Savage "agree[d] 100 percent" with caller who said that gay rabbis would likely "rap[e] teenage boys"
On the March 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated that he "agree[d] 100 percent" with a caller who said: "I'm very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests." The caller added, "[T]hey were raping teenage boys, and if you allow them to come into your churches, I'm sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they're not going to do the same thing." Savage responded: "The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: 'Rabbi' means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew," adding, "I'm not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They're everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what's right and what's wrong. And that's all there is to it."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), Savage has a history of attacking gays and lesbians. He has repeatedly referred to "the homosexual mafia," claimed that "the homosexual dance of death" is the "seminal issue of our time," and compared gays to "drug addicts." Savage has also recently taken to attacking the transgender community. On the March 20 broadcast of his show, he called a transgender woman who was murdered and left near a freeway outside San Francisco a "psychopath" and a "freak," and on the March 23 broadcast of his show, he blamed sexual reassignment surgery for the Columbine massacre.
As Media Matters has also noted, Savage was signed by Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency (CAA) for "representation in all areas" -- including television and film -- but was dropped by the agency after he attacked singer and CAA client Melissa Etheridge for thanking her wife during her Academy Awards acceptance speech.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third-most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the March 30 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Yes [caller], go ahead quickly.
CALLER: Yeah, I'm very concerned that the Jews are now accepting gays as rabbis. And as a Catholic, I can tell you it almost destroyed our church when we accepted gays as priests. They raped young boys, and the media covered them for years, as well as the bishops. And the media uses the word "pedophile" to describe these rapist priests. They're not pedophiles, they were raping teenage boys. And if you allow them to come into your churches, I'm sorry, your synagogues, I have no reason to believe they're not going to do the same thing. I still --
SAVAGE: I agree 100 percent. It makes my stomach turn. But you're looking at one branch of Judaism, Reform Judaism, and then you're looking at another branch of false Judaism, in my opinion, called so-called Conservative Judaism. The only true Judaism is the Bible-believing Orthodox Jewish branch of Judaism. They are vehemently opposed to homosexuality and homosexuals in the ministry, so to speak. So make no mistake about it: This Reform and liberal branches, the liberal branches of Judaism, fundamentally have eschewed the religion itself.
CALLER: You're right, they're going to, it's destroying -- as a matter of fact, it's interesting, the only branch that's growing within Judaism is the Orthodox branch.
SAVAGE: Well, that's right. The other branches are dying out for a number of reasons, and I don't have to delineate them for you. But if you look at Christianity itself, the largest growing segment that I understand to be is the so-called evangelical branch of Christianity, because they are the people who truly believe in God's word, and they act upon it. The others have, you know, basically walked away from their religion, and I'm not here to condemn the other people, but that's how religions live and die.
And the fact of the matter is you're 100 percent right. The idea of a gay rabbi is an oxymoron. Think about it: "Rabbi" means teacher. You cannot have a homosexual teacher teaching boys how to be a Jew. OK? I mean, let's lay it on the line here. I'm not going to mince words for fear of offending homosexuals. They're everywhere, anyway, trying to tell me what to say and what not to say and what to think. I know what's right and what's wrong. And that's all there is to it. And that's it, and now we'll move on. I'll be right back.
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
"They're everywhere..."
Message to Michael: Good observation, Einstein. Maybe you're just realizing that homosexuality is more prevalent than you ever thought, or would like it to be. Perhaps it frightens you that homosexuality may not be as much of an "abnormality" as you've always argued. Frightening peoples with tales and predictions of teenage rape, though, is a bit off the mark. Pedophelia is an abnormality... and a crime. To suggest that all homosexuals are pedophiles is like saying all heterosexuals are nymphomaniacs. No basis for either position.
""homosexuality may not be as much of an "abnormality" as you've always argued""
Why is it HIV is so prevelent in the Male Gay community?
Why is HIV not prevelent amongst lesbians? Irrelevant.
Now there's a slippery slope. You need to elaborate on that one, or you might as well be asking, "Why is that sickle cell anemia is prevalent among black people?" And then we might as well jump to, "Why do old people have so many strokes? There must be something abnormal about being old." And then we're in Logan's Run.
The same bulljive spouted by the Phelps klan. This shows your true, trollish colors.
Get out.
Why are heart attacks so prevalent among overweight people who smoke? Not practicing safe sex is carelessly dangerous to all people, straight or gay, just as their are other ways of not taking care of one's health. Those are unhealthy choices, not what sex the person is whom you kiss goodnight.
In Africa and other third world countries, most cases of HIV are contacted by heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
Yeah, but that's just because there's something abnormal about Africans.
Why is it HIV is so prevelent in the Male Gay community?
========================
Why do so many conservative radio hosts have erectile dysfunction?
Anybody else remember his lame "99.99%" catchphrase the last time he got caught gay bashing? How much of the world hates gays? The same people who are supposedly "everywhere"?
You can't have it both ways, Weiner.
Perhaps it frightens you that homosexuality may not be as much of an "abnormality" as you've always argued.
Cancer is very prevelant, yet it is still considered an abnormality. Homosexuality IS abnormal, science has proven it over and over again. Why is this so surprising to the left? Besides, Savage's main point is probably true. If you let homosexuals into teaching roles they will probably try to screw around with the students. Is mmfa trying to insinuate that gays would not do that?? If so, that would be very naive of them.
Way to compare homsexuality with cancer. Being celibate is also abnormal by your definition.
As for your comment that gays would try to bed there students, I feel inclined to point out that most reported incidents seem to come from the true scourge of this planet, heterosexual women. In other words, yes, homosexual teachers might try to fool around with their students. Just like heterosexuals.
yes, homosexual teachers might try to fool around with their students. Just like heterosexuals.
Exactly my point, and mmfa is ignoring that fact. I guess that's how missinformation works coming from the left.
Did Weiner say that only people who have been castrated should be allowed to teach?
If he's singling out gays as sexual predators, then it's bigotry.
By that logic being a Republican is abnormal, simply because there are fewer Republicans than non-Republicans.
Completely absurd logic. Do we not allow male teachers to teach female students for fear of sexual abuse? Vice versa? No, of course not. Rational people can separate their careers from their sexuality, and do not take a job with the intent on abusing the people they come in contact with every day. What do you propose next, all male schools taught by all men, and all female schools taught by all women? Ridiculous.
What do you propose next, all male schools taught by all men, and all female schools taught by all women? Ridiculous.
I think most conservatives would be happy with this.
Is mmfa trying to insinuate that gays would not do that?? If so, that would be very naive of them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No actually baselessly CLAIMING without a shred of evidence that gay teachers would illegally try to have sex with their students (at least at any higher rate then heterosexual teachers try to bed THEIR students) shows YOUR bigotry not MMFAs naivety. It comes directly from YOUR prejudice and ignorance a perfect definition of bigotry
No actually baselessly CLAIMING without a shred of evidence that gay teachers would illegally try to have sex with their students (at least at any higher rate then heterosexual teachers try to bed THEIR students)
Hate to pop your hate bubble, again, but where did I make that claim? What kind of 'scientific' proof do you want that will prove what you claim I said. Maybe the mere addition of your paranthesis is your own admission of guilt by any potential teacher. When you increase your comprehension abilities, you'll notice my statement was inferring that gays would attack their students just like hetero's do. I didn't say more as your hate-rant implies.
Oh my Autolycus, is your brain working today? Here's your earlier post, quoted verbatim and in its entirety:
Cancer is very prevelant, yet it is still considered an abnormality. Homosexuality IS abnormal, science has proven it over and over again. Why is this so surprising to the left? Besides, Savage's main point is probably true. If you let homosexuals into teaching roles they will probably try to screw around with the students. Is mmfa trying to insinuate that gays would not do that?? If so, that would be very naive of them.
Where, exactly, do you say that gays are just as unlikely to molest students as heteros? And wouldn't that make Weiner's point moot?
Where, exactly, do you say that gays are just as unlikely to molest students as heteros? And wouldn't that make Weiner's point moot?
I did not say it. How do you get the impression that I did? I merely said that gays would attack students just like hetroes do. I don't think he said 'more' or 'less', he said they would do it. I did not say more or less, either, just that they would do it. From what mmfa printed, I think Savage's point is that gays will attack their students (I agree with that), and if you put people in situations where they teach those they are attracted to 'things' will happen. I also agree that hetroes attack their students. I do not like it happening by either.
Nowhere did you mention heterosexuals in your entire homophobic post. He did indeed say they would do it, but that's singling out gays as an "at risk" group. It is exactly as if I said that conservatives are a bunch of loudmouthed idiots (not that I would, but if I did) and my defense was "But I was merely pointing out that they are just as likely to be loudmouthed and idiotic as liberals, you freaking idiots."
Weiner specifically targeted gays, as you yourself did. To quote The Simpsons, don't spit on my cupcake and tell me it's frosting.
Of course that's what I was talking about...that's the topic of this thread! I don't know why Savage was talking about it, but I'm talking about it because it is the topic of conversation. If you want to have a different opinion, go right ahead, but why you dissin me because I have an opinion? I mean, for crying out loud, if you're argument has boiled down to I don't have a valid opinion, then why bother?
I'm not dissing you for having a different opinion, I'm calling you out for saying one thing (that gay teachers will assault their students) and claiming you said another (that gays and hetero teachers will both assault students).
I merely said that gays would attack students just like hetroes do..... I also agree that hetroes attack their students.
That's what I said.
I must be missing something, but as a Catholic, can someone tell me just when it was when the Catholic church openly accepted gays as priests?
And since when is it you have to be a particular sex to teach anyone anything? I always thought the #1 requirement should be knowledge of the material, but then again I forget. That's just sooo liberal of me...
those priests jones'd for young boys = gay, thats a 5 star offense. if they were molesting little girls thatd be a 4.5 star offense but at least it isnt a gay act.
Well, if that's the case, please explain jail. There's a lot of soap dropping going on there, are you now suggesting all murderers are gay?
If that's the way they want it, then YES. What's YOUR definatition of being gay? Mine is having sex with the same sex. That would definately qualify as being gay. What do you expect from murderers? If they murder why would they worry about any other sins? They probably lie, cheat and steal also.
I guess the idea that if you actively relegate someone to the sidelines that person may begin demonstrating actions that would be considered "abnormal" just wasn't on your "to think" list today, was it?
The error in your definatition of what you consider "gay" is probably based on your lack of edjumication. Same-sex rape is not necessarily about homosexual attraction, it's about the establishment of authority. This does not automatically make prison rapists "gay".
And in case you're wondering, yes I am ridiculing your spelling (or proofreading). It indicates sloppy thinking, which explains your opinion. I suspect that Mr. Weiner's compositions would likewise be nearly unintelligible.
This does not automatically make prison rapists "gay".
So, we agree that it does not preclude them from being gay, either.
And in case you're wondering, yes I am ridiculing your spelling (or proofreading).
Attention: we have a teacher in the house. ALL future posts MUST be spell checked or demotions will be in order!! Hav fun spell checking everyone's posts, it'll keep you busy.
It's kind of a common courtesy to use correct spelling and punctuation. oRwOuLdYoUrAtHeRiTyPeLiKeThIsFrOmNoWoN????
I'm not even going attempt to comprehend this one.
What if I molest an intergendered kid? Is it a 4.75 star offense?
Ha HA good joke, pretending the fake 'Col' had a clue what he is talking about :)
Pedophilia is not a homosexual act, "Col." It's not about sexual preference at all. In fact, 95-96 percent of all pedophiles are heterosexual. Reading can cure ignorance, "Col."; I'm not so sure about it curing bigotry but it's worth a chance, I suppose. So, take the cure and read this for starters: http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
Roy, so are you saying that if the victim of a pedophile is a girl, that the victim isn't worth as much then if it were a boy?
Sexism is rampant among conservatives.
i reallly like savage, i mean gay rabbis ARE more likely to rape young boys than nongay rabbis, as they are more likely to rape girls:). its a factually sound statement
Col, I don't think that was what Savage was getting at.
you remind me of mort kondracke, pretend to be a middle of the road con but you always take the lib side.
If you mean I don't have a jones for bashing people because of their sexual orientation, then that is my "lib" side.
Stop Calling Tommy a liberal.
You're insulting me.
I think you misunderstand where Tommy is coming from. If I read him fairly, I would describe him as a conservative/libertarian. That means from time to time, tommy is going to agree with liberals on some social issues.
To his credit, tommy has been very consistent over the years about not engaging in gay bashing.
Thanks open_mind, I appreciate you clarifying my position. I do not judge people based on their sexual orientation, and most certainly don't engage in bashing or degrading anyone because of it.
Except Kondrake pretends to be a liberal then usually takes the conservative side. Come to think of it tommy is NOTHING like Kondrake and you whiffed that one.
i meant in that he pretends to be a con but takes the lib side, like kondrake but reversed
Actually tommy doesnt pretend to what he is not. Open mind is right. He is a conservative leaning libertarian. He has been since the first post of his I read. Libertarians span the political spectrum. My wife doesnt like Bill Mahar because he isnt really a liberal but she thinks he pretends to be he doesnt. Things just arent that simple. Tommy doesnt fit into that conservative box youe have imagined but he isnt pretending.
Ex-Mayor of NYC Ed Koch once gave a good civics lesson, which is relevant to this discussion. As I remember it he said, "If you agree with me on seven out of ten issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with my opponent on seven out of ten issues, you should vote for him or her. If you agree with either one of us on ten out of ten issues, you should lie down and stop breathing, because you're brain dead." Personally, I judge any politician who has a 100% or close rating from either the Conservative Union or ADA by that yardstick.
That is pretty good. I guess thats ONE thing I agree with Koch on.
At least Tommy doesn't pretend to be in the military, Mr video-game "Colonel."
Based on what? Why are gay rabbi's more likely to rape young girls? They are gay, right? Proof please...
I think he was trying to say that gay Rabbis are more likely to rape young boys instead of young girls... Because they're gay. At least that's what I think he meant. Either way, stupid comment.
Gay people are as unlikely as anyone to rape any child. Probably less. It is not any part of a gay lifestile. Pedophiles may try to hide behind a suppsed gay identity. The basic difference between them and almost any other sexual identity is that almost any other sexual identity is between adults.
No. The people who are most likely to rape* children are paedophiles. Not gays, not biosexuals, not heterosexuals. Not people sexually drawn to adults of their own or the opposite sex. We're talking about a whole different category of people here. Why is this so hard to understand?
*and - as a point of technicality - most of the child abuse reported in the Catholic Church was unlawful sexual connection but not actually rape.
Well...yeah.
...oh! Except for the fact that pedophilia and homosexuality have almost nothing to do with each other.
A male pedophile who molests young boys is doing it because they're young, not because they're boys, and is just as likely to molest young girls if they are readily available.
Studies have shown that it is age and the perception of "innocence" that attracts a pedophile. Not necessarily gender.
Savage, being a closet homosexual himself, should know the difference.
Studies? STUDIES??? Don't go gettin' all sciencey on us.
Yeah, that scientific method's just a Darwinist ruse, y'know.
Tryin' to keep folks from seein' the truth of Creationis...I mean...Intelligent Design.
There are plenty of things that science proves. Let's just pick and choose which science your going to believe. Is that how you work your Bible teachings too....pick and choose which sin is less sinful?
Science and religion don't compare very well. Apples and oranges.
Science is skeptical in nature and relies on evidence, logic and reason. Religion, on the other hand, requires faith in things unseen and seemingly magical answers to questions.
They both have their place, but they are not comparable things.
Which religion, exactly, do you believe condemns gay sex (especially in the sense that my lust for women would be okay, whereas if I lusted for men it would not be okay)?
Rabbis with guns are more likely to go on shooting sprees, too. Why ain't Weiner complaining that you can't be a gun-lovin' Jew?
Your point is valid as far as the molestation potential. The other thing Savage said related to being a teacher, which is partly done by example. I take it he would prefer homosexuals not be role models for children.
Then what about the kids who turn out gay despite all the straight role models they get (not to mention the gay anti-role models)?
I don't have a strong opinion on how justifiable it is, but I understand the concern.
I noticed you were subtly avoiding taking a position. That's fine, but I'd like to know what you feel there is to be "concerned" about. That little Billy might kiss a boy and catch HIV?
Are you saying you CANNOT catch HIV from kissing? You really know nothing of the disease, why are you even speaking about it as if it were a common cold? That disease is a killer! It is prominant in the gay community. Of course some people are going to be concerned that a gay kid will transmitt the disease to others. Would you want YOUR kid getting it? BTW, what's the cure for HIV or AIDS?
Autopsychic, HIV can only come from blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and breast milk (rarely). Unless the person you are kissing is bleeding or has semen or vaginal fluids in his/her mouth, then you can't catch HIV.
Are you really that uneducated about the disease that you don't know you CAN'T catch it from kissing?
So having a gay teacher encourages "experimenting", which then leads to the spread of STI's in children?
Correct me if I've misinterpreted you, but doesn't that open up a huge realm of moral standards a teacher should live up to? Are we allowed to have no teachers who drink or smoke, or have a large number of kids of their own, or have sex outside of marriage?
Naturally, some people can't separate a professional life from a personal one, but saying that those people are more often gay is just bigotry.
That little Billy might kiss a boy and catch HIV?
I've got to correct you, you followed the question wrong. I asked if you think that hiv/aids would not be transmitted by kissing. I said nothing about std's. You do know hiv is a virus, right? What fluids within the body are all virus's limited to? I'm just asking those to find out what knowledge you have on this disease and your ability to admit those answers.
STD stands for Sexually Transmitted Disease, such as AIDS, which is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. For a self-proclaimed cancer-curing doctor, you sure aren't up-to-date on your medical terminology, Autolycus.
As for transmission via kissing, it's highly unlikely, but I believe Tman hit the nail on the head in his post: if one partner has a mouth sore or is otherwise bleeding orally, then it's possible.
As for transmission via kissing, it's highly unlikely,
Then we agree that kissing can transmit the disease. Since you are NOT informed on medical situations, virus's can be found in any and every body fluid. Simple fact that can be researched and verified. Get back with me when you actually know what you're talking about. P.S. kissing isn't usually considered sex, but if you consider kissing sex, then it could be only an STD. I guess from that point of view we would agree there. But, realistically, you're truely lost of your perception of what hiv/aids is and how it works. Good luck avoiding it.
BTW, for being such a spelling freak, you sure aren't very good at spelling my name. But, that's ok, it shows you care.
My original point had nothing to do with kissing, Mr. Libs-don't-have-a-sense-of-humor. I'm trying to say that Goobs was being unreasonable by showing concern over gay teachers especially.
And do you really think I'm too stupid to know how to spell your username?
Autopsychic, saying you can catch HIV from kissing implies you can catch it from saliva. HIV cannot be transmitted by saliva. Again, it is blood, semen, vaginal fluids, and (rarely) breast milk. If your lover has HIV and has nothing of the sort in his/her mouth, go ahead and explore eachother's mouths all you want.
Saliva, Tears, and Sweat HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm
Ok, this site seems to explain it very well. Provide the site(s) that support your claims. The virus is there, transmission is NOT ruled out, only not verified.
"Saliva, Tears, and Sweat
HIV has been found in saliva and tears in very low quantities from some AIDS patients. It is important to understand that finding a small amount of HIV in a body fluid does not necessarily mean that HIV can be transmitted by that body fluid. HIV has not been recovered from the sweat of HIV-infected persons. Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."
"Kissing
Casual contact through closed-mouth or "social" kissing is not a risk for transmission of HIV. Because of the potential for contact with blood during "French" or open-mouth kissing, CDC recommends against engaging in this activity with a person known to be infected. However, the risk of acquiring HIV during open-mouth kissing is believed to be very low. CDC has investigated only one case of HIV infection that may be attributed to contact with blood during open-mouth kissing."
Your own link provides all the information needed to refute your own claims that saliva, sweat and tears causes HIV infection. A previous poster pointed out that contact with open sores or blood while open mouth kissing could possibly result in infection. I really don't understand why you're arguing.
For a self-proclaimed cancer-curing doctor
I like that all the complaining that happened during that thread NO ONE could provide any proof or any links that showed I was wrong or ANY of the data I provided was wrong. It's cool how you use being right in a derogatory remark.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Col. Roy Campbell; on the outside chance you are indeed a Col. currently or previously in an American force of arms, I would stil insist that you take the medication your doctor proscibes for your own good.
Ah, Bleep, Bleep, Blaa That's all Folks!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Dan, you didn't have to write your name. We already know who has posted what in here.
Secondly, how are the Democrats saving democracy? Furthermore, how is democracy in trouble? I'm willing to read what you have to say.
The biggest thing I see that Dems can do save democracy is ban electronic voting machines.
Goobs,
I don't think that is the answer. There are fairly simple ways to use the speed and efficiency of electronic voting machines and combine it with a system that allows people to conveniently verify their own vote (or allow a third party to verify your vote) was counted correctly.
We don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.
Furthermore, how is democracy in trouble?
Read the Patriot Act lately?
The Patriot Act keeps people from voting?
I see you've drawn a semantic line dividing "freedom" and "democracy". Touche.
"I'm willing to read what you have to say."
-----
Too bad you've demonstrated no aptitude for understanding it.
Uncalled for insult, Easy.
I happen to be for democracy. That's why I oppose Democrats (and Republicans) who are against making people present photo ID's at the polls. Democracy needs protection against voter fraud.
Our democracy doesn't need protection against voter fraud. It needs protection against vote and voter manipulation.
I like the idea of simply providing ID when you vote. Wouldn't that eliminate most of your concerns of vote fraud? Since most national/state/county elections are protected (from the vote fraud I think you are talking about) with recount procedures already in place. Didn't those recount procedures clarify all the concerns of vote fraud in each case it was established there was any?
Wouldn't that eliminate most of your concerns of vote fraud?
What vote fraud?
Presenting IDs does not stop the hacking or pre-programming of voting machines, it doesn't prevent "lost" paper ballots, and it doesn't prevent select people from being marked inaccurately as felons in order to prevent them from voting.
Try again!
And which of your concerns, with the present protections built into the voting system, did not get corrected by procedures that get followed when a vote is contested??
The two previous presidential elections were won under shady conditions. In the former, the one who tried to get all the votes counted was mostly ridiculed for his efforts.
But, in the end didn't the court system agree with the final tally? Or did I miss a further complaint? I thought it made it to the Supreme Court, (maybe I'm wrong) and they should know the law, right?
The way I understood it, the "final tally" was what was in question.
Hold on to that as long as you can. The Supreme Court seems to think a little differently than you, that no (extra) vote count would change the election results.
wow mmfa sure has a real jones on for some savage!
Nah, exposing Savages insane bigotry is a moral imperative
Broken record, Solon.
Move it along people, nothing to see ....
I guess it will be MY decision WHAT I post. YOU have nothing to say about it. Get over yourself
And no sense of humour either. GEEZ. WHAT is YOUR problem? Why do YOU need to post in CAPITAL LETTERS?
And you got a jones on for MMFA, and I've got a jones on for you, and those cigarette smokers on the corner have a jones on for tobacco, and those people in line at McDonald's have a jones on for hamburgers...
Savage is either off his meds or clinically insane.
This pisses me off because despite this, he gets to have his own radio talk show and gets paid big $$
I have never been on medication and I'm quite sane...yet I don't have my own radio talk show and I probably don't make even a 1/4 of this guy's yearly salary
Where did I go wrong???
Welcome to America 2007 ;-)
If you make that much, I want to know what you do for a living. Test Engineering just ain't panning out!
Haha Snoop I definitely didn't do the math correctly. I've no clue what Savage makes...but 1/4 was way way too high. The fact that someone even pays this guy for spewing crap really ticks me off.
Guess that's what it means when someone says: Who told you life was fair? ;-)
What does a Rabbi do all day? For that matter what do any clerics do all day? Maybe 'idle handle are the devils workshop' is a part of Savage's thought process.
Weiner doesn't have thought processes. He's a sociopath, therefore it's all impulse. He does NOT think before he speaks. That's part of his disease.
I wonder if you're aware of his academic background, two Masters degrees and a Ph.D. as well as having written a number of books on nutrition prior to the punditry he does now.
He wasn't saying he was uneducated. But he sure is uneducated on political and social issues.
I would agree 100% that Weinerguy is clincally insane and is in dire need of megadoses of an antipsychotic.
in dire need of megadoses of an antipsychotic.
What are you picking on me for? What did I say to you this time that got you all riled up?
That post was original, responding to NO OTHER POST. Get over yourself everything isnt about YOU. In fact most things arent.
I see you have no sense of humor. I should have added a little smily face so you would understand a joke when you hear one. :)
No sense of humor? It should tell you something about yourself when we can't tell the difference, my dear Autolycus.
Ah! If clinically insane, enraged, bigoted, hate-filled, loud, racist, and rightwing conservative, it's a PADDED CELL for these guys.
Padded, that is, by acoustical tiles for soundproofing the AM RADIO BOOTH, because insane rightwingers is a growth industry on the airwaves. See, it seems there is a MARKET for their rantings, as there are enough in the clinically insane, enraged, bigoted, hate-filled, loud, racist rightwing conservative population (maybe it's just Bush's 30% approval crowd) to pay these guys to propagandize the nation.
Tex, if you ever listened to Savage, you'd know that he doesn't approve of Bush. Secondly, none of those adjectives in your first paragraph describes Savage (except maybe "loud").
So? My enemies enemy is not my friend, as we learned from Staling and Hitler. It doesn't matter who Savage endorses. He vilifies homosexuals, which makes himone of the few people I would consider actually evil. Since you support him, I assume you must also hate gays, making you, in turn, evil.
GOTO HECK
He vilifies homosexuals, which makes him one of the few people I would consider actually evil. GOTO HECK
If you believe in evil, you must believe in good. If you say homosexuality is good then you must believe that heck if for those who think homosexuality is bad. Therefor heacken must be for those who think homosexuality is good. Whew, at least you won't be in Heaven! And, if you're not in Heaven we know where you'll be.
Your post sufferes from the logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy. Everything doesnt fall into an either or patttern. EVERYTHING isnt black or white. People arent good or bad just because they are gay. It is what we DO that earns that categorization. Even THAT is too simple since very few people are JUST good or JUST bad. JUST pure or just evil. Keep getting stuck on that kind of Manichean thinking and you will never understand the world.
On behalf of everyone here, thank you for telling us what we believe in. I'm sure you'd appreciate it if we did the same to you.
You're welcome. And, thank solon for telling me what to believe. Perhaps solon is doing that for all of you, because many of you are busy telling others what to believe and may not have time for me?
He didn't tell you what to believe, he stated a fact.
So Savage is a liberal? Nope. He's angry at us. Thinks we're vermin but that ain't hateful, right? That's just telling it like it is, right?
So Savage is an independent? Nope. His worldview is conservative right down the line, it's a strict father instead of nurturing parent view. He believes in aggression, punishment and hierarchy just like Bush. Progressives believe in participation, rehabilitation and equality. He's just mad at Bush because Bush isn't a harsh enough authoritarian.
Authoritarian? Yeah, that's our Mikey. He blames all of the woes in our country on the lack of a strict moral order.
From what other's have posted, his father was abusive. It's like the psych book said....sociopaths breed sociopaths.
Savage never said that he's not a conservative. He's an independent conservative, which means that he's not a water boy for the GOP like Rush and Hannity.
Progressives believe in rehabilitation? For terrorists? For murderers? How childish and naive if true!
How does Savage believe in "hierarchy"?
He seems to think there's a long list of people who are sub-human for doing things to consenting adults and themselves. And let's not forget how he thinks he can speak for God.
Not "hierarchy" specifically, but a definite ego trip.
Hierarchy? Absolutely. He outlines a hierarchical view daily with his moral authority rants. Conservatism is absolutely enamored with this idea that those who enjoy material wealth and success in life are of a higher moral order than those who do not achieve financial gain and success. That is the root of their enmity toward the poor and those in need. As if poor people were of no moral fortitude.
Yeah, rehabilitation not punishment for those of us who have wrecked lives, addictions, learning disabilities or behavioral disorders. Some folks are beyond rehabilitation, many more are not.
Anyway, nice dodge. Savage is full of hate just as Tex wrote. He hates libs, thinks we are verminous traitors and should be executed. Just like his eliminationist brother, Dinesh D'souza, Savage thinks liberalism was the cause of 911. He wants you and everyone like you to hate libs because he thinks we made Americans die on 911. That is hateful and it doesn't matter what nice things, if any, he has to say about anything else because he wants me dead. That is hateful.
But I feel sorry for him. I do not wish for him to suffer and he most certainly suffers because contentment necessarily eludes him as it does with all people who hate.
Savage doesn't believe that being rich and/or successful makes one more moral. Just listen to what he has had to say about Anna Nicole Smith, Hollywood starlets, and politicians. I've never heard Savage say that it's bad to be poor either. He's just against laziness. Finally, I've never heard him say that all liberals should be executed. In fact, he just lauded Nancy Pelosi for going to Syria and talking to that country's leader. Savage even reprimanded Bush for attacking Pelosi. Savage is not about Dems vs. Repubs; he's about who's right or wrong on the issue at hand.
Stop being vapid. He hates liberals and would not mind if we were all dead.
" I want to direct you to a traitor. In my opinion, she should be tried for treason, and when she's found guilty, she should be hung. And when she is hung, maybe the other quislings in our government will get the message that we're going to crack down on them, and that our safety and the safety our children mean something to us."
"This is what liberalism is. Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation?"
"Now, I realize that the American left is cheering today. They'll probably break open the jug wine and cheer that Jews are dying, and that they're living and cowering in bomb shelters. One day, the "Deutschland über alles" may be played in Jerusalem, and the American left can tear off their masks once and for all and show themselves to be what they really are -- which is the Nazis of our time."
"As far as I'm concerned, the filthy Democrats are worse than what Foley did."
"My fear is that if the Democrats win, and I'm afraid that they might, you're going to see America melt down faster that you could ever imagine."
"This is an interesting story, but this is what the subtext of liberalism really is. Under the surface, if you got them in a room alone, I guarantee you they'd say the same kind of hateful things about Catholics and about Jews and about straights and about soldiers."
I would also add that Savage does believe the poor to be of a lower moral order. As laziness, if by laziness you are ascribing a Savage correlation to poverty, is a state of moral turpitude; sloth.
Yeah, he's not a GOP bot... Republicans will give lip service to gays and lesbians, at least.
That would be none except clinically insane, enraged, bigoted, hate-filled, racist, and rightwing
MSFP:
As Savage "boasts" 5-10 million listeners, you are correct: this number is dwarfed by the supposed 30% who seem to still support Bush. In a nation of 300 million, 10 million is only 3%, only a TENTH of those still favoring Bush. And this is assuming ALL who listen to Savage are supporters, rather than rational folks doing opposition "research".
If you indeed are a Savage supporter, you are way, way out of the mainstream and into the radical extreme, in other words, people who don't support Bush because Bush is not ENOUGH of a deranged fascist.
Not at all, Tex. You liberals throw around the word "fascist" way too much. Many conservatives are disappointed by how much of a big government liberal Bush is, btw. Michael Savage is in the mainstream on the issues of borders, language, and culture. Americans agree with Savage and not with the Dems and Repubs on immigration. The border issue alone would make Savage a threat in the presidential election.
Over seven million people have gone onto michaelsavage.com and voted for Michael Savage to run for president. When will Rudy the Red Nosed Reindeer, Mitt "Man Tan" Romney, and John McKennedy answer Savage's challenge to a debate on his show? Time will tell.
Many conservatives are disappointed by how much of a big government liberal Bush is, btw. - Ah, I almost forgot how everyone you don't like is a liberal (e.g. Hitler and Stalin).
Michael Savage is in the mainstream on the issues of borders, language, and culture. - He's also a paranoid, homophobic, terrorist sympathizer. That's like handing me a plate of poop, plopping a cherry on top, and telling me it will taste good.
Explain to me how you come up with these facts?
"Savage is paranoid, homophobic"
Funny, I didn't think you were that new to this site.
Stop right there.
Many of us have gone to this clowns website and signed the petition to help him get his campaign off the ground. I would imagine that many others have done the same.
To many, a Savage candidacy would be a dream come true. Savage is relatively UNKNOWN in the mainstream. his ideas need to see the light of day.
Once the people in this country see what his segment of conservatism stands for, he will no longer be permitted to bask in the sun but will be driven back under his rock.
A Savage For President campaign is what this country needs. The entire country must be forced to see the end result of conservative purity.
After all, most of us weren't around in 1930's Germany when another man with similar views was rising to lead his nation.
"Once the people in this country see what his segment of conservatism stands for, he will no longer be permitted to bask in the sun but will be driven back under his rock. "
Somehow I doubt that.
There's no comparison between Savage and Hitler. Hitler wanted to gas all Jews. It seems to me that Savage is standing up to today's "Hitler reincarnated" AKA Ahmadinejad. Savage is more like Churchill than Hitler, come to think of it.
It seems to me that Savage is standing up to today's "Hitler reincarnated" AKA Ahmadinejad. Savage is more like Churchill than Hitler, come to think of it.
Except Churchill won an election. Where was that rant where you said you'd never forgive your man if he failed to run? I can't wait 'till you're face-deep in humble pie.
Hmmm, Immigration. Savage is a hater, and is scared silly of things he doesn't understand. His "audience" of the fearful ignorant identify with his message: get rid of anybody not JUST LIKE ME.
That is a TERRIBLE message of bigotry and ignorance. But, he has his supporters, like yourself. If you wish to identify yourself with his words and ideas, you will be forever marginalized in your ignorance and dispair. Them's just the facts. Sorry.
"Hmmm, Immigration. Savage is a hater, and is scared silly of things he doesn't understand. His "audience" of the fearful ignorant identify with his message: get rid of anybody not JUST LIKE ME."
You are the one sounding ignorant Tex. It has nothing to do with being, not JUST LIKE ME. It has to do with a wealfare system that can not handle more. it has to do with people like ME REFUSING to pay for more social programs when these 13 million will be able to take advantage of it. I am tired of the gangs in LA, tired of paying for highschool kids lunches while they yap on thier cell phones. Tired of hearing about illegals that can walk into out wonderful Nation over and over again without ANY reprocusions. Tired of paying for those loser ars illegals in OUR jail system, that is already full enough. Tired of hearing, "Press one for English". Tired of hearing about those families that are getting torn apart because the father boy firend is illegal, and can not stay with the anchor baby and mother. To F-Ing bad! You came in here illegaly, that is the chance you take. Tired of hearing about hosp[itols that have to close because the burden put on them by illegal aliens. IS ALL THIS OK WITH YOU TEX?
I am tired of the gangs in LA, tired of paying for highschool kids lunches while they yap on thier cell phones. - If illegal immigrants cause gangs, then how do the South American border-jumpers get all the way to New York? And when you have kids of your own, you can make them brown-bag it, cell-phone free.
Tired of hearing, "Press one for English". - How horrible for you. I mean, it's not like '1' is hard to find on a phone pad, right? Why don't you just boycott businesses that cater to non-English speakers, since those people must all be illegal immigrants anyway.
Tired of hearing about hosp[itols that have to close because the burden put on them by illegal aliens. - You have a point there, they really do bog down our universal health care system. Oh wait...
So, you dont think the illegals are responsable for many of the gangs in the south west? California, Texas, Arizona? Even Chicago and such. Look up MS-13 you idiot. There is one example of a ruthless gang that illegaly immigrated up from El Salvador.
To you pressing one might sound stupid, to me it is not.
And yes, many hospitals in the lower south west are suffering due to illegal immigration. To state different shows how stupid one is.
Tell me fool, how is the illegal invassion benefitting you?
You do recognize that the same anti-immigration rhetoric that you employ is the same rhetoric that hate groups employ in recruiting more haters?
Go ahead blame people fleeing economic hardship instead of the system that creates economic hardship. Cheap, processed U.S. government subsidized food exported to central and south America displaces native farm workers, robs them of their livelihood.
So, go ahead blame people fleeing economic hardship instead of employers who exploit the cheapest possible laborers.
It's this free market fundamentalism, an ethos that rewards hard work and loyalty with automation and outsourcing instead of job security and health care, that hurts our country. It's profits before people that destroys the middle class.
Save your I worked hard and never needed help to make it mantra. The roads upon which you drive to work or school were made by people; they help you prosper. The food that helps you survive was provided by people; they help you prosper. This internet that facilitates your accumulation of information functions because of people; they help you prosper. The guy who serves you at your favorite restaurant helps you. You have not learned what you have learned alone, you were helped. So don't tell me you are a self made man, you have been aided every step of the way. And the people who have helped you prosper through the efforts of their labor deserve the security that is provided by the common wealth.
Hate? Me? Sorry foolish one. You can not win a argument based on facts. Everything I stated above is factual. I am for jailing employers of illegal aliens. If you are one, or you condon it, I hope you burn in hell.
Do you always resort to childish taunts when rebuked by reality?
Do you? Many posters on here show the same behavior. Who made you god?
I have not been spanked, gey over yourself.
You're God, apparently, since you claim you can cure cancer.
Oops, I've mistaken WhereismiddleAmerica for another poster. My apologies.
Many posters here do resort to taunts. So what? Did I taunt you, call you names as you did to me? Nope. My mama taught me better than that.
Anyway, you still haven't shown you can present your beliefs sans insults. Must be because of the fundamental weakness of conservative ideology: selfishness is never noble.
Conservatism isn't selfishness. In fact, I'd be willing to pay more money for food if it meant getting the illegal aliens out of here.
I stand corrected, your compassion and selflessness are obviously without bounds.
You call us foolish, idiots,stupid, and hope we burn in hell. Then you pretend that you're not being hateful here?
Anyway, I looked up MS-13. It does seem that a foreign gang can have influence throughout our nation, I concede that. But my main point was there are gangs of LEGAL CITIZENS, too. Poverty causes crime, not a lack of citizenship.
And pray tell, what convinces you that your whining about pressing one for English is justified?
Got any evidence that hospitals are filling with illegal immigrants?
And finally, the "invasion" isn't benefiting me (besides making a significant portion of what you and I buy cheaper), but neither does the deteriorating state of public education in this country. I don't run around like a chicken with my head cut off about it, though.
Do yourself a favor, and open up a bit. If you are unaware that Hospitols are getting a huge burden put on them by illegals, then you have done and research, or have heard very little about the negative affects brought on by illegal immigration.
It's not my responsibility to research YOUR claim. Back it up with some facts, if you can.
Wrong, Tex. Savage's views on immigration have nothing to do with racism. He's against illegal aliens, not Mexicans.
He's still a racist. Do I have to pull up examples?
You have no way of knowing that on the internet there is no way of knowing if someone voted twice, fifteen times or one hundred times. I would love to see Weiner fun for President and showcase his insanity on a more exposed stage. His humiliation would be sad but perhaps an experience humbling enough to do him some good.
Solon, you really think he is stupid enough to run?
No, I dont, in fact, though I cant say enough he needs the help of a mental health professional, I have said before I think he is a fairly bright man. These two things are not mutually exclusive and it isnt in his best interest to run. I mean since you asked.
Yes, and while you "vote" as many times as you care to on that site, start suggesting that Tancredo be his VP. It is campaigns like this savage for president that make the true middle americans fear electronic voting. It is obvious to anyone with a lick of technical knowledge that anyone can vote more than once on that website.
Actually, every single one of them does.
"Right wing conservative" doesn't describe Weiner? I thought you were the one who said that, unlike Bush, he was a "true" conservative?
Savage is a right winger, but he's independent. He's an independent conservative. "Independent" doesn't mean "moderate"; it means that he's not attached to a party.
Being a conservative means he's politically right-wing.
Yes, he's a right wing conservative independent.
The bit that got me chuckling was :
"The only true Judaism is the Bible-believing Orthodox..."
Ummm, Mr. Savage, Maybe you meant Torah and Talmud, but Bible, c'mon.
The Torah's part of the Bible. Savage has also referred to the Old Testament as the "Jewish Bible."
That's kind of like my calling you a Koran-believing Christian (which, btw, is considered a more complete version of the Bible by Muslims).
Michael Savage has nothing but confirmed what I've been suspecting for a long time - he's nothing but a filthy Nazi.
Don't you think there were people in Nazi Germany who told their kids to "stay away from the rabbis, who knows what they will do with you"?
"Savage, Savage, über alles..."
- The Savage Nation National Anthem
He's not a Nazi. It's already been established that he loves and supports Orthodox Jews. Nazis hated all Jews. Savage just despises the ones whom he calls "bagels and lox Jews." That's not anti-Semitism; that's anti-liberalism. Savage actually considers liberal Jews traitors to Judaism. In other words, he's against their lack of Jewish beliefs, not their Jewishness.
The Nazis also hated all homosexuals. Savage hates all homosexuals, simply because they are attracted to someone of the same sex. That puts him in line with the Nazis.
The Nazis didn't just kill Jews, not that I'm saying the Jews didn't suffer or die during the holocaust. It was roughly 12 million total, with Jews making up about 50%.
Since when has Savage ever said, "He Hates Homosexuals"?
It's pretty hateful for him to say any gay religious leader would rape a boy. But here go some other nice articles:
Savage on gays "doing these despicable acts to each other"
Savage on Media Matters: "a gay website that attacks me every day"
Savage on gay marriage, parenting: "It makes me want to puke. ... I think it's child abuse"
I could go on...
He's against what gays do. I don't think that he hates them. He's also said that gay sex should not be illegal.
No one has to say, "I hate blah blah blah" to create proof that they hate something. Michael Savage supported the murder of a transgendered victim. He called the murder victim a "freak" and a "psychopath." It's very clear that he has hatred for the GLBT community, seeing as he rants and raves against it every other program. It is extremely irresponsible to say, as he did, that gays are likely to rape boys. Pedophiles who rape boys aren't "gay," they are pedophiles. Pedophiles are not attracted to adults. This man lauded a Washington Post employee who was in trouble for either sexual harassment or molestation of a young girl, saying, that "he should get an award that it wasn't a boy. He was just a normal pervert." He supports men who molest those of the opposite sex. I'm not quite sure how just being "against what gays do" is not being against homosexuality. Gays are human beings, just like straights. The only difference: they like members of the same sex. It is irrelevant to me that AIDS has a relatively high percentage in the gay community. Anyone can catch HIV. Same reason why people who don't eat right and become fat are likely to develop a heart attack, people who smoke are likely to develop heart disease, as well as pass on the smoke to others. Teen pregancy is relatively high among heterosexuals. People just need to practice safe sex. The level of AIDS among the gay community in the U.S.A. is nothing compared to AIDS among African heterosexuals. So, should we ban heterosexual sex in Africa?
It's very clear that Michael Savage hates the GLBT community. He calls gays "rapists" and refers to the "homosexual agenda" everynight. He believes that sticking up for the rights homosexuals infringes on the rights of heterosexuals.
"The level of AIDS among the gay community in the U.S.A. is nothing compared to AIDS among African heterosexuals"
Pretty poor comparrison. The people in Africa you speak of are mostly uneducated, ignorat, or can not do anything about due to financial reasons.
Gays are one of the smartest classes in America. Why then would they take such risks?.
Comparing AIDS rates among different groups is an apples-to-oranges comparison, that's the point.
Americans are smart and educated. They are also rich enough to not have to do so much manual labor to run a house. So why are so many Americans fat? Aren't they smart enough to know that excess of unhealthy foods and little exercises causes unhealthy obesity?
Basically what I am trying to point out is that AIDS/HIV is not exclusively for gays. Autopsychic mentioned more than once on this post that AIDS is prevalent among the American Gay community, which seemed to IMPLY that this is a reason why homosexuals should not be treated the same way as straights, or should have the same rights.
Savage never said that the transgendered man deserved to be murdered.
Don't be stupid. If you or someone you loved got murdered, and I called you or him or her a "freak" and said that "the wages of sin are death", you or your loved ones would take it as a sign of disrespect.
And when you refer to a transgendered person, you call them by the gender they are transitioning to.
When you refer to a transgendered person, you may do that. I do what I want though.
Nope, you failed. Not in one of those articles did he say, " I hate gays/homosexuals ect."....
No one has to say, "I hate blah blah blah" to create proof that they hate something. - tman418 / Tuesday April 3, 2007 11:21:38 PM EST
A good question here would be, "What exactly is hate?" I looked it up in an online dictionary, and it defined "hate" as "a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action." Well, Savage hasn't physically harmed gays, to my knowledge. How much does one need to dislike others before it's "hate"?
I never said that Nazis only killed Jews. Secondly, I disagree that Savage hates gays. He's against what he calls the "gay agenda." Thirdly, even if he does hate gays, that doesn't make him a Nazi simply because Nazis supposedly hated gays. It's not like he's for gassing gays. (BTW, haven't you heard of the Pink Swastika? There were homosexuals in the Nazi Party, although I'm not saying that Nazis were "pro gay.") I mean, the Ku Klux Klan is against abortion. Does that mean that everyone who is against abortion is in the KKK? I don't think that Pope John Paul II or Mother Teresa was in the KKK.
Secondly, I disagree that Savage hates gays. He's against what he calls the "gay agenda."
He may not use those specific words, but he does hate gays. Elsewhere in this thread I linked to a headline where he said gay parenting made him "want to puke". And what, exactly, is the "gay agenda"? The right to be treated on the same level as a hetero? That's called civil rights, and when you're against it, you're a bigot.
As for the Pink Swastika, sounds like a book Weiner would love. Where were the OPENLY gay Nazi members? Or was this some Mark Foley/Ted Haggard stuff goin' down?
I never said that you said that the Nazis only killed Jews.
As for the book "The Pink Swastika," it's very flawed. It is true that a few Nazi higher-ups, such as SA leader Ernst Röhm, were homosexual, but that does not invalidate official Nazi homophobia, just as Goebbels' clubfoot did not prevent Hitler from having "cripples" euthanized. One can make a good case that Röhm's homosexuality was part of the reason Hitler ordered him killed. (Though one can make just as good a case that it was a mere pretext for removing a man who was becoming too powerful for Hitler's comfort.) There is no evidence for the authors' claim that "most" of the Nazi leadership was gay.
One major failing of the book is that the authors have no true understanding of what homosexuality is. They make no distinction between sadistic prison camp guards who sometimes raped male prisoners, and men who are sexually oriented towards other men. They also foolishly lump pedophiles into the mix, as if gay men are just waiting for the chance to prey on children. I caught a number of assertions that are completely unproven, such as the authors' belief that there is less homosexuality among American boy scouts than among members of the Hitler Youth, due to the Boy Scouts' "Judeo-Christian" underpinnings. This is just one example of the authors' weak historiography.
The authors of this book provide some facts about the Nazi system and its leaders in their book, but they leave out crucial information, make loads of mistakes (some of which seem disingenuous), and spin what they do include to support their anti-homosexual agenda. This is not objective history, but a polemic. For example, the authors claim that, because "sodomy" was a crime in Germany and many other countries both before and after the rise of the Nazi regime (true), it's perfectly acceptable that homosexuals were placed in concentration camps during the days of the 3rd Reich. By that reckoning, people today shouldn't be upset about slavery in Colonial America, because it was "legal" at that time. The authors point out that there was never a directive to murder all homosexuals in Germany, as there was against Jews. This is true, but, as they admit, homosexuals were killed in the camps, and through violent attacks on the outside. Yes, the number of gays killed by Nazis was miniscule compared to the number of Jews murdered, but so what? Does that mean no one can talk about it, or that we should pretend it never happened? Discussing the topic of Nazi homophobia in no way lessens anyone's respect for what Jews, political dissidents, Catholics, Romany, degenerate artists, etc., suffered under the 3rd Reich, unless you're hysterically homophobic, as these authors appear to be.
And you are right that the Nazis were not pro-gay. I'll just list a few of these policies here. 1928: the Nazi party publishes a pamphlet containing its response to the idea of repealing the anti-homosexual law known as Paragraph 175, "Anyone who thinks of homosexual love is our enemy"; Feb. 23, 1933: 24 days after being appointed Chancellor, Hitler bans all homosexual-rights groups; October 24, 1934: the Gestapo secretly orders local police to collect names of all homosexuals in Germany; June 28, 1935: Paragraph 175 is amended with broader language, so that a mere touch between men can be interpreted as an arrestable offense; October 26, 1936: the Reich's "Central Office to Combat Homosexuality and Abortion" is established.
Sure, there may have been gays in higher office of the 3rd Reich. They were hyopcritical, just as Hitler wanted Germany to be full of Aryans, even though he himself was short, brown haired and brown-eyed.
I think you do make a valid point with the KKK and abortion claim. Personally, I don't think that anyone should be compared to Nazis or Hitler. However, I was probably trying to refute your point when you said that Savage isn't like a Nazi because he likes Jews (and is only critical of liberal Jews).
Homosexuals are human beings. What is wrong with homosexuals? The same things wrong with straights.
Savage just despises the ones whom he calls "bagels and lox Jews." That's not anti-Semitism; that's anti-liberalism. Savage actually considers liberal Jews traitors to Judaism. In other words, he's against their lack of Jewish beliefs, not their Jewishness.
Do your fingers operate independently from your brain? How can you defend a man who, as you say, "despises" people for disagreeing with him and not having religious views that are to his liking?
Savage refered to Jerry Springer as a "filthy degenerate with a hooked nose" - Nazis are known for refering to Jews as "hook noses".
And you want this Nazi bastard as president!? There is nothing I can do for you, my friend.
He made fun of Springer's nose because Springer's a liberal. Savage himself is of Jewish ethnicity, btw. Savage most likely feels that:
1. since he's Jewish himself, it's okay to make comments like that, just as black people call each other the "n" word and that
2. these comments are a comical way for him to display his loathing for liberal Jews.
If Michael Savage is sooooooo Jewish...Why does he only refer to himself as "Savage" these days, and not by his real name Weiner?
But if you want to believe someone who thinks that Democrats are worse than Foley discussing masturbation with a teenager, that 100 million Muslims should be slaughtered Holocaust-style, that liberals are the "Liberal Klux Klan" only to say that civil rights are a plight against white people? GO AHEAD.
He used an ethnic slur, and that's okay because he disagrees with his target? And when has Savage ever made a point of his ethnicity? I wouldn't know, but it seems to me he keeps it closeted (the only hints I get come from his immense self-loathing).
Maybe he should call the next liberal Jew he disagrees with "gas chamber fodder". What a laugh!
And exactly WHAT is Rabbi Weiners authority to sit on a pedestal and decide the hearts of Jews? To decide that being a liberal is somehow being a traitor to Judaism? Did God put Weiner on a pedestal and whisper in his ear that he needed HIM to judge peoples commitment to their faith based on how closely they conform to HIS political beliefs? The arrogance of that position is astonishing.
CALLER: And the media uses the word "pedophile" to describe these rapist priests. They're not pedophiles, they were raping teenage boys.
What an idiot caller! The victims are underage, so obviously that makes them pedophiles! Oh, I guess because the victims were of the same sex then that means they're just gay? Sounds to me like he's almost defending pedophiles. We know Savage did so with that Washington Post employee.
How do I get just one thing to be in bold? I only wanted the Caller's words to be bold?
Let's try this.
Bold Not Bold Bold Not Bold
Okay that didn't go well.
Unbolding.</b></b></b>
I hope. :>
Is Savage catholic?
No. Savage is not a member of any particular religion, although he believes in God.
When I first read the tagline, I swear I thought it said 'gay rabbits'. Anyway, more insanity from Savage. What a shock. . .
Missed by Media Matters, from about two months ago, a right-wing website:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com
reported that Michael Savage said the "F" word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSabsmBm3Fo
This guy is just sad, really sad. It's the old carrot of equating being gay with being a pedophile, and or being a rapist, which is about as far away from the truth as it could be.
It's official
MMFA is clearly obsessed with homosexuality and everything else that is immoral and against nature. Funny isn't it how the left pushes for the earth to be free of pollution (which I am for by the way) yet continue to live their lives down the path of immorality. Did you ever ask yourselves why the human race is the only race on planet earth that engages in these such acts. Go hang out in a natural setting for a while with no one around and look at beauty of nature without being plugged into your ipod. Then you will see how out of touch with reality the far left is. Put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!!!
Maybe you should sit down with a nice cup of coffee or a beer or something before you post on this site. It may calm you down.
First of all, if you think homosexuality is immoral, that's your opinion. If you'd like to debate about it, I'm all ears (though I can't promise you I'll listen if you don't have anything besides rhetoric). Secondly, animals engage in homosexuality a lot. But then again, we're the only animals with computers, too. Doesn't make the ol' Intarwebs immoral, does it? And finally, I've seen plenty of nature (sans iPod). I'm still cool with people being gay.
P.S. I'd follow up on your advice there about the peace pipe, but I'm waiting 'til its legal. ;)
Speaking of pipes back away from the crackpipe. You are making me wonder if Weinerdogs insanity is contagious.
" Maybe you should sit down with a nice cup of coffee or a beer or something before you post on this site. It may calm you down."
Actually I was quite calm while I posted that which isn't often. Infact I started my morning exercising while listening to Neil Youngs "Harvest Moon". But that is beside the point. The point of that post was that the things that get posted on this site is so predictable its laughable. So I actually was laughing inside and out while posting that. Its almost as funny watching Karl Rove dance!!!
I believe you were calm. I find it amusing that you continually come here and post your logic free, worthless, baseless assertions as if YOU get to define reality based on your delusional fantasies. YOU DONT. So as usual YOU HAVE NO POINT. Talk about predictable.
The point of that post was that the things that get posted on this site is so predictable its laughable. - In a sense, you are right. Conservatives keep getting a free pass for their hate and propaganda, MMFA keeps documenting clear examples, and people like you shoot the messenger. Repeat ad nausea.
Mike Savage, nee Michael Weiner, was born and raised a Jew in Brooklyn, NY. It is impossible to be more Jewish than that.
Actually Savage was raised in Queens, but he is definitely Jewish. He's even celebrating Passover this year.
Why is everyone typing in bold?
Ask Solon, he's INSANE about it!