understand the full complexity of a situation, the emotional argument will take its place. Immigration is a great example of this and your posts prove it.
What do you mean he "sometimes" attacks the Republican party? He says that,"They are phonies through and through. They say one thing and they do another". He also said,"The republicans are the biggest frauds on the face of the planet". Does that sound like he sometimes attacks them? At least one thing you can't hate him for is if it weren't for him Rockstar (energy drink) would cease to exist! If you don't know his son is the creator and president of Rockstar.
"Katrina has shown the true effect of the Liberal way of life...to the brainwashed and ignorant." Seriously, the stupidest post I've ever read. I am not just saying that. I honestly don't see how someone can look at the situation in New Orleans and think it has anything to do with a "Democratic utopia". It seems to have more to do with incompetent right wing profiteers and a local business elite that is detached from 90% of their own city. I would REALLY REALLY like you to articulate that idea further. I'm gonna go and get some coffee, I'll be right back. I need a chuckle on a rainy day.
hey Houdini, what is so hard to understand? Year after year and election after election the mass of humans from NO dutifully line up and vote 90+% Lib for whatever fool has a "D" next to their name.
The state is and has been so saturated in democrat officials and policy a snapshot of daily life should tell an outsider what effect this way of life has on a society.
Katrina like a x-ray machine exposed the soul of Greater NO and its not pretty.
Contrast it to the frozen mid-west last month and compare.
Mississippi was devastated by Katrina too, what is your explanation for that? Were they just collateral damage from the anti-liberal hurricane?
What are you talking about Louisiana went for Bush in both elections. So I guess they will vote for any Gump impersonater with an R next to his name. They have three republicans in the house and a Republican Senator. Bush got 57% of the vote
And then they re-elected the main person responsible for the aftermath of Katrina - Mayor Ray Nagin
So let me get this straight: the man responsible for the aftermath of the hurricane was the mayor of a middle sized city - who was actually in the drowned city at the time - not the government of the United States of America? It's the mayor's fault that help was days in coming to his city? It's the mayor's fault that the levees collapsed? It's the mayors
How ya figure?
I really don't think you have the grounds to compare those two situations.
Who the hell cares anymore about party lines? I hate both parties and anyone who blindly follows either. How many people with "D's by their names" are ideologically in the same boat as Bush and people like yourself? The "liberal" mayor of New Orleans who voted for Bush in 2000? The "liberal" D's in NO who are basically the economic elite, who've ignored the poor and infrastructure in their own city? The D's are horrible. So are the R's, who've nationally taken a dump on the city of New Orleans, profiting off of its destruction. When you said "Democratic paradise", you weren't referring to a party (a party by itself is nothing, the people and the ideology within the party are everything). Basically, you're saying the liberal paradise and again there is no way you can say NO has been a liberal paradise. If anything it's been capitalist, better yet a crony capitalist, wasteland and it's been destroyed by that same neglect. Now the neglect is national and by people with R's next to their names. Same rough ideology. For you so say that NO showed that some liberal paradise (which never existed) was flawed is ridiculous. It was crony capitalism that’s destroyed NO, locally, nationally and bi-partisan.
Ya know Savage makes a big deal how being turned down for a tenured post in anthropology at some university, in favor of some minority (I have never had the stomach to sit down and read the whole tirade) turned him to the far right wing.
ROFLMAO!!! Yeah right, such rabid viewpoints don't develop overnight thanks to some slight, or even a string of them.
Odds are, odds i would bet on (and I am not a betting man) it, is that attitudes like the ones he's known for are what kept him from getting tenure, not affirmative action.
I imagine part of the reason he was declined a tenured position was that he never earned a PhD in anthropology. How he managed to earn an MA in medical anthropology completely baffles me -- he clearly retained nothing he learned while studying for his master's.
The real knee-slapped in his Wikipedia biography is that he did indeed get turned down when applied be a dean at UC Berkeley's graduate school of... get this... journalism! When they rightly rejected him on the basis of lacking relevant education and experience, he filed a discrimination lawsuit! (The suit was, of course, dismissed.)
What a sad, pathetic man.
RedStateDad is a partisan platitude machine, dime a dozen really. He seems to equate voting D with being "liberal". This is beyond illogical, especially in the South, doubly especially in NO where the Democratic Party is, for the most part, comprised of rich individuals with right of center economic views. Not all, but most. Nagan, for instance, was the candidate of the local business elites, was a Republican in the past and voted for Bush in 2000. I could care less what party someone is in, it's their ideology and actions that matter. NO isn’t destroyed because of liberals, it’s been destroyed because of greed and cronyism, the calling card of the modern right wing.
Hodini,
Wrong again, greed and graft finds a home where it will regardless of party.
How in the world can u guys not agree that greater NO is -has and will always be a giant Dem machine?
Insult me and my rectum all u like, the facts are still the facts.
Also, Bernie is not a "dirty" socialist... he is a very tidy socialist.
"Wrong again, greed and graft finds a home where it will regardless of party.""How in the world can u guys not agree that greater NO is -has and will always be a giant Dem machine?"You were on your way on the first, then you said the second. This is not complex Valentinian. Party affiliation doesn't mean jack squat if what each party is offering is basically the same thing. If you look at the IDEOLOGY of the Democrats and Republicans in NO there is little to no difference in regards to economics, which is what we’re talking about. The Republicans have proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which you know you couldn't argue against) that they are both greedy and are knee deep in cronyism. The Republicans in NO don't offer a thing to the poor and working class in NO, the Democrats only moderately. My point is that both parties work for the rich and powerful and both parties’ actions have destroyed NO, Democrats predominantly locally and Rep. predominantly nationally. If there was a difference in ideology, if the Democrats were truly liberal and did things like take care of the poor and offered a true alternative, and if THAT failed then what you said would have relevance. In reality, if you are right of center economically, you would wouldn’t as much of a problem with NO Democrat's platform as you think. There is no way you could say that NO was a “LIBERAL” paradise. Since I'm not a Democrat, and don't see enough difference between the two, I think your semantics is misleading. In order for you to argue against what I’m saying you’d have to prove that the New Orleans Democratic Party was “liberal”, which you can’t, it wasn’t and isn’t. Zell Miller is a Southern Democrat, is he “liberal”? Mary Landrieu is a pretty conservative Democrat herself. What has failed in New Orleans is your economic and political philosophy, which sadly dominates both the parties in the South.
Thank you for adding a little bit of sanity to this site, the two party system is clearly broken
I agree, how did I get the be the target of your rant?
You as well started out great but faded.
I think it is reasonable to say that NO, St Louis, NYC etc are indeed liberal machines in every sense of the word.
Plus, saying the Mayor was really a Con is a bit of stretch even for a really good magician.
please remember I am not saying that they are smart educated voters (or even really alive) but they turn out as faithfully as the cherry trees in DC during winter!
And I am sure you could find an equal number of "Conservative" machines to boot.
Redstateda,
Please let me know if there are any conservative machine cities? Also, do you think it is proper for Mr. Savage to say those things about Senator Sanders?
"proper" well that's tough. Was he "nice" off course not. Did he consider his "feelings" I doubt it. Would he discuss over a latte with him, hardly.
Is Savage a "criminal", only in the minds of the shallow, heart of the weak and thinking of the thoughtless.
You keep Franken, I'll take Savage...Deal?
Bernie is a dirty socialist?...there is NO misinformation here.
What ever happened to "Sticks n Stones....." Savage is Savage...so what ?
As far as i know radios are not pre-tuned to Savage am stations. I for one believe in CHOICE, letting the public decide what they consume.
Um...sure guy. Nagan, if you bothered to do some research, was a Republican, was the business candidate and did vote for Bush in 2000. If that qualifies him as "liberal" then so be it. Obviously these concepts are too complex for you. I'll keep it simple if we have any further...pointless conversations: Democrat="liberal", Republican="conservative".
Houdini
"poof"
Hey!!! who stole my rabbit?
Right here! Very clever. Very, very clever. Veeery Veeery clever. Just veeeeery clever. Brings me back to grade school, veeeeery cleverly done. Good show.
Grade school was ok, as I remember Mrs Powers was real hot.
Hey! who poured the milk into the newspaper again?