Savage: "[O]f all of the dictators in the past," Al Gore is "closest" to Mussolini
On the July 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage responded to a caller who described former Vice President Al Gore's efforts to raise awareness of global warming as "passionate" by saying, "Oh, I'm sure he's also passionate. There are many passionate individuals in history. Mussolini was passionate about bringing back fascism to Italy." He added: "[O]f all of the dictators in the past, you know the one Al Gore strikes me as [being] closest [to] is Mussolini -- sort of a non-racist, benign demagogue using global warming in an attempt to take over the world's economy and put it in his own hands and the hands of his cronies."
In fact, Benito Mussolini instituted a series of laws in 1938 targeting Jews during his time as Italy's dictator. As BBC News noted, "All Jewish students were expelled from schools, Jews were banned from public office and forbidden to marry outside their race. The laws led to the eventual deportation of Italian Jews, many of whom died in concentration camps."
Savage made his comments during a discussion about the July 7 Live Earth concerts, a series of performances promoted by Gore and held worldwide to call attention to climate change. The caller said, "I thought Al Gore sounded pretty sincere on the Live Earth concert this Saturday" and stated that Gore "seemed pretty passionate."
As Media Matters for America has noted, Savage frequently compares Democrats and progressives to fascists. On the June 12 broadcast of The Savage Nation, Savage called the progressive movement "the same rabble that brought Hitler to power," and on April 23, he called a speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "Hitler dialogue."
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 July 9 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: We're talking about the fact that Gore-leone's con is over. I wouldn't say it's over, but Gore-leone's con took a beating. My headline says, "Live Earth Dead, Gore Bombs," and it says "Live Earth has been branded a foul-mouth flop." That's what the Brits are saying. Of course, you wouldn't expect that here in America, where the politicians are convinced that Al Gore is correct. Houston, Texas. [Caller], you're on The Savage Nation. Go ahead, please.
CALLER: Yes, sir, I just had a comment. I wanted to say that I thought Al Gore sounded pretty sincere on the Live Earth concert this Saturday.
SAVAGE: Well, sir, the -- sir, you say Al Gore was "pretty sincere." I'm sure he is. He's as sincere as you can get, but the chasm between sincerity and knowledge is immense.
CALLER: That's true. I mean, I know --
SAVAGE: I mean, there are many people who are sincere and don't know what the heck they're talking about.
CALLER: Yeah, I mean, he seemed pretty passionate, though. I mean --
SAVAGE: Oh, I'm sure he's also passionate. There are many passionate individuals in history. Mussolini was passionate about bringing back fascism to Italy. He was very passionate in his speeches. You know, of all of the dictators in the past, you know the one Al Gore strikes me as [being] closest [to] is Mussolini -- sort of a non-racist, benign demagogue using global warming in an attempt to take over the world's economy and put it in his own hands and the hands of his cronies. Do you have any idea what these people are proposing, [caller], based upon a premise that hasn't been proven?
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Beck has already officially associated Gore with Hitler for the wacko right. It looks like the Savage Weiner didn't get the memo.
Only one dictator per environmentalist is allowed.
Hey, you gotta admit - a guy who can take the place of both Hitler and Mussolini is a guy not to be trifled with.
Just when I thought my adulation for Gore had reached its peak...*sigh*
If there was any doubt that this is a moron... well... We've got the closest facsimile to a dictator in US history with GWB... and these A-holes have the balls to call someone like Gore a fascist? You can't make this stuff up.
But Michael Weiner can. Just like he made up his last name.
(BTW, I'm still trying to figure out if his real last name is pronounced "whiner" or "weiner"...)
Whiner. In German, you put the emphasis on the second vowel in those cases. ei = "I", ie = "E"
Savage is toning it down a bit. Mussolini is kind of a Hitler-lite.
And notice - no comment about the Mussolini Global Warming Mafia!
You're right. Savage knows that if he had compared him to Hitler, more of Savage's own fans might have realized that he was full of it.
Also he compared him less directly to Mussolini by using the phrase "strikes me." All of his rant has the exact same effect as just saying Gore is like Hitler on the feeble minded.
Michael Hitler-Savage, can't you just come out of the closet and admit that YOU'RE the Fascist? Remember when you said that "when I take power, all liberals will be arrested within six months", you Savage Nazi?
Heil Hitler-Savage; Das Reichführer of The Savage Nation.
Was that his "Final Solution"?? What a nice Jewish boy he is....
Global warming has not been scientifically proven, just like evolution has not been scientifiically proven, just like gravity has not been scientifically proven . . .
Yet, with the left dares to [accurately] equate dubyah to Hitler, there is a firestorm and trumped up outrage from all corners of reich-wing world.
Yet, with the left dares to [accurately] equate dubyah to Hitler,
That's got to be the funniest! Liberals think Bush is equal to hitler, but are flabergasted when gore is equated to mussolini. Open your eyes and see the truth! Gore is a better 'spin doctor' than oriley. He's a better liar than the good dr. And he's a better political scam artist than Cheney. But, lo and behold, all liberals love and adore him and his propoganda. I guess it shows just how smart they are...no smarter than the republicans who keep supporting bushco.
your usual. gore is a liar because you say so.
Yes. IMHO, Gore is a liar. Did I misspell a word or something and you weren't able to understand what I wrote? I realize I'm using some larger words, but in the past you've been able to keep up with the conversation.
and i'm able to keep up with this one. you say gore is a liar, but i don't see anything to back that up except your contention that it's true. do you understand that? or do i need to repeat it?
When Al Gore states that the science is in and that scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans, he is outright lying. There are hundreds of prominent scientists who do not support Al Gore's hyped theories, and there is plenty of documented evidence that shows us that humans are not the cause of global warming.
There is no shame in acknowledging that someone who you may support is a liar or corrupt. In 2001, I supported Bush...since then I have seen him turn against conservatives, lie about things, and partake in corrupt business...I no longer support him. Unfortunately, Gore's denial of science that contradicts his hyped theories makes him a liar, I think anyone should be able to see that. Please give me some proof if you believe this to be untrue.
what gore has said is that the overwhelming consensus is that our present global warming is caused by human induced sources. you can point out individuals that say this is not so, including many in the pay of industry supported "think tanks", but that does not mean that gore is a "liar". and yes, bush fooled you, but that does not mean i was fooled. it just means you're a fool.
You seem to brush off voices of opposition to Al Gore as being discredited and unreliable. If you look at this article that covers data recently published in the journal "Science," can you honestly tell me that these scientific findings should be ignored in the debate about global warming? http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahmdtoi&show_article=1
Also, why are Gore's claims about temperature rise and sea level rise so out of proportion with with IPCC? When Gore claims the sea is going to rise enough to flood out NYC, he is lying. There is no credible data, even from the IPCC that agrees with the notion that human activity causes global warming, that an event like that will take place in the time frame Gore lays out.
your link says nothing. and gore only claimed that if the greenland ice mass should slip it would raise seas twenty feet. he did not say it definitely would happen. that makes you the liar.
"your link says nothing." - Well, if you define nothing as scienticfic proof that the earth has been much much warmer without any human activity, I guess your right. Also, the data in the article shows that greenland had not melted when temperatures were on average 9F higher than now...which leads me to your next statement, and the absurdity of Gore's claim.
"and gore only claimed that if the greenland ice mass should slip it would raise seas twenty feet. he did not say it definitely would happen." - If he isnt sure it will happen, that means he did not have the proper scientific data to back up the claim. I guess its not really a lie since he provided a disclaimer, but it is a scare tactic.
"that makes you the liar." - If pointing out that Gore's predictions are completely out of line with the IPCC and numerous other scientists makes me a liar, then so be it. Science is built upon skepticism. To take Al Gore's word as ultimate truth is naive and dangerous.
no one said that the earth hasn't been much warmer. but the sea levels at that time were considerably above today. and gore did not make any prediction that new york would flood. he said if....
oh and your statement that "greenland had not melted". that is not what it said. it said the glaciers had not completely melted. that does not mean they had not substantially melted.
That may be true, but open your eyes...the world is still alive and well today! Nature passed through a cycle, and right now is no different. What we see as rising temperatures over the past 100 years is the blink of an eye in terms of the earth's life. I think we should all do our best to preserve the environment, recycle, protect wildlife, carpool, don't litter, whatever...but there is no need to buy into the alarmism Al Gore is creating. Humans live on earth, we are going to have an effect..both good and bad, and no kyoto is going to change that.
alive yeah, but well? and why do you guys always point out that we have had cycles in the past? is anyone denying that? the contention is that it is beyond the norm now. whereas change before happened gradually, giving time to adjust. what is happening now is at a far more rapid speed because of human causes. i'm sure you read what i posted on the beck global warming thread about a glacier expert who said what is happening now is not caused by nature. so if there is someone who needs to open their eyes, it might be you. and your ears too. platitudes about how we're all living on the big rock candy mountain don't make the grade.
"the contention is that it is beyond the norm now." -How can our situation possibly be interpreted as being beyond the norm when we haven't yet hit the warmest average earth temperatures on record? Also, please explain why temperatures actually went slightly down during the industrial boom after WWII?
In 30 years, this "human induced" global warming scare will be laughed off....just like we are laughing at the "global cooling" scare of the 1970's.
I'll take a crack at it:
If you reread the post, you'll see that it referred to the rate of change, not raw temperatures. Secondly, as I've posted here before, I know you think you are making some breakthrough announcement about the global cooling theory in the 70's, but all you are doing is showing your ignorance of the topic. Informed people have long age heard this bit of propoganda and summarily dismissed it.
For your benefit, it was a theory floated out be a few scientists and picked up by some in the "if it bleeds, it leads" media. The theory was never followed up with any supporting data and was forgotten by the science community. The biggest killer to the theory was the actual data showing a warming trend. This differs from the warming trend, which has hung around for so long and is supported by the vast majority of the scientific community because of the large body of research supporting it and the total lack of data refuting it.
The only "lack of data refuting it" is the lack of coverage opposing viewpoints on the issue get on the "if it bleeds it leads" MSM. I thought progressives wanted the fairness doctrine back in place in order to give equal time to both sides of the issue? If that was the real goal, we would see fair-minded enlightened folk like yourself and those in the media giving equal time to the opposition.
Since this is not the case, I find that the supporters of Al Gore's version of global warming pass off the opposition as not-credible, usually because of some accusation that the scientists are funded by big oil or think tanks. Did you forget that Al Gore has a stake in the Carbon-offset business? Or about all the money he is making from his propaganda film and live events? Maybe some of those millions of dollars are what keeps him so passionate about his blown out or proportion alarmist "science."
actually your side gets more than it's share as represented by the actual number of scientists who believe it. it's always presented as this side says this, this side says that, as if there is some 50/50 disagreement. there isn't.
reading comprehension. i did not say the temperatures were beyond the norm. i said the rate of change is beyond the norm, and it was gradual, making allowance for adjustments how do you expect to make an argument when you do not comprehend what is said?
Yes, I did take that line out of context. I still stand by this logic: what seems like a prolonged sharp increase in temperatures to us today, is the blink of an eye when speaking about the earth's life. No science is able to pin down temperature spikes in the past that fall into the window of 100 years. What we know about temperatures in the past is averaged over thousands and thousands of years.
In order to level the playing field and equate historical gradual temperature trends, you would take the past century worth of "rising" temperatures and place 1000 years of averages before and after it, and it would be a more applicable period of time to compare to the "gradual" periods of time we know occurred in the past. By doing this, our current "spike" would most likely show up as nothing unusual.
and yet what is happening is exactly what has been predicted. i'll quote lonnie thompson, the glacier expert i cited, and what he had to say about changes that could be predicted by the tilting of the earth: "if nature alone were in charge, then glaciers would be growing in the lower latitudes of one hemisphere and retreating in the lower latitudes of another. but that's not what's happening." this is a guy who has spent thirty some years studying glaciers and has taken an ice core sample record of mount kilimanjaro that dates back 11,700 years. "if nature alone were in charge". he's clearly saying it's not. and your expertise?
Your namless expert and unsourced quotations have provided me great insight, really. You quote a nameless scientist who has done "extensive" study on Mount Kilimanjaro who is claiming that nature isn't the only source for global warming. Perhaps you and this scientist missed the latest study of this mountain that came out last month, that proves global warming is not the cause of melting ice and snow on Kilimanjaro. Here is my source that includes scientists with names and places of employment.
http://thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/6/20/uwResearcherBelievesGlobalWarmingNotTheCauseOfShrinkingGlacier
After spouting an unimpressive list of easily refuted denier myths our great non-scientist comes up with...
No science is able to pin down temperature spikes in the past that fall into the window of 100 years. What we know about temperatures in the past is averaged over thousands and thousands of years.
So you are proposing the existence of brief temperature spikes in the remote past that cannot be verified and for which you have no causative mechanism but you say refutes the existing scientific opinion?
And please don't say it's the sun. That one is too tired already.
Try posting any of this on realclimate.org and see how far you get.
When Al Gore states that the science is in and that scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans, he is outright lying.
Al Gore never said all scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans. Even your own quote doesn't make that argument. What he has said is that a large number of credible scientists have done peer-reviewed studies that indicate that global warming is due to human activity. I've also never heard Al Gore say anything to the effect that scientists who disagree with him should be ignored or discredited. The scientific community will sort out the evidence. But in the meantime, try to keep your political ideology from overwhelming your logic.
"There are hundreds of prominent scientists who do not support Al Gore's hyped theories, and there is plenty of documented evidence that shows us that humans are not the cause of global warming."
Yeah im sure you are right but they are bought and paid for by the big oil companies. Thats not science its propaganda. What the hell is so wrong with making our environment cleaner anyways? Why do you Conservative people seriously behave like moronic villains?
Did I misspell a word or something?
Actually, AutoPilot, you misspelled "flabbergasted," "O'Reilly," and "propaganda." There were many other errors (in grammar, capitalization, and most of all, logic) as well, but you didn't ask about them.
And in case you wondered, yes, there is a direct, positive correlation between how well a person thinks and how well he expresses himself. That would explain quite a bit about both you and the president, wouldn't it?
¬"did i misspell a word?" you ae such a child auto its garbage like that in your poststhat make people laugh at you and not take you seriously that and your obviously insane
Why don't you start your own website no one will go to and you can trash Al Gore and make sh*t up all day long.
Open your eyes! You're another hateful numbskull.
"Gore is a better 'spin doctor' than oriley. He's a better liar than the good dr. And he's a better political scam artist than Cheney."
Interesting to hear you admit that O'Reilly is a "spin doctor" (he's actually an outright liar, but I'm glad to hear you acknowledge he is less than truthful). I don't know who the "good dr." is supposed to be, but whoever he is, you say he's a liar? Thanks for that. And finally, you admit that Cheney is a scam artist! Again, your damnation of him is far too mild, but he is at the very least a scam artist. Thanks for agreeing with me. Maybe you're finally waking up from your right-wing coma. There's hope for you yet.
Obviously Savage never paid attention in history class. Freaking ignoramus.
sounds like a drug addiction talking. Lieberman just said we can't allow Iran be resposible for hundreds of American troops getting killed in Iraq. Its time to get down to the army surplus stores folks. Make sure you get your body armour and pack home your 3/4" steel plate to mount on your humvee. It won't be long that Humvees are the #1 selling vehicle in the world. Maybe they will let you take your Chrysler Caravan, Chevy Blazer or your Ford explorer over there. Now is the time to get estimates from your auto body shop on mounting the steel plate. It won't be long when all of the death row inmates will be able to inlist in the army.
Savage you don't know your history.
Mussolini was passionate about bringing back fascism to Italy - Savage.
What's wrong with the above statement? Well Mussolini didn't bring back fascism because fascism didn't exist prior to Mussolini. It was Mussolini that created fascism.
Mussolini and Gramsci had a different interpretation of Machiavelli of which I will touch on in just a second.
Mussolini's rise to power is identical to Bush. Mussolini appealed to the backwardness of rural Italy just as Bush appealed to the backwardness of rural America. When Mussolini and Bush gained power they switched their allegiance to Big Business. Corporatism and fascism are so similar that they can be almost indistinguishable.
Now to Machiavelli; both Bush and Mussolini interpreted Machiavelli to mean that they are the State. Gramsci felt this interpretation can last only so long. Mussolini's last word, "but everyone called me a genious".
Savage but you are way off.
this is not 100% correct. the Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista had existed for some time before Mussolini's rise to power, and were sort of a proto-fascist party.
Mussolini's last word, "but everyone called me a genious".
What the hell is a genious? Is that Italian for genius? LOL!
Savage was wrong to compare Gore to Mussolini, that honor should go to Robert Kennedy Jr who went off his nut at that live earth concert wailing about traitors and treason.
Despite claims of “Live Earth’s” bipartisan, non-political nature, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had some strong words for the political opposition at the July 7 New Jersey concert. “Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies … This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors,” said Kennedy.
You are aware that many liberals think that the Democrats are every bit as bad as Republicans at protecting corporate interests. Don't you? I don't see where Kennedy's remarks are necessarily partisan the way you describe them as they applied generally to members of both parties.
You are aware that many liberals think that the Democrats are every bit as bad as Republicans at protecting corporate interests.
Yes, but it appears harlequin isn't. It sounds like harlequin may think democratics can do no wrong.
it's ok to use "democrats" there. "democrats" belong to the "democratic" party.
I know, but I like the way democratic sounds. And it rhymes with carcinogenic and bolimic.
Let us not forget how Mussolini used the Church to keep the people in line, forming an alliance between the Church and the Military-Industrial Complex that formed the backbone of his State. Somehow, this seems like a familiar formula, but I don't associate it with Gore...
Mussolini was not a racist according to Mr. Savage. Tell that to the thousands of dead Ethiopians who died in mustard gas attacks and massacres committed by the Italian Army under the direction of Mussolini. The King was anointed Emperor of Ethiopia and Pope Pius XI expressed his admiration for Mussolini.
I found Savage from this site I had never heard of him before. He says MM is the Gay Mafia is this true? What does that mean?
You would have to ask Savage that uestion. One of the principals at MMFA is openly gay, so I guess in Savage's mind the whole organization is dedicated to advancing the "gay agenda". He often rants that the homosexual mafia already controls everything you see and hear in the mass media. Personally, I think he hates homosexuals and often engages in speech in a public forumn (radio show) that is criminal, ie is hate speech.
Name calling, the last bastion of the neocons, is so rampant now because so much is going wrong for them. They have nothing left to do but to vilify their opposition so we can expect a lot more of this. If you analyze their situation, things are really going badly for that bunch. The polls show Americans are just NOT buying their vitriol any more. Must be really spooky to them that they have lost their ability to get thinking people on their side. You know the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, Yep, folks are getting it now and they are NOT taking their swill-peddling any longer.Expect their hate-centered diatribes to get worse and worse as the next federal election nears. They will once again try their scorched earth approach. But alas, who will even listen to them. We have all endured too much of it in the past.
Name calling, the last bastion of the neocons
More like the first. It's at least in the top three bastions. =)
Okay, your think you are right again. Now go home..come back tomorrow, spew nonsense and go back home again. Thanks for your wisdom.
Signed,
Luigi Verminio
Oh, you mean like how Bush put rules written by his oil buddies on the books and company profits soared? Started a war to put oil in the hands of Oil companies? Gee, silly me! Wiener Dog knows ALL!
Didn't 78% of theJewish vote go to Gore in 2000? Somebody better hurry up and tell those Goyishe kop Jews that they were voting for a Nazi sympathizing mass murderer!
Aaah, so you're calling Al Gore a Nazi? Just because Michael Hitler-Savage is calling every liberal in America a Nazi?
You are pathetic.
"Pathetic" is not recognizing such obvious sarcasm.
"There are many people who are sincere and don't know what the heck they're talking about."
Yes, many people try to stay sincere while uttering lies and bs. Rush is one of those people. Bush too. When they make promises or predictions, they say: "Just trust me, I trust me!". Then, when their deceit becomes apparent, they say: "I have never lied or made false promises. I truly believed in the bs I uttered, I truly believed I could achieve those things." Yeah, right, sure. Bush really believed he could democratise the Mideast. Rush truly believes he can be anti-immigration when he's a damned immigrant himself (newsflash: all Americans are). Rumsfeld truly believed war with Iraq would only last days, maybe weeks. Well, in that case, I truly believe Bush is the reïncarnation of Hitler or the antichrist (have your pick), Cheney is really a robot and Rush Limbaugh has sold his sole to the devil a few decades ago. Don't even try to accuse me of lying, I truly BELIEVE these things, which makes them TRUE, right Rush? "I say it, I believe it, that settles it!" Pretty stupid country if you ask me.
Newsflash: Only immigrants are immigrants.
Most Americans were, in fact, born in America, which makes them natural born citizens.
It's pretty simple.
<>That caller (I think he called himself Steve this time) is a frequent caller to the show who, I think, tries to bait Savage into making incendiary comments, and he succeeds pretty often. I wouldn't be surprised if he posts here as well. Savage seems to know who he is too, and spices up his remarks to suit the call, probably to inspire a new thread on this site. In fact, last night Mike said, "without me they have no reason to live."-in reference to MM. He also called people of this site, "psychopaths." This, after he read parts of this very thread on his show. No doubt, he reads the comments posted about him.
<> HELLO MIKE. And don't worry about that colonoscopy so much, it'll be over before you can say Ahmadinajadopoopinhead. <>I think it's pretty telling that Savage referred to Mussolini as "benign." Also, I'll second the notion already mentioned up-thread that Mussolini could not have been "passionate about bringing back fascism to Italy," since fascism didn't exist in Italy (or anywhere) pre-Mussolini. Savage's knowledge of history is abysmal.
Under the guidelines of the former 'Fairness Doctrine' (as part of the FCC's Regulations, but repealed in 1987 by President Reagan), this would qualify as a "personal attack" on the Public Airwaves; and the FCC Licensee who broadcast that "personal attack" (again, using Public Property they don't own, but only use under License from the FCC) would have to "provide reply time" to the one who was personally attacked.
It's a quaint old concept: Use the Public Airwaves (again, Public Property used under License from the FCC) to personally attack someone, or otherwise broadcast the personal political agenda of the Licensee, and they then are required to "provide reply time" to the person attacked, or to a different (opposing) political view.
Sounds fair enough.
Anyone who doesn't think so, must think we're talking about what they might say privately, in their own homes or on their own property; or even publicly, on their own time...
...but the issue here is about what broadcasters do; broadcasters who hold FCC Licenses, who use property that's Public Property, the Public Airwaves, to personally attack others (for political or business reasons, or whatever), and otherwise advance their own personal political agendas... using Public Property, the Public Airwaves.
It would seem perfectly fair to me, that the private corporation that calls itself the 'Talk Radio Network', having used the Public Airwaves (Public Property) to attack the character of former VP Gore, be required to "provide reply time" to him...
...as a condition of their FCC License, to use Public Property (the Public Airwaves).
The fact that you would like the government to make decisions about what needs to be broadcast in a country with freedom of speech is disturbing, but you are more than welcome to support a socialist position if you want that. Also, have you ever thought about when liberal commentators make political statements or attack individuals, they will be forced to have people like Michael Savage come on and present the opposing viewpoint? I'm sure you would love to have Savage on your favorite liberal show.
Additionally, Savage has tried many, many times to invite Al Gore and other voices of opposition on the show, and they never will come on...they can't take the heat. So, I'm not sure people like Gore would like to be forced onto conservative talk radio by the government under the "fairness doctrine" when he won't even go on under his own free will.
I'd like the government to Regulate the use of a Public Resource, Public Property, the Public Airwaves...
Yes. It makes perfect sense to do so... those who apply for and receive a License to broadcast from the FCC, do not therefore own any part of the Public Airwaves... they only use them, under License from the FCC, and in accordance with Regulations.
And its got nothing to do with "free speech"... the guy in question, on the radio, he has all the free speech he could ever want or need, just like the rest of us... he can go around all day long, speaking as freely as he likes, just like the rest of us.
Or are you so mistaken as to think he has a "right" or a "freedom" to broadcast on the television and radio bands of the Public Airwaves?
He does not; no more than do you and I; nobody has any such "right" or "freedom" to broadcast on those bands, because no such right or freedom exists.
Or why else do you think a License from the FCC is required to do so?
I never stated anything about rights to speak over the airwaves. You mention that a license from the FCC is required to broadcast over the airwaves, but apparantly the FCC does not see it necessary to incorporate a clause that demands particular viewpoints must be given equal time on the air in this statement. The opposing viewpoint can get their own license in order to broadcast on their own station on the public waves.
When a liberal commentator talks for 15 minutes about a particular political subject, then is required by the government to have a conservative commentator talk for 15 minutes, that effectively denies the liberal commentator 15 minutes of free speach time on the radio. I fail to understand why anyone would want radio or television programming to work that way.
If a broadcaster uses their FCC License to broadcast political opinions and/or personal attacks on the Public Airwaves (Public Property not owned by them), then yes, they should give equal time and/or allow a reply as a result.
You seem to either be conveniently ignoring or unaware, that we're talking about the Public Airwaves here... Public Property... being Licensed for use only by the FCC, a Government Agency (any and all unlicensed users are 'pirates', breaking the law).
That Public Property, those Public Airwaves, can be Regulated any way We the People (when We constitute a majority) want...
And if We want those Public Airwaves used in a Fair and Balanced way, politically, then what's wrong with that?
I mean, when these broadcasters use their FCC Licenses to their own private and financial gain, isn't that enough?
They want to use our Public Property, the Public Airwaves, for their own personal political objectives also?
...on our Property, the Public Airwaves?
I say that if they do so (which they don't have to), then they can also allow opposing political views, and/or replies from those personally attacked (on Public Property!)...
I say that's fair... I say that's a Fair and Balanced use of the Public Airwaves... Public Property.
You are making little to no sense.
"If a broadcaster uses their FCC License to broadcast political opinions and/or personal attacks on the Public Airwaves (Public Property not owned by them), then yes, they should give equal time and/or allow a reply as a result." - You fail to address how the opposition does not even want to voluntarily come on these shows and present their viewpoint...what makes you so sure they want to be forced into it?
"That Public Property, those Public Airwaves, can be Regulated any way We the People (when We constitute a majority) want..." -Oh, this is great. I COMPLETELY AGREE. If the majority actually had a say in America, gay "marriage" would be declared unconstitutional everywhere. Illegal aliens would receive no free health services or free education, and we would get rid of them. We could pull the troops out of Iraq and put them on our own border. We would accept having bibles in schools and the ten commandments on our courthouses. If the majority were to run things, we would still be segregated...a terrible thing...is that what you want?
Personally, I'd love to see majority rule. I'd take the fairness doctrine with a smile if we could cut off all aid to the illegals and declare gay "marriage" unconstitutional. However, it's never going to happen, which is why that logic is flawed. Our Supreme Court makes rulings on these issues, and it found the so called "fairness doctrine" to be unconstitutional. I think I'll trust them on interpreting the necessity of the "fairness doctrine" and not you.
Why would a serious person go on the show of a cartoon? And please read what the damn fairness doctrine is before spouting off right wing fear points? Probably because you prefer to let other people form your opinions for you.
Savage has tried many, many times to invite Al Gore and other voices of opposition on the show, and they never will come on...they can't take the heat.
They can't take what heat? Michael Savage (or whatever his real name is) is clearly mentally ill. That doesn't bother me. The fact that a mentally ill person has his own radio show doesn't bother me either. But knowing he has 8 million listeners is extremely frightening. That means there are millions of people who listen to and believe a mentally ill person. So why would someone like Al Gore want to go on a radio program with someone who's obviously mentally ill? Come on, that can't really make sense even to a regressive.
So are you seriously saying with a straight face that you listen to and believe what Savage says on his program? Or are you just pushing buttons to get an argument going? You seem reasonably intelligent and you make a few good points here and there, but if you're seriously saying you're a Michael Savage listener, then any credibility you might have is gone.
"Oh, I'm sure he's also passionate. There are many passionate individuals in history. Mussolini was passionate about bringing back fascism to Italy."
with that rationale, anyone who is passionate about any issue is equivalent to Mussolini... the logic just doesn't hold up, but nice try at a non-Hitler (though equivalent) smear...
Gore was never a dictator, only a vice president... the current VP comes closest to the definition of a dictator as we've ever had...
Yeah, live earth definately opened my eyes to how we must stop destroying the enviroment before we are all torched by the ever increasing heat of that infernal sun.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2777696020070627?feedType=RSS
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=466775&in_page_id=1879, oh the hypocrisy.....hillarious.
What a fricken moron! So there is a snow storm in South Africa, and that disproves global warming? Do you know what an over generalization is? Are you really serous?
Hm....let's see I fail to see where I said global warming ISN'T happening it is, at the alarming rate of 0.7 degrees per century...OH NO! I posted the link because it's ironic that it snowed at a concert whose goal is to raise global warming awareness. The second link was to point out that live earth probably did more damage to the enviroment than help, that is, if you believe we're causing the warming. If you have any trouble with your comprehension or future posts I'm sure hooked on phonics could work for you!
God you are dumb! Yes, global warming is real, yes, it will have devestating consequences. That is what the best scientists in the world say. Is there any reason I shouldn't listen to them and listen to a right wing blowhard like you who makes a joke about hooked on phonics that is I heard in high school 20 years ago?
I wouldn't have made the joke if you hadn't had a comprehension problem with my post, quite honestly I'm suprised you can operate a computer. Actually many scientists are saying Gore is going overboard with his doomsday warnings, including our nations leading climatologist. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical of the group that once told us aerosol was bad but now say it's good. Or that the Ice age was coming, bird flu will kill us all, etc. What is the scientific community batting now about .056? You know what I think is funny? Everytime I discuss the real threat of Islamic terrorism lefties on this site claim I'm being an alarmist but if I just insert "man caused global warming" as the real threat I'd be accepted as a harbinger of truth.
Ha ha ha! You're surprised I can use a computer! What an original joke!
Now you make a bunch of over generalizations that I can't even follow. What scientists say that Gore is going overboard? The best ones in the world?
The ice age is coming? That of course, is a nicely recycled myth.
I can understand why you distrust scientists. Denialists always have a hard time with facts and would rather use ridicule (which in your case isn't even very good) and vague generalizations.
Again, why should I listen to you, a right-wing blowhard, rather thatn the best scientists in the world? Have you published a peer-reviewed paper that I am not aware of?
Considering I'm not a climatologist no, I haven't written a peer-reviewed study. However, this guy might know something about it
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3017716, but I guess he doesn't count right? Then of course there's the strange occurance of greenland and antartica Ice actually increasing, the fact that we've successfully come out of many ice ages before and a plethora of other facts which you can bury your pretty little head in the sand and pretend don't exist. The hypocrisy surrounding Live earth is a fine example of the "do as I say, not as I do" liberal mantra. I have to return to work now so pardon me if I don't respond to your next "THE SKY IS FALLING" rant.
Here we go again. The article you linked to cites a "huricane forecaster," not a climatologist. Do you even know the difference? Is this what you meant in your above link when you said the nations' top climatologists?
If you read further down in your article, you would see:
Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.
Woops! I suppose now I should make some stupid joke about reading comprehension and hooked on phonics.
And you like to repeat falsehoods. No, the ice is not increasing overall in Greenland. That is false and a right wing talking point.
I don't even know what you mean by your assertion that we have survived many ice ages. No kidding. Scientists know this; ice ages in no way disprove global warming.
But why did you even link to the ABC article? You told me that you don't even trust science. In other words, you are the epitome of anti-intelluctualism know nothing. If you don't trust science, then don't like to article by supposed scientists (a hurricane forecaster!) to refute global warming.
Again, why should anyone listen to a right-wing blowhard like you rather than the best scientists in the world?
You do realize it's winter in South Africa right now, right? You learned about the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in school, right? When it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere. That's why the article you linked to mentioned a "winter weather front."
He, Mike Savage, is a clown,why worry what he says?
the GW deniers trot out a few 'scientists' to make claims against GW. There is 99% agreement among climatologists that manmade GW is a FACT and poses a serious threat. The deniers are unable to win in the arena of scientific ideas and so they use their loudmouth PR people like Savage to misinform the gullible ignoramuses. Every major peer reviewing scientific body accepts manmade GW as fact. Every rightwing talk radio nut attacks Gore since they cannot attack the science community.
And of all the clowns in history, does Mr. Savage most resemble John Wayne Gacy?