Savage: "[S]wine" at Media Matters "take me out of context"
On the November 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage called Media Matters for America a "group of swine ... who take me out of context," during a segment in which he smeared former President Jimmy Carter. Savage cited no example in which Media Matters took his statements out of context.
Media Matters has, in fact, taken note of the statements of Savage and others on many occasions, but provides the full context of the statements with a transcript and audio. (Recent examples are here, here, and here). Indeed, Savage himself has credited Media Matters specifically for not misrepresenting him. On the October 11 edition of his show, he stated:
They have an obsession with me, they have a real jones on with me. But at least they quote me correctly. ... And one thing for Media Matters, whether they're liberal or conservative, at least they got the quote right. I have no qualms with it, because when I read it this morning, I said, "You know what? I'm not ashamed of anything I said. I believe in every word I said."
Savage's comments on Media Matters followed his criticism of Carter's appearance on the November 27 edition of ABC's Good Morning America in which Carter promoted his recently published book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid (Simon & Schuster, November 2006). On Good Morning America, Carter said that "what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious. It's a terrible affliction on these people." Savage said that Carter has been "fomenting anti-Semitism" with his recent remarks and that "the entire world will be turned against the Jews, because Jimmy Carter is a lying, anti-Semitic pig." Savage then added that Media Matters should "write that down. Make sure that Media Matters gets that correctly. That group of swine at Media Matters, who take me out of context. Make sure you don't take this one out of context: Jimmy Carter is an anti-American, anti-Semitic swine."
From the November 29 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: By what Jimmy Carter has been doing, he has basically [been] fomenting anti-Semitism. He is gonna turn the world against the Jews. The entire world will be turned against the Jews, because Jimmy Carter is a lying, anti-Semitic pig. Now, write that down. Make sure that Media Matters gets that correctly. That group of swine at Media Matters, who take me out of context. Make sure you don't take this one out of context: Jimmy Carter is an anti-American, anti-Semitic swine.
MMfA would monitor you LESS if you stopped making ad hominem attacks and saying simply stupid things such as proposing the banning of building mosques . . .
he stops breathing. Some pundits breathe and therefore they lie; Weiner-Boy breathes and says what he believes. The fact that it's noxious, hateful stuff seems to elude him.
So now we have "shock jock" Beck telling us former President Jimmy Carter is a waste of skin, and this sociopath needs Jimmy Carter to be Anti-Semenite,though he is likely the most respected politician of any nationality among the Isrealis.
Pres. Jimmy Carter has the kind of sway and respect around the world that was once enjoyed by all American Leaders. The Reagan/Bush Administrations and the Neo-Cons squandered that standing for a generation at least. They are so fearful and envious they have to insult is simply put the "Last Noble, and Sincere President" of the United States of America.
When the nation wanted a truly honest man to restore respect, and dignity to the Office of the President of the United States of America, they elected Jimmy Carter. He was cheated out of another term by the same people in power today who traded arms for hostages and put us in this mess with the Middle-East to begin with. The same Oil Men from Texas that see no problem with global warming, and foriegn occupations at the taxpayer expense to enrich themselves with increased oil prices, and depriving the Europeans of Iraqi oil.
If this nation had listened to and followed the leadership of President Jimmy Carter we would have a solvent Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, as well as the Military that we should have, respect in the world we were entitled to, and energy independance that would have fueled a resurgence of the middle class, and in turn the strengthening of civil liberties, and freedoms.
We instead followed the Reagan/Bush legacy of individual wealth as their Lord and Savior that finds the government a tool to be plundered and to perpetuate their continued hold on power!
We have eroded our basic civil liberties because of the hysteria fuel by the power lust of the Neo-Con, we have completely demoralized the greatest military in human history, and left the greatest human experiment a bad joke in eyes of the world.
I think the lesson to be learned is that Draft-Dodgers that advocate the war they dodge should not hold power!!! Cowards that call into question the patriotism of proven hero's should not be given the pulpit!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I'm going to assume that was a typo.
" I think the lesson to be learned is that Draft-Dodgers that advocate the war they dodge should not hold power!!! "
Who you talkin about? Bush or Clinton?
NEVER advocated the Vietnam war the answer should be obvious.
Snivelling that MMFA quotes them exactly to people other than their psycho brigade and using their own words to make them look as looney as they actually are.
" Snivelling that MMFA quotes them exactly.... to make them look as looney as they actually are. "
The funny thing is that those drug-crazed liberals all do the same thing AT that web site. Have you ever just sat back and read some of the hate and vial coming through their posts? It makes Michael Savage look and sound like a respectable person. You gotta appreciate that mmfa gives America a chance to read just how violent and full of hate the liberal movement is. America sure looks forward to being controlled by a bunch of drug using maniacs that can't say a nice word unless complimenting someone on how much hate they spewed at another person.
Can you please give us examples to back your argument? ... I doubt it as the facts generally get in the way of your reasoning. How can someone be "taken out of context" when MM posts actual recordings of these losers such as Savage? Please explain using logic if you will?
Of giving you a platform for your usual flat out delusions perhaps you can give an example of anyone on this website calling for killing one hundred million people? Oh you CANT? Imagine my suprise. I mean I am shocked that once again you show how utterlty and completely you have lost touch with reality. Savage is inane. YOU are just a pathetic shill, not very good at it but you get extra points for tenacious reality denial.
Vs. Savage, who is gonna turn the right wing against everyone else. Me, I just turn him off.
It seems that you're reading these posts so why not start behaving like a rational, thinking person? When you rant and call people names on the national airwaves, you should expect some flak in return.
When you suggest that if you were writing a book about an abducted child that was raped by her captor, you'd call it "Lizzie Does Utah", you've got to see that some people might take this as, at least, insensitive.
When you say that a holocaust survivor is a "punk, lying, coward, Satanist, backstabbing freak," and responsible for the holocaust, I can see where someone might think you're full of hate.
When you say that President Carter is like Hitler and a "Big-Toothed Muskrat" some might say you're being disrespectful.
Me, I just think you're a man who's willing to do or say anything for a buck. I wouldn't call you a whore, but I think it would be fair to say you were similar to a geek at a carnival.
I would agree...Savage is an egomaniac. This is nothing more than a wetting contest by a big feeling pundit.
Yet, I don't understand his phobia with mmfa. I was reading an evaluation of websites by comscore, a 2005 study, which showed that mmfa's audience is pretty tiny. They failed to make the top 25 in the survey for amount of vistiors to their website .
For perspective...freerepublic ranked 1st in unique vistiors with 3.6M...followed by the drudgereport at 2.2M...dailykos was well down the list at 0.3M.
Granted, this is an old report and I would welcome any newer info. It just appears that Savage has a jones for them because they're a liberal, Soros funded organization...and he's an egomaniac.
"I was reading an evaluation of websites by comscore, a 2005 study, which showed that mmfa's audience is pretty tiny."
-----
And, of course, absolutely nothing has happened in the almost two years since that could cause any change in the numbers, correct?
Comscore is probably just as reliable as the Paris Business Review, if you're quoting it. You really are not that forthcoming with credible sources for your posts.
they're a liberal, Soros funded organization
Just a clarification for the sake of accuracy: George Soros does not fund MMFA. If I recall the facts correctly, the extent of the connection was that MMFA for a time was given office space by a group that Soros helped support. That hardly amounts to being a "Soros funded organization."
That particular canard was spit out by, again if I recall correctly, David Horowitz, who in his deep paranoia seemed to imagine that connecting a group to Soros automatically discredited it. Exactly how, I was never sure.
Again, that's just for accuracy. Because if MMFA was funded by Soros, well, BFD and who the eff cares (other than Horowitz and related wackos).
Yet, I don't understand his phobia with mmfa.
Because they tell the truth about him. Simple enough.
I was reading an evaluation of websites by comscore, a 2005 study, which showed that mmfa's audience is pretty tiny.
In other words, you went looking for the information, and either all you found or what was most useful to you was well out of date. Besides, who are you to decide what is "pretty tiny"?
They failed to make the top 25 in the survey for amount of vistiors [sic] to their website.
My goodness, that's so stunningly irrelevant it's hardly worth rebutting. What's so significant about the top 25 places? Further, MMFA was much newer then and didn't have as much chance to garner a following, so can the same be said now?
And finally, who but you cares a whit about the numbers? I've seen you do this over and over: you can't argue the facts, so you trot out these "well, my person's more popular, so I'm right" type of argument. MMFA points out a lie by O'Reilly, and you march in with O'Reilly's superior ratings over Olbermann's. MMFA points out a lie by Fox News, and you weigh in with Fox's ratings as opposed to that of Air America.
Just cut it out already, Wesley. The issue isn't how popular a person or a channel or a position is--it's whether or not they're telling the truth. I'll go with an unpopular truth over a popular lie any time. I only wish you had the character to do the same.
calling Weiner a hate-mongering, verminous turd, put in the proper context?
That IS the Weiner context
MMFA never takes anyone out of context. Are you out to de-throne Bull OhReally? as Olderman's worst person or what?
Savage's comments...in any context...are most often hate-filled, insulting, etc... There is no context with which his comments would be in a better light. What a turd.
Hey Savage, It is impossible for anyone to "take you out of context" because you have no context. All you have is a big mouth and a small mind. Your rants show you to be person who has lost contact with reality. I would encourage you to get professional help.
I mean that honestly - he's a fascinating man, in ways that O'Reilly and Limbaugh are not. He's obviously intelligent, and has a great deal of charisma. When he's telling stories about his life, his family, or when he talks about whether or not he'll be going to South Florida for the great winter migration, he strikes me as someone that would truly be a pleasure and a joy to have dinner with, have over for an evening, or to enjoy a drink with.
This is why it puzzles me so that he can flip like a coin so quickly in his "discussion" and suddenly be this raving lunatic with a deep-seated hatred not only for liberals, but for Democrats and seemingly for anyone who would keep an open mind about political issues (domestic or international). He touts his book, saying that Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, but good God -- how screwed in the head do you have to be to be so absolutely filled with venom and deliberate lies as this man is? He could be doing so much more good to the world if he used his brain and his talent for something productive.
Is you post from two different people? Because the first paragraph is way off base with reality. Were you serious? Were you joking?
Then I read the second paragraph. It is more in tune with true, factual, reality.
Personally I believe Savage is going to wake up in a cold sweat some night from from a dead sleep and say to himself, "God Dang!... What an ugly, disgusting excuse for a human being I truly am!"
Though I never listened long enough to get the charisma thing. I think he probably is an intelligent man, he is just insane and that oozes out, at the very least, from time to time.
... it's just how I see Savage -- he is exceptionally bipolar when on the air. One of the first times I forced myself to sit and listen to him (instead of changing the channel as soon as I recognized what I was listening to), he got into storytelling mode and was talking about his family when he was younger, and how his father, who was tired of a particular "family friend" coming over and mooching food out of the fridge to take home for himself, bought a can of dog food and fixed the guy a "hamburger" when he asked if there was anything around for him to eat next time he was over. Savage as a storyteller can be very compelling, and that's where I think the charisma comes in.
It's really a shame that the guy can't go 20 minutes on the air without grabbing a non-sequitur somewhere and then blaming it and all of the rest of the world's ills on liberals or Democrats. When he is approaching sanity, he's entertaining to listen to.
I agree with you almost completely with your view of Michael Savage. When I was first introduced to him over a year ago I couldn't see through his rage. But for some reason deep down within me I couldn't stop listening to him. The more I listened to him, the more his rants seemed to become just noise to me. The reason I consider it just noise to me is because the fact of the matter is he is JUST a talk show host with whom is expressing his own opinions. He has no power over anything in government whatsoever and he says he will never run for office. You know the saying,"Take what you want and leave the rest"? Well that is what I do when I listen to Michael Savage. Admittedly I agree more than I disagree with him but just because I disagree with him on certain topics doesn't make me hate him. Remember several months back when our government, mostly George bush, whom just on Monday Michael called him a liar and fraud, tried to sell our ports over to Dubai and how Michael was infuriated over it? Did you know that he had Charles Schumer on his show to discuss it. Did you know that Michael disagrees with Schumer's political views more than 99% of the time, yet he welcomed him on the show specifically because he happened to agree with Schumer and most of the Democrat Party in congress wanting stop this from happeneing. Many of Savages viewers were angry with him and called him an infidel for having him on his show. Did you know how Michael responded do that? He said,"Just because I disagree with him 99% of the time doesn't mean that when he comes up with something that I can agree with, that I shouldn't acknowledge it". What do you think of that?
So... Dr. Weiner will invite to his show someone he usually disagrees with IF that person agrees with him about the subject he wants to discuss.
In other words, somebody is welcome on Weiner's show as long as they reinforce his opinion.
How exactly does that make Weiner worthy of respect?
His grim "humor," nasty, snorting laugh and constant braggadocio points to a man driven to lunacy by his lifelong quest to "be somebody (anybody)."
Those dumb, middle school attempts to make fun of virtually anyone's name more famous than his, and his constant description of virtually anyone he chooses as a "dirty, homosexual, Communist" (including many a fellow Jew) places him in the most prominent place in the sand box.
Somehow, I enjoy (to a point) hating him. I am constantly startled by the apparent large number of sycophants who follow his every word -- as if he was some sort of messiah. Of course, he describes himself as a "national treasure." Who could dispute that?
One of these days, he'll likely crack up all the way -- at which time, the country will be better off.
Then will someone please burry him? (OK I know its an old one but I just couldnt resist)
Savage (it's his name, and his job) throws around so many insults it's a wonder he can order take-out without tearing down the server. Geezuz
"Savage (it's his name, and his job)"
-----
It's not his name. His name is Michael Wiener.
I love Media Matters!!! Keep it up!!! HAhahahaha....
"Carter is an anti-Semetic swine".
Coming from the man who called Jerry Springer "a filthy degenerate with a hooked nose". Who said that Dustin Hoffman speaks "like he has matzah in his mouth". Who said that Kim Jong-Il gave Madeleine Albright a personal bat mitzvah celebration in Pyongyang. Who proposed a Holocaust-style genocide against Muslims ("advocated the death of 100 million Muslims").
Coming from the man who is attacking everyone who don't agree with him in the most vile, disgusting ways possible - yet has the balls to refer to liberals as "The Liberal Klux Klan".
Every so often Savage decides that the Weiner part he was born as is really a Jew. Jew by convenience.
If there is a swine, Weiner-Savage, it is you. Liar, mocker, derider of anything that is not yourself.
Die.
If he doesn't like being quoted (accurately) by MMFA, maybe he should leave "punditry" and go back to hawking coffee enemas.
Michael Savage is an independent conservative who speaks his mind. He is not a brainless puppet like Limbaugh and Hannity for the GOP. I am surprised Media Matters or the media capitalize how Limbaugh cost the GOP control of the Senate with brutal remarks on Michael J Fox.
To begin with, Media Matters did not quote the whole Carter segment. I heard the show. Savage was pointing on how the rise of Radical Islam started with the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran. Carter did not support the Shaw because he violated human rights and allowed radical Islam to rise. Now Iran may be a nuclear power that may lead to a Nuclear War thanks to Carter. He caused Israel land with his deal with Egypt. Carter supports Hugo Chavez, a man who wants to see the US demise. Savage pointed out that Chavez is paying Carter’s organization. Carter observed and validated the Venezuela’s election and the Palestine’s anti-Israel election. Carter in recent interview according to Savage stated if Israel did not exist there would be no problem in the Middle East. If I was Jewish and all this were true, I would have said what Savage said. I summarized what I heard him say about Carter in past shows and this shows from memory. If Media Matters disproved what he said about to be untrue and focused only on his challenge to Media Matters. I would have not written this. I think Savage was trolling to see if Media Matters would write what he said.
One of the aspects I like about Savage is he attacks the political correctness that certain organizations are trying to brainwash people and the loss of our borders and culture. I have never seen so much gay propaganda in my life on television, blogs and other sources trying to force people to accept this or you’re a bigot. These types of groups suppress freedom of thought and expression. What if this forced acceptance causes a change in the US population and in the future we are speaking Spanish because of the rising Hispanic population? America becomes Hispanic and Europe becomes Muslim because both lack strict immigration policies. Laugh now, wait 50 plus years to see if this happens. Savage attacks Bush as being a Global business man that will destroy American jobs and will sell America down the river for big global business. I think America should return to being an isolationist country protecting our manufacturing and build within. Savage is warning America. He may be a prophet like Elijah. At times I find him to be a funny comedian, insightful, spastic and asinine, but overall he does not seem to be a puppet on strings like Limbaugh and his ilk.
I like Media Matters because it exposes me to a different point of views, I try to read all point of views.
Carter supports Hugo Chavez, a man who wants to see the US demise.
This is as far as I got before I stopped reading, sorry. What does Chavez want, and what is your proof of it?
When answering, please keep in mind that wanting nation-builders and corrupt politicians in the US government to keep their nose out of Venezuela's business does not equate to desiring the downfall of an entire nation. Go ahead, I'm listening.
Savage was pointing out that Carter's organization was taking money from Hugo Chavez. He refers to Chavez as being a communist and Carter the same. Savage and other conservative point out his rise in military and his verbal threats to the USA. Chavez wants to USA to loss its influence and power in his region. He certainly is forming alliances with Iran and Cuba. No one may take them seriously and he may or may not mean harm, but still Chavez may be represent the return the rise of Anti-American influence in South America.
You had said that Chavez "wants to see the US demise." I asked you for proof, here's what you provided:
Savage and other conservative point out his rise in military and his verbal threats to the USA.
If a large Northern nation was deliberately trying to overthrow my elections and supporting attempted coups in my country... call me crazy, but I'd be making sure my military could at least attempt to hold their own, too.
Chavez wants to USA to loss its influence and power in his region.
See above. Of course he wants the US to lose its power in the region, we've been USING our power to try to overthrow him.
He certainly is forming alliances with Iran and Cuba.
We'd be smart to form alliances with Iran at least on a tenuous level, and our little baby Democracy, Iraq, is doing the same. It's smart politics.
No one may take them seriously and he may or may not mean harm, but still Chavez may be represent the return the rise of Anti-American influence in South America.
In all fairness, "anti-Americanism" tends to result from idiots in our government getting their hands dirty where they don't belong. Attempting to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela is a really good example of this, and what would the result be? Roses in the streets and blessings upon the name of _insert President of the USA dujour here_?
Still, your first post seemed to say that Chavez wants to see the demise of the USA. I still don't see evidence of that. Were you misspeaking?
Still, your first post seemed to say that Chavez wants to see the demise of the USA. I still don't see evidence of that. Were you misspeaking?
BLR, perhaps I was misspeaking with the word demise. I meant by demise that Chavez does not want the USA would no longer be the only super power like the British Empire or the Soviet Union.
I did not mean by demise the US goes down the toilet and dies.
I understand your opinion and know we would probably not agree.
Is simply another example of Weiners insanity. Of coures Chavez is mad at Bush and this government, Bush tried to overthrow him or at least was connected to those who did. He also sent low cost heating oil to many American cities last year and fuel to New Orleans. The man is no threat to the US if we leave him alone then other than rhetoric he isnt going to bother us in the least.
Carter in recent interview according to Savage stated if Israel did not exist there would be no problem in the Middle East.
That's probably true though, isn't it? It doesn't mean Carter advocates the elimination of Israel.
As for gays, they make up about 10% of the population. You don't have to accept them, but they don't have to stay in the closet just to make you less uncomfortable either.
My point was he was the only commentator who has speaks of this without any political correctness, harshly and no holds bar. This makes him unique.
He said in one program Canada passed laws where speaking against gays is illegal like he does. I do not know if that is not true about Canada, but free speech is a right. I think Savage uses his right to free speech to the fullest extent.
Without political correctness = allowng free reign to the racist, sexist homophobic neandrathal inside him. Right, we get it.
Very well put. Many on here do not understand Savage is no puppet. That is one main reason I enjoy listening to him. He touches on topics many comentators are afraid to even say outloud behind closed doors.
Very well put. Many on here do not understand Savage is no puppet.
So what? The fact that he speaks his insanity of his own volition, instead of on somebody else's orders, doesn't make it less insane.
That is one main reason I enjoy listening to him. He touches on topics many comentators are afraid to even say outloud behind closed doors.
It's probably not that they're afraid to say them, it's probably that they're not so freaking insane that they even think things like "Jimmy Carter is anti-Semitic swine."
And haven't you and Crystal heard of Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, etc.? There's plenty of this crap on the market.
...but Boortz is hardly as bad as Savage. Boortz goes right-wingnut when he talks about immigrants and sometimes when talking about liberals, but he's been far more likely to criticize Republicans and Neo-cons than the others. Boortz will criticize a right-winger and see them for what they are. Savage will criticize a right-winger, and pretend the person's a liberal.
You do not listen to him much.
but I have certainly noticed a trend that when something goes wrong with the world (regardless of who is doing it), he can tie it to those evil libs.
he uses the word Liberal to loosley. My "Liberal" neighbores are two of my best friends, and it bothers me a bit when he talks so harshley like that.
Savage is not always a lunatic. He often has very good insight on matters. Come on, you can not condem a man on soley what you read on this website.
Having listened to Savage's show, however, gives one the ability to call a spade a spade.
There is little that one can negatively say about Savage that he wouldn't deserve, based on his own words on his own show.
You're right, I don't listen to him regularly so I acknowledge that there's a possibility he might occasionally say something non-insane.
Even if that is so, I still think the criticism he gets for the things he says that are posted here is valid.
No argument
I rarely if ever see him denounced as a Bush appolgist. Our problems with him stem from his obvious mental health problems. His insanity is the problem I have with him not that he carries Bush administration water.
They are hard to keep up with. Israel lost NONE of THEIR land to Egypt. Israel was building a settlement called Tanit on EGYPTIAN land in the Siani. The 73 war convinced them they could not treat Egypt the way they treated the Palestinians and Menachem Begin wanted the Camp David agreement as much as Carter did since taking Egypt out of the picture militarily meant the Arab world wouldnt be a military threat to them, at least at the time. As for the Shah Pahlavi. What exactly was Carter supposed to do. The Shah was PUT in power by the CIA and British Intelligence for 25 years he brutally suppressed his people, along with his SAVAK, he was often named by Amnesty International the worlds worst torturer. His people had enough and he was out the only way WE could have done anything about it is to invade the country and kill tens of thousands of Iranians, to keep a brutal dictator in power. I guess thats morally acceptable to wingnuts but some people still have a shred of decency and Carter is one of those people. We got ENOUGH blowback from the 53 overthrow of Irans democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossedegh, guys like you and Weiner wanted to increase that exponentially with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranians for our own selfish short term reasons? It is a virtual definition of insanity. Making the same mistakes over and over, expecting different results.
you and Weiner wanted to increase that exponentially with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranians for our own selfish short term reasons?
I never said or would want the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranians or anybody. Bush has already done that with Iraq. My point was the logic Savage used to say the quote Media Matters used for this blog.
First there is NO logic. Israel gave up NONE of THEIR land. They gave BACK the Siani, that is they gave back EGYPTIAN land to Egypt. Occupied land does not belong to the occupier, the Siani was no more Israeli than Iraq is American. There can be NO valid logical thread based on a false premise. Therefore there was NO logic in Weiners statement. I am also not really following your logic here. If you dont agree with Weiners assessment that the US should have stopped the Shah from being overthrown, the only possible conclusion being that we kill tens of thousands of them, then what is your problem with MMFA's take on Savage? The man is insane, he needs the help of a mental health professional immediatly.
"Savage was pointing on how the rise of Radical Islam started with the overthrow of the Shaw of Iran. Carter did not support the Shaw because he violated human rights and allowed radical Islam to rise"
The reason that the people of Iran overthrew the Shah's regime had nothing to do with President Carter and everything to do with the Shah's oppressive regime.
History isn't something that wingnuts are allowed to rewrite when it suits them.
For that matter, anyone!
There are wingnuts on both sides.
Savage pointed out the Carter should have supported this oppressive regime because the USA was allies with Shah. Instead Iran is a radical regime that could become a major threat.
The only way to support the Shah to the extent of keeping him in power would have been to militarily put down the uprising, that is kill tens of thousands of them according to the military intelligence officer we sent to asses the situation, you said you wouldnt support that and now you seem to be backtracking. So can you make yourself clear? Would you or would you NOT support the killing of tens of thousands of Iranians to keep the Shah in power brutalizing his people and if you WOULDNT then what is your criticism of Carter?
Savage’s point was that if Carter had help kept the Shah in power and Bush had not messed up Iraq, these regions would not be a threat and the fear of a Muslim theocracy rising would not be apparent. Both the Shah and Sadam had oppressive regimes and they slaughtered many. All I can say is I am fortunate enough not to born there.
I see the changes in government in those countries like Russia, the Czar is oppressive and many were dying, the Communists take over many die. Either way is terrible. I certainly would not want to see the US go to war with Iran and hope a diplomatic solution is possible, enough US soldiers and Iraqis have died and had their blown limbs.
Savage’s criticism of Carter was his work was not favorable for Israel and the USA were his opinions.
As for Carter, he is always a target and an example by conservatives why Reagan was great. I wish Carter had appeared more hawkish as President during the Iran situation in the late 70’s and towards the Soviet Union, he might have had a better chance of reelection in 1980.
With the current situation, I am sure Bush will be considered a far worse President than Carter.
You act like all Carter had to do was give a speech saying OK Iran the Shah is a good guy, stop giving him grief and he could have saved him. WE put him in power by overthrowing their first democratic government, we had no credibilty among the Iranians. The ONLY way to keep the Shah in power would have been to slaughter Iranians wholesale which YOU said you did not support. Given that exactly WHAT is your criticism of Carter? You cant say Savage is making a good point except I dont agree with it. Either you support us invading and killing tens of thousands of Iranians or you support Carters solution of letting the Iranian people do in THEIR country what they decided to do. That is get rid of the brutal Shah. It is disengenuous to BLAME Carter for allowing the Shah to be overthrown when YOU wouldnt support doing the ONLY thing he could have done to STOP him from being overthrown.
History isn't something that wingnuts are allowed to rewrite when it suits them.
"I like Media Matters because it exposes me to a different point of views, I try to read all point of views."
SAM: It's good that you're exposing your ideas here and reading opposing ideas to your own. I am sure of one thing though, you agree with Savage and O'Rielly, and your here to defend them.
I'm hoping that you not only read other points of views, but come around to understanding them too. Why? Because You, Savage, O'Rielly and other Republican Pundits are trying to force your anti-freedom rules on our country.
Gay, Hispanic, and other Americans you don’t approve of have every right as citizens in our country. They can be gay, speak Spanish, French, German or whatever the heck they want to be or speak or be.
You see, it’s you that wants to take away our freedoms. I have never had a gay person try to convince me to be gay. You and most of the Republican Pundits want to force your dictator rules on our country. You say don’t laugh? How can I laugh, your desire to be a dictator, to make everyone else in your likeness, is not funny at all.
You're a very nice and polite Culture Warrior though, unlike your O'Reilly and unlike your Savage man. I like your style but I cannot find much that I agree with you on.
P.S. You agreed with Savage on his incorrect historical depiction of Carter and the Shaw of Iran. The Shaw was our puppet dictator there and you should not trust the World History According To Savage. Please find a credible source for Historical matters.
Thanks .... Sam
I like Horowitz's responses to MMFA better. He can bring the funny.
Sounds to me he is talking about the folk that post here, not the employees at MMFA.
That's a rich one. Please explain what part of his statement leads you to that conclusion.
You all, are the swine. Plain and simple.
But for the most part, we've been very polite dealing with you Evil. And you've been pretty courteous to us in return. Where did this swine thing come from?
I do not see MMFA miss-quoting him. However, I do see posters on here doing so. Taking his quotes and churning them a bit. That is my take on it. You all on here are very cool. I do not mean to sum you all up like that. My appologies.
One correction though, I haven't been a warrior since I was a kid. At this point in my life, I'm a worrier.
done it before too.... sorry worrierking
"My point was he was the only commentator who has speaks of this without any political correctness, harshly and no holds bar. This makes him unique.
He said in one program Canada passed laws where speaking against gays is illegal like he does. I do not know if that is not true about Canada, but free speech is a right. I think Savage uses his right to free speech to the fullest extent."
Poor use he puts it to when he's lying 99.5 per cent of the time. Jimmy Carter's anti-semitic? What an ass. Chavez want 'the demise of the US"? you're an ass.
I am glad not to live under his dictatorship.
He was freely elected by a huge majority of his people in an election that was indisputably open and fair. You dont like his policies fine, but you are again trying to rewrite history.
Perhaps I was misspeaking with the word demise. I meant by demise that Chavez does not want the USA would no longer be the only super power like the British Empire or the Soviet Union.
I did not mean by demise the US goes down the toilet and dies.
I understand your opinion and know we would probably not agree.
Poor use he puts it to when he's lying 99.5 per cent of the time. Jimmy Carter's anti-semitic? What an ass. Chavez want 'the demise of the US"? you're an ass
There is a difference between lying and knowing it is false versus I believe what I am saying, even if you think it is a lie.
As for'demise', it what has been implied in the show. I was just summarizing.
He is not lying, he is allowed his opinion. And that is just what he said it was, "One mans opinion".... How can you call that a lie?
Because there isnt the slightest bit of evidence on record that Jimmy Carter is anti Semetic criticising Israels foriegn policy is NOT anti-Semitism. Supporting Human Rights for Palestinians is NOT anti-Semetic, many Jewish people IN Israel do so. In fact since Palestinians are every bit as Semetic as the Jewish people are the whole characterization is inane. Thus his making this claim is a lie, the defense it is only an opinion is no help suppose I said YOU were a child molester, would the fact it was ONLY my opinion mean it WASNT a lie?
I see your point.
I really take exception to those people who feel that Savage is somehow acceptable because he is not "politically correct" as if that means he has something to say that is worth listening to but just does not say it in a "nice" way. I have a friend who says the same thing. While it is true that openly expressing hatred toward any group is not "politically correct" the question is does he or doesn't he have a valid point that is worth considering? His outrageous statements are not worthless because they are politically incorrect, they are worthless because they are just hate-filled venomous generalizations that add absolutely nothing to understanding anything and instead are just pandering to people's fears and prejudices. His rants are pathetic, and I am always surprised that anyone finds him worth paying any attention to.
The idea that it takes some special kind of moral courage to be "politically incorrect" (usually a euphemism for racist or quasi-fascist ranting) is downright silly in a media landscape so thoroughly overrun by angry white republicans. Where is this stifling left-wing orthodoxy that they are so valiantly standing up to, and how long exactly has it had such a strangle hold on the entire culture?
Step back just slightly and it looks like these characters are striking heroic underdog poses as they flail away at poor people and blacks, and that omnipotent cabal of liberals who had absolute power until the 2000 election. Truly some fearsome enemies, to be attacked only at great personal risk.
But after all, they have the courage to say what the rest of us are actually thinking... that is the smarmy implication of this pretend bravery, and I suspect these a--clowns really do believe that.