On MLK Day, Savage called civil rights a "racket" designed to steal "white males' birthright"
On the January 15 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, in a monologue about Martin Luther King Day, Michael Savage called "civil rights" a "con" and asserted: "It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it." Savage then said, "Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. ... [T]here is only one group that is targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males." He added: "They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot."
From the January 15 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: But basically, if you're talking about a day like today, Martin Luther King Junior Day, and you're gonna understand what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country. It's a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.
Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming. They're not coming out of women's hides. Are they? No, there's only one group that's targeted, and that group are white, heterosexual males. They are the new witches being hunted by the illiberal left using the guise of civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot.
I didn't get a list of stock options with my birth certificate... was I swindled? To whom should I apply for this "birthright" I've been denied? I don't believe ANYONE has a birthright, except for those of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thanks for showing us your opinion on "civil rights and fairness to women and whatnot." I know. He'd say I took him out of context.
I think this guy just has the Hate Speech magnet set at home... every day he grabs a handful and just lobs it at the fridge. Whatever sticks, he says that night.
treating others with dignity and respect and assuming they are innocent until proven guilty is only the birhtright of us whitey's. Youse wimin wouldn'a be workin unless us'n wanted ya to. And you uppity t-i-double guh-er's, what makes you think you'se deserves anything? whut did you do to make this country great other than whine about being taken by force from that rat infested hole you call home, and whine about picking cotton so's I can be rich, and the whole time actually having the audacity to think you shoulda been given medicine when you got sick, and demanding I put a roof over your head when you slaved fer me when I know dang good and well that you lived under a rock in that rat infested hole you called a country eating worms like an animal. You'se should be thanking me, you ungrateful heathen!
You OK, Snoopy?
Oh, wait, that was me... nothing else to do in austin but freeze!
Way to go
needed to become a two way street!
Affirmative action is disguised as "civil rights", and steals jobs from white, heterosexual, Christian males and gives them to underqualified minorities. Everything he said was true.
"Affirmative action is disguised as "civil rights", and steals jobs from white, heterosexual, Christian males and gives them to underqualified minorities. Everything he said was true."
I live in a state that in November voted to end all Affirmative Action. And it is all based on a young white guy who yelled and whined that all these women and minority students were getting into UofM's law school and he, because he's white and male did not. He became the poster child of this movement, started 2-3 years ago.
What was reported when the story first aired and never mentioned during the elections was one little fact.
The poster Child of the anti-affirmative action campaign did not have the grades and did not do the work the other applicants did to be accepted. He was hoping daddy's freinds would help get him in.
The other applicants, feed the homeless, worked for non-profits, cleaned city streets on weekends, and did a lot to help better thier communities.
Afirmative Action never seem to have a problem with legacies. How many better qualified students didnt get into Yale when Bush did? The University of Texas wouldnt even take him. When Cal ended their Afirmative Action program in their college system it was largely due to a movement led by Ward Connerly. Within a couple of months he was embroiled in a controversy where he got an unqualified and wealthy friends kid into UCLA.
For their grades and work ethics than I believe those students should have been accepted. Not for the color of their skin, or their gender. I believe in hiring people for a job or admiting people into a school based on their experinece and qualifications. I don't believe that anyone should have any sort of advantage whether it's because they're white or they're black.
I live about 10 miles north of Detroit, so I was part of that vote. I was one of the people who voted against affirmative action because I think it's a broken system. It was supposed to level the playing field, but it eventually became a system of quotas and advantages.
Should minorities and those who aren't as financially well off as other have the opportunity to attend schools of higher standards: Absolutely. But they shouldn't be able to do at the expense of someone else because they're either black, hispanic, or a woman.
If there was a ballat initiative that was for a program that made it an absolute equal and fair field than I would be the first person in line to vote for it. But I can't stand for something that I believe makes it okay to say "No, you have the wrong skin color."
But it's a complex issue and I'm sure there are many different opinions. Most valid and some idiotic. Unfortunately Savage appeals to the most idiotic of us in this world.
I don't believe that anyone should have any sort of advantage whether it's because they're white or they're black.
---------------------------------------------
That's easy for you to say. Whites have enjoyed white skin privilege from the founding of this nation and beyond. How good of you to vote down any compensatory program for those who have had to pay for your sick skin privilege since 1619.
" That's easy for you to say. Whites have enjoyed white skin privilege from the founding of this nation and beyond. "
That is such a racist statement. Is there a black kkk club that you belong to?
" That's easy for you to say. Whites have enjoyed white skin privilege from the founding of this nation and beyond. "
That is such a racist statement. Is there a black kkk club that you belong to?
- Proud-Christian
-------------------------------
Crystal meth isn't good for your brain. The whites who built a society based on the enslavement and oppression of blacks are the racists, not the historian who points out this fact. There is no such thing as a black KKK; only proud white Christians are members.
No group of people will ever make it in this country if they think they are "owed" something. The world is generally a nasty place. It's gotten more civil, but it's still a nasty world. That being said, nobody alive was subjected to American slavery, nor are there any living slave owners. The slate has been wiped clean by time. I refuse to feel that I owe anybody anything for something that my great-great-great whatever MAY have done.
On top of that, I would hardly say that the US was "built on slavery." Innovation, freedom, and an abundance of resources are what built this country. Not only that, but this impression that the white man went to Africa and kidnapped people as slaves is ridiculous. As horrible as it is looking back now, and it is, slavery was a big business all over the world, and the majority of African slaves were sold BY AFRICANS and went to the Caribbean, NOT the United States.
The world owes you nothing and will give you nothing. If you want something, take it! In America, you can, regardless of your race, religion, etc.
The slate has been wiped clean by time.
-----------------------------------------------------------
No, it has not Kramer. There is no statue of limitations on genocide.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to feel that I owe anybody anything for something that my great-great-great whatever MAY have done.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody asked your penniless a** for jack pal. The GOVERNMENT owes reparations for crimes it committed against African Americans BEGINNING not ENDING with slavery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On top of that, I would hardly say that the US was "built on slavery."
------------------------------------------------------------------
I would hardly expect YOU or your ancestors to admit it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
this impression that the white man went to Africa and kidnapped people as slaves is ridiculous. As horrible as it is looking back now, and it is, slavery was a big business all over the world, and the majority of African slaves were sold BY AFRICANS and went to the Caribbean, NOT the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop lying. The word "kidnap" itself came from the name pale people used to described their "business" in procuring plantation labor from Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want something, take it!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry, we will whether you like it or not.
there is also the fact that the people running the anti-affirmative action campaign lied and misrepresented themselves.
They called it the "Mich. Civil Rights Initiative"
A few of the people who volunteered to collect signatures (and now feel sorry about that) admitted that they were trained to lie when asked what the initiative was.
A large number of residents in Detroit, largely black and hispanic complained because they signed the petition believing it was something completely different, after being lied to by signature gatherers.
While there is no disputing that our country was founded at a time when women, blacks ( as a whole) and basically every minority at the time had little to no rights at all.
Our founding fathers new that when they put those wonderful words on those pesky peices of paper that insure our rights that the words "All men are created equal" was in itself, a hypocritical thing to have written.
They knew that in order for this grand experiment called democracy to work they couldn't simply say that women, blacks and all people minority were all free with all rights granted to them at that moment.
They knew that with time this country would come to its senses, it took a civil war to start the chain reaction, a suffarge movement, and a simple man with the initials MLK to put the final touches on it.
It is a well known 'public' secret Mr Weiner that you are a minority (a gay man screaming to 'come out'......this makes you a different kind of minority) but one that Mr King was speaking of beyond just blacks, women, and the various minorities that have made this great country their collective home.
You presume that the white guy is losing something as a result of civil rights laws and acts becoming part of our society........ Exactly what 'exploitation' are you refering to? What 'birthright'?
Your seemingly uneducated talk only hurts this country, you do only a diservice to your listeners by attempting to further this vile speak, the lies, you sir, are a disgrace!
If you think that this somehow makes you a big man, no it doesn't, it makes you a weasel!
As I said, if you would just have the gonads to simply 'come out' of your shell you'd finally be able to be happy and stop being so self-hating....... look at what it did for David Brock!
If he is gay, we (and I believe on this issue I can speak for the entire community) do not want him in our camp.
So don't make such claims unless you have proof, do you? Because that would be a big story.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that he would at all be accepted into the gay community or that he should be, if it turns out that he is in fact gay.
As for any proof, I don't have specifics, but if we were to look at gay man that were once conservative and closeted who were as self-hating and full of vile (because he WAS in the closet) as Mr Weiner-Savage must be, one need not look further than David Brock of this here website to see that by 'coming out' does to a person, he is now an open-minded liberal that sees the hypocrisy and double-standard of the right wing conservative base of this country!
Want proof of that? Read "The Real Anita Hill" first Then "The Seduction of Hillary C" second Then "Blinded By The Right" last
You can totally see the transformation as each book is read. All this because he simply....came out!
I can't imagine how someone (Mr Weiner) could have this much hate and anger toward the gay community and not be gay himself. This is one scared man!
"I can't imagine how someone (Mr Weiner) could have this much hate and anger toward the gay community and not be gay himself. This is one scared man!"
While self hate does exist in the gay and lesbian (LGBT) community as a by-product of a culture that tells you how evil you are every chance it gets, unfortunatly there are a group of people who are filled with hate and are not gay.
(personally I would like to do a study to investigate wheither his real last name has any impact on his views.)
We are raised in a culture that gives permission to teenage boys, to taunt and possibly attack (usually in pacts if you notice, rarely one on one) homosexual men.
A culture that can create abstinence only education, that says no sex until marriage. And then when gay men and women ask, well what about our young kids? They say no sex until marriage, and gay people can't get married. Coupled with the old rantings (in the 80's and 90's) about AIDS being god's punishment, for being gay; is causing many LGBT people come to the conclusion, "they don't want to teach young LGBT students safe sex, so they can get AIDS and maybe wipe out the LGBT community altogether.
Okay that was a rant. Lets end with a joke. "When you look at the statistics and the fact that out of all the population groups, Lesbians have less than a 1% chance of being infected with AIDS, you can only come to one conclusion." "If AIDS is God's punishment for sin, Lesbians must be God's chosen people!"
What 'birthright' are you referring to...? Well, I'm glad you pointed out that 95% of the world doesn't 'qualify' for whatever you are talking about...
...what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country. It's a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.
Michael Wiener
-------------------------------------------------------------
We don't qualify for membership in the pale male club, and never will, because we have dark skin. I'm OK with that because I love the skin I'm in. However, we're gonna have to ban all privileges based on pale male skin because the lack of melanin shouldn't qualify you for anything but a free suntanning session.
The things white folks say and do, man I can't begin to understand how it affects you. It probably means next to nothing coming from a white dude like me, but I wish I could make my bastard pale face brothers just stop hating.
Peace
Actually, Wiener himself bothers me about as much as a psychotic in an insane asylum, that is, not at all....The only difference between Wiener and your average psychopath is: somebody let him loose.
What bothers me is (1) an insane media complex that pays Wiener and a long list of other halfwit white psychotics millions to keep racism alive, and (2) his ignorant audience. What is there to say about people who interpret the ravings of an obvious lunatic as profound truth? (except that as a whole they are just as nuts)
We are seeing the results of the racist media agenda: the election of a two-term halfwit redneck President who has led us into another Vietnam and drained our surplus while letting Americans die in New Orleans.
In the end, we will all suffer for this. Whites too.
" while letting Americans die in New Orleans. "
Or, instead of complaining of the dangers of living in a walled in city, 15ft below sea level, you could help move those Americans out of danger. Perhaps the next president will eliminate New Orleans so we don't have the danger of Americans dieing each year.
And, don't forget to send a $2K debit card to older residents of England/Wales. Over 25,000 'excess deaths' have happened last winter from lack of finances to pay heating bills. [link to news.bbc.co.uk] They need your support, too. Can you help them? You DO care about the elderly, don't you?
I understand what it is that your argument implies, but if we were to remove people from 'danger' areas of our country, then we would need to move people out of:
California: All those pesky earthquakes Florida: Always seems that a hurricane finds it The entire midwest: Darn tornadoes
People live were they want to, there is no 100% safe place on the planet, let alone America.
We are supposed to be a community, making our country a better place, helping when and were we can.
To imply what you say is nothing but a cop-out.
Wherever you live in America, rest assured, you wouldn't like it if a disaster hit your area and then your fellow Americans said to simply 'move' you and your entire community elsewhere instead of rebuilding your homes!
" We are supposed to be a community, making our country a better place, helping when and were we can. "
Very good, you did indeed get my point. Now, why is it the community should be doing the work everywhere else, except in New Orleans, where it is expected that the federal government save them, feed them, provide everything for them, even pay them for simply going through the event. And, they don't need to do anything but sit back and watch sit-coms. The government is even expected to carry the lounge chair for them while they sit in it. Even after a year the only folks really trying to do anything for them are the religious folk who go there to rebuild homes as much as possible. What is the community doing for itself, at this point? What good does it do to continually blame Bush for naturally occuring events? He didn't cause the earthquakes, the snow fall or the tornados. But he gets the blame (a year later, still) for homelessness caused by Katrina.
There were hundreds of buses available to take people out, but they waited. There were warnings a week in advance, but they waited. The storm hits and suddenly everyone wants to leave. I imagine if you procrastinate that long some bad will happen. And they blame Bush for their own procrastination...still, a year later. At least the people in Fla get ready when a storm comes in. The people in the midwest build shelters for their season of storms. The people of California have earthquake kits to help survive till help comes. Those areas expect community to help within. New Orleans sat back and waited for someone to carry them out and complain because they didn't do it quick enough.
We liberals do not blame Bush for the weather (beyond global warming), but because of his actions or lack of action.
One of the primary duties of a government in society is to provide safety and security. This is not some new age liberal concept. This is the basis of nearly all political theories. (also the basis of tax theories, "we need safety/security", "those cost money, so we create taxes.")
This is one of the reasons FEMA was created and why the neo-con/Bush idea to combine it with Homeland Security was so flawed.
Also your asertion that the residents of New Orleans are sitting around waiting for the government to rebuild houses, is well B.S. If you have been there since the storm you would know that the residents are doing a lot of work. In some cases yes, they are stuck waiting for help (a toxic spill, can not be cleaned up with a lot of hard work and determination). That requires money, something that a lot of these individuals do not have.
I have been thankfull and have praised God for every opertunity that has been given me to help these people out. And I ask only that I am given the strength and energy to do more. Must be a crazy liberal flip-flopping idea.
who piss and moan about how good-fer-nothin' the people of New Orleans are have no direct experience of the people or their situation - just what they read on the righty blogs.
No community in this nation has ever suffered the devastation that the City of New Orleans suffered. No other city has even come close.
New Orleans, and every community for that matter, should be able to depend on the Federal Government when their own resources were not enough. If we as a nation cannot depend on each other, then we don't deserve to continue as a nation.
New Orleans, and every community for that matter, should be able to depend on the Federal Government when their own resources were not enough.
F = Federal [i.e., not state or local] E = Emergency [e.g., aftermath of hurricanes] M = Management [act of managing] A = Agency [extension of the executive branch of government, i.e., Bush administration]
The acronym is plain as day. Yet righties get all hot and bothered when Bush gets some blame for the federal government's failures in Katrina's aftermath. They prefer to blame it all on dem shifless negroes.
Ever hear of the SF earthquake in 1906? There are plenty of natural disasters that are worse than NO. [link to www.ezl.com] And, obviously, you either forget or ignore the community of NY city from just a few years ago. There are PLENTY of communities that go through what NO went through. They don't continue to whine about not getting help fast enough. Get over it. Disasters happen, move on...rebuild. Why are you hanging on to the hate?
Don't live below sea level. DUH!
I've asked this before, and if you replied I missed it: Why do you, as a "Christian," choose to describe yourself as in the thrall of one of the "seven deadly sins?"
Because I AM proud that I'm a Christian. I am a Christian and grateful to be one. If that falls within the "deadly sins" let me know. And, if I am taught correctly, there is only one unforgivable sin. I don't think that is it. But, thanks for pointing it out to me. That's very Christian of you to look out for your brother.
Should I change my name to 'grateful-Christian'? Would that make you happy? What other nickname changes do you have in store for all the other posters you don't like? Should all of them get in line with YOUR criteria? Or, do I have the freedom to choose whatever name I want and let God punish me if I choose the wrong one? OR...! Are you (and holly) God and you judge who I am simply by my nickname?? Thanks for being so non-judgemental. That's very "liberal" of you.
either very ignorant of the teaching of Christ or just choose to selectively pick which parts you want to follow. Try reading the bible again and think about the message Christ was trying to teach you.
The majority of the post I've read from you are extremely narrow minded, overly simplified, judgmental, and not very compassionate. Your the one that decided to "wear" your religion in your handle and then speak in direct opposition with the main point of Christ's teachings in your posts.
You do realize that you've made a gross generalization of the situation in NO and how people reacted to the situation. Your oversimplification really doesn't lend much credibility to your arguments and on top of it your not being very compassionate to people in need.
Personally I think you should change your handle because I think your a Christian in name only.
I too am a proud Christian African American female and Inoticed you did not comment on Savages assertiona about birth right stealing. I would liked to know your thoughts on this from a Chrustian White Male perspective. Do we all have an equal birthright in the eys of God or does God favor some over others?
It's likely Mr Proud Christian will not answer you.....
To this point of my writting this post, he has not....
But I wonder.... and as an agnostic, I ask this to everyone on here that is of any faith:
How do we know that we have been given a birthright at all? It could be cats or dogs or plankton that has the ultimate birthright!
Human higher intelligence not withstanding and less a Pat Robertson "God spoke to me" crap.......
Just an observation.
" LYNN......It's likely Mr Proud Christian will not answer you.....To this point of my writting this post, he has not.... "
Sorry, I'm not able to sit by the computer 24/7. I do work for a living. I mainly respond as I feel the need in my morning. If I'm able to access the cp in the evening I will and I have more time on weekends. Plus, they "close" the threads sometimes before I can get in for further responses. There...now you know my schedule. Let me know if I need to quit my job so I can resond a little quicker.
Lynn, absolutely I think we are all created equal. Dr. Savage has some way far out there ideas and this is one of them. He often says if he ran for president he would get his 10 million listeners to vote for him, well I would not. I do support some of his ideas (language/borders) but not all of them. He is very tweeked in his thought pattern but not nearly as tweeked as those from the opposite side of the political spectrum (IMHO). I also do not support his stance on the MLK holiday, which he vehimately disaproves of. I feel the opposite, I think Rev. King is a great man and a great role model for all people.
As far as God favoring some over others, I have read that in Heaven some will have different stature than others but I don't fully understand this so I can't truthfully answer that part of it. I would assume it to be from the extent that God "uses" someone to achieve His goals.
Oops! Looks like I struck a nerve.
You posted:
" given my layman's knowledge of Christian belief, that the combination of those two words was oxymoronic. "
Merriam/Webster dictionary says that 'proud' has the meaning of "1; feeling... b : much pleased: exultant." (which means 'filled with or expressing great joy'). Now, can we get past that? So, you can call me "feeling much pleased and expressing great joy-Christian" if you want to.
As for the "unforgivable sin", I've always thought that the only unforgivable sin is non-belief. God certainly won't drag you into Heaven kicking and screaming if you don't want to go. I don't think that "limits" His mercy, but rather reinforces His mercy.
The one thing that I enjoy about "christians" such as yourself is that despite your ignorance, despite your regressive thinking processes, despite the fact that you will never allow for new information to enter your brain because that might mean the lies you've lived your whole life around are just that, lies , I laugh at you.
I laugh, because whatever does await us when all is said and done will most likely be NOTHING like what you've prepared your whole life for.
Put simply and crudely...
God thinks you're a jerk, and I'm PRETTY SURE you ain't gettin into heaven with you're current attitude.
to tell PC he's going to hell. That is a little harsh. And he just feeds on it like a virus, growing larger and more bloated the more you condem him.
Instead, a much better solution is to use logic and facts. Every time some one starts tearing down his arguments with real information, he vanishes.
Its almost amazing, if it were not for the fact that so many of these "christians" do the same. Its like shining a flashlight into a corner filled with cockroaches, they run and hide. The ideas they rant about can not stand up to reality.
Good analogy. Of course comparing cockroaches to these so called "Christians" is a pretty low insult to cockroaches. As of this moment I'm wondering what the difference is between the neocons and those who died in the Jonestown Massacre. Aside from the fact that the current leaders of the Evangelical "Christian" Movement haven't done the world a favor by having someone put a bullet through their heads.
We'd all due well not to resort to the same tactics used by those we criticize.
The anti-Christian stuff is creepy. I am NOT a Christian, nor do I practice any religion, but it seems to me that Christianity is one of the most tolerant out there. It seems silly to demonize millions of Americans because of one guy who puts "christian" in his handle.
" Every time some one starts tearing down his arguments with real information, he vanishes. "
Thanks for being there for me, bro. But I (like most other Christians) work for a living and can't sit in front of the cp all day long. However, I haven't seen any of my arguements torn down, yet. Sure, you may disagree, but that isn't the same.
Perhaps the next president will eliminate New Orleans so we don't have the danger of Americans dieing each year.
And, don't forget to send a $2K debit card to older residents of England/Wales. Over 25,000 'excess deaths' have happened last winter from lack of finances to pay heating bills. [link to news.bbc.co.uk] They need your support, too. Can you help them? You DO care about the elderly, don't you?
- Proud-Christian
-------------------------------------
1. This president has already done quite enough to eliminate New Orleans. How White Christian of you.
2. What do old cold whites in Wales have to do with the price of tea in Nairobi? Did you get into Ted Haggart's stash?
" 2. What do old cold whites in Wales have to do with the price of tea in Nairobi? Did you get into Ted Haggart's stash? "
Just trying to find out 'your' racial priorities. Apparently, they are the same as you claim mine are. Are you saying that white people dying in the cold are not worthy, while black people being flooded out of home are? Too bad, I don't feel the same way as you. I feel those in need should be cared for. I just didn't like you using Bush as your constant scapegoat. Take some responsibility.
Your racial priority is white supremacy period. The government of the United States has no duty to the Welsh, it has a duty to protect Americans. Last I looked, New Orleans is in the United States and England is not.
You should be proud of being able to come to this site and speak your racism without anyone calling you on it except a few non-liberals. It goes to show that racists support their own. All you have spoken in this entire thread is 'hatred' and if it isn't hatred then it is hatred of "whitey". You don't care about America, you just want someone to give you your piece of the pie. Heck, you don't even want to work for it, you just figure it is "owed" to you since you may have relatives who had to work. Well, you'll get along just fine on this site, liberals love your kind of talk. They hate it when it comes from a "whitey" or a "Christian", but not from you.
All white, heterosexual, christian (but not in a religious-right way), males (the vast majority of us) who don't agree with Savage, I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies anyone who may have been offended by this moron.
I don't recall seeing the following in the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (if they're white, male, christian and straight) are created equal.
Michael Savage going to get it through his head that giving rights to others does not mean taking rights AWAY from those that already had it?
Forgive the nitpicking, but no one can give a right to another, you can only take them away. Absent tyranny, we hold our inalienable rights by virtue of our humanity.
...you can expect Savage to be the "talk radio" mouthpiece for the ilk of racist and white-supremacist groups seeking to raise funds to sponsor the "evacuation" (read: emigration into the United States) of White South Africans (in particular those of Afrikaner derivation), all the while claiming "refugee" or "asylum" status based on "fear of persecution by a [Black Communistic] regime acting under the guise of multiculturalism and diversity," all the while (or so this sick line suggests) "showing reckless and utter disregard for Afrikaner culture, heritage, traditions, values and the Afrikaans language."
(Said "culture, heritage and values" being ones based on an agrarian religiocultural mindset rooted in Calvinist Religiopolitik which was used to justify apartheid, reinforced in its turn by the syllabus of Nasionale Christen Opverdoing [National Christian Education] as prevailed under apartheid. Which, come to think of it, may have parallels in the Christian Homeschooling movement.)
And all the while claim that such is one with "racial honour and duty***required of White Christian America."
The which, more than anything, is likely to be suspicious to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials handling requests for refugee/asylum status based on Fear of Persecution. Especially when it emerges that the sponsors of such emigrants are really weird and unwholesome elements, in turn raising questions of moral risk.
Am not aware of any such campaigns to the moment; however, the old que vive wouldn't hurt.
He’s just another vicious rightwing reactionary racist insect…A disgrace to his parents… & a detriment to Jews everywhere. If this guy is looking to fan the flames of anti-Semitism using Charlie Manson tactics-- he’s doing a wonderful job. “It’s just schtick,“ is no excuse. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if he had a psychiatric record a mile long…
====
Is both insane and hateful. Apparantly his point is that it is the birthright of white people to discriminate against minorities. This guy is worse than worthless. He needs to regain some sanity or increase his medication.
but hearing that made me want to vomit. I can't even think of anything to say about it I'm so nauseous. In fact the only thing I can think of in response would have to be so heavily censored that it's not even worth typing.
" . . . goodness knows white males don't get a fair shake in this country . . ." [sarcasm]
His brain pooped.
description of the thoughts oozing out of his head.
The thing people call "civil rights" is simply your rights as a Citizen...
...whatever the Law does not forbid a Citizen to do, is a Citizen's Right to do.
What's Citizen's Rights truly have to do with "race"...
...other than that there was a time in the U.S., when persons had not the legal status of Citizen (Person) because of their race...
...and so the U.S. Constitution ordained "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [Fourteenth Amendment]...
...and still certain Citizens, due to their race, were not allowed to enjoy the same benfits of Citizenship as all other Citizens, so it required an enforcement of that same Amendment, specifically the part that reads "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."...
...and further they were made stronger, the Citizen's Rights, when the Fifteenth Amendment ordained "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied... on account of race, color, or previous condidtion of servitude."
If that's a "racket", then I guess I don't know what the word "racket" means...
Because it's just the Law, as it is ordained and as it reads.
"Race" isn't really an issue of Citizenship anymore, because of the Law, and because of the Rights we enjoy, beyond the command or forbiddance of the Law.
"Race" is now found only where it begins in the first place... in the hearts and minds of racists...
...such as the guy named savage, transcribed in the item above.
"It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it."
Can't you just get out of the closet and show us your pretty white sh*t? Oh, I mean SHEET.
I'm pretty sure the Klan rule on Jewish membership hasn’t changed. In fact they probably would say that Savage is stealing their birth right. Savage is in a league of his own.
Wiener wouldn't be the first "minority" to try to join the Aryan nation. They are full of cowards.
Savage must have a huge balloon note due on his mortgage coming up soon. Lately he's been throwing Hail Mary passes such as this one apparently in the hopes that he'll get a big gig at FOX. "Yeah, Savage, we notice you... we're just not paying attention."
the HATE meter rose 3 points. The Stupidity meter ,carried in their heads by his listeners also increased. Eventually, they will be released from their demons. The brain cell will be filled.
How can you possibly take this seriously? Savage is just an attention-whore who will say literally anything to get a rise.
Savage would be parading around in whites sheet burning crosses.
As a black male, I'm not surprised or shocked by this. Savage has shown his true colors long ago. For anyone still in doubt about the level of racism in this day and age, think about Savage and then think about all of the listeners that hang on his every word.
I feel fortunate to know that the majority of people have evolved beyond primate levels....actually to finish this thought is an insult to primates.
And what really pisses me off about Mr. "Savage" is that he has labelled Liberals as the "Liberal Klux Klan", even though he's the one being all racist and genocidal. Like the time he talked about "killing 100 million Muslims". That comment stinks Holocaust a long way.
this is one of the things that really disturb me. People seem to think that being of a perticular race/religion/nationality means you are free from certain triats. Some often perfer to hide behind it. You can bet your home anyone countering Savage would be called an 'anti-semite'.
Whites can be minorites. Blacks can be racist. Jews can be fascists. Americans can be imperialist terrorists.
If people would finally drop these dellusions this would could still work out ok.
I think Dr. Savage is WRONG on this one. I agree with some of his stuff and listen to his show because there aren't any liberal shows on in SF at that time frame (they seem to be going bankrupt). I think Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is a great man with great ideals. He was fair and just to all who dealt with him. I even quoted one of his sermons, (in another thread) but no one appreciated it. But, rather, called me names and other hateful things. I think because I pointed out that MLK is a preacher. I think Savage misses the point of his own tirade and should have concentrated on the liberal side of the fence trying to erase the religious importance of MLK day. Rev. King was a great Bible teacher. His interpretations were incredible and fair across the board. He never cared whether you were black or white or any other color, his message was for God. If you listened to His message...good for you. If you don't then get ready for judgement by Someone. I think liberals have removed the Reverand from Reverand King's name and replaced it with Dr. I suppose to hide the connection of a great religious leader to a national holiday.
you're completely ignoring the fact that the majority of liberals are religious. But that's necessary to make your "point," isn't it?
Religous? What religion? I don't think they follow what Rev. King preached. So, why would it matter that they are "religious" in relation to my statement?
Religous? What religion?
Christianity, predominantly. I know you think you cons own it, but you don't. Virtually every liberal I know - and I know a lot - is a Christian.
I don't think they follow what Rev. King preached.
Why not?
So, why would it matter that they are "religious" in relation to my statement?
Because you titled your little rant "It's a religious holiday, and liberals can't have that!" You rant is a great example of the cons' little cutesy-poo way of claiming the high moral ground based on nothing more than their chosen faith lifestyle. It's great for you that you're a Christian, but it doesn't automatically validate your opinions, and it doesn't mean that non-Christians or "liberals" are morally beneath you.
Like PC is reciting the con standard response for MLK day. They play this game with Dr. King figuring they can appeal to a more diverse base with their message because of linking the religious aspect associated with him.
Problem is, Dr. King wasn't like the "crazed evangelical wing" of the Republican party.
You know, the one the GOP made all kinds of promises to and left them hanging.
Me thinks they conveniently disregard what they find distasteful about Dr. King's message, just like the rest of the GOP.
I had found an article last year that discussed the totality of what Dr. King was striving for with regards to our society. I may have even posted it here on MMFA...
Sounds like PC is reciting the con standard response for MLK day.
Yep. They're trying to co-opt King, who was not particularly popular with conservatives while he was alive (there's a good blog article out there somewhere about that, but I can't remember where I read it). Ronald Reagan, the God of conservatives, decried King as a lawbreaker after his death (something to the effect that King had reaped what he had sown). But now, well, it's just us silly libs who don't really understand the Rev's message. Mmm hmm.
Funny, down here in Missippy, a deeply conservative state, they couldn't get MLK Day through the legislature without simultaneously making it Robert E. Lee Day. Yep, those cons just love them some Martin.
Of course. King was an out and out liberal. Anti war, pro labor in fact he was in Memphis to speak in support of a strike when he was killed. Pro civil rights. A liberal anyway you look at it.
"One of the things I think liberals find most irritating about the right (and they do it for that purpose as much as anything) is when they appropriate liberal icons and language and then disingenuously hit us over the heads with them. Most offensive is when they say we are racists, considering their revolting history in such matters.
Rick Perlstein wrote a piece for TNR last week that reminds us just how much they loved Martin Luther King in his time and why their current paeans to his greatness ring so hollow:"
[link to digbysblog.blogspot.com]
Is this what you read, Rusty?
Yes! That's it. Thanks Roundhouse!
God bless the blogosphere!
Yes, because we all know how thee republicans are such pillors of equality and fairness (as long as the rich get tax breaks).
BTW: Thank you for calling my religion into question, that was very "Christian" of you.
I think Martin Luther King may well have transcended the title, "Reverand," and a good thing too. Let's face it, he deserves better than to share a title with "The Reverand" Al Sharpton, and "The Reverand" Ian Paisley.
"The Reverend" Creflo Dollar.
(I just like typing "Creflo Dollar.")
Creflo Dollar is his real name and he was named after his biological father (not his higher father) Creflo Dollar Sr.
Thanks, Rusty. I didn't know of the Rev. Creflo Dollar's ministry until I goggled him.
A reasonable post. I am glad you appreciate the Rev Martin Luther King. Did you know one of his top advisors and confidants was a gay man named Bernard Rushkin? He was credited with convincing Dr King that the civil rights actions he took be rooted in the non-violence actions of Ghandi and AJ Muste. I only mention this to remind you of the aspect of nonjudgemental acceptance he took which I would urge you to look at considering the things I have seen you say about gay people.
Jesus had constant interactions with sinners. You can't heal the sick if you don't treat them. Rev. King was deeply devoted to the teachings of the Bible, so while I doubt he needed "convincing" to teach peace and civility, I won't argue that point.
The Civil Rights Movement was secular pal. We weren't members of King's congregation...we weren't following him to Church... we were black people (and friends) marching on a white racist government. None of our friends then or now could ever be confused with the Ted Haggart crowd.
" ...we weren't following him to Church... "
Perhaps you should have. He spoke a way more peaceful message (Christian) than any of the other major players of that time. It would have been helpful if more had listened to him. What peaceful message did Malcolm X teach?
However the tactics of the civil rights movement were still in flux. Medger Evers had just been killed, the deacons of defense in Mississipi were getting press as was Malcolm X. A strict appliance of the sort of non violent actions the civil King adopted, was NOT a given. Ruskin came from California after working on the famous pacifist AJ Muste's organization. Peace isnt the same as outright pacifism. This is a historical fact, you can look it up if you like.
" He was credited with convincing Dr King that the civil rights actions he took be rooted in the non-violence actions of Ghandi and AJ Muste. "
Yes, you did. Take responsibility for your words. Move on to another point.
Michael Savage is either evil or mentally ill. I don't even know where to begin coming to grips with someone like him, and that is probably the point.
Here's a link to an interesting discussion that went on in Virginia yesterday.
I meant to post it yesterday as I read this thread.
[link to www.timesdispatch.com]
Now, i do not agree that the State should appologise. Those that enslaved people should be appologising. Thank god that is none of my family.
Slavery and Jim Crow were enforced by the State. Thus, the State, not individuals, must compensate.
Here's a good question for you, heru. Where will the state get the money? It would be kind of funny when the taxpayers pay your reperations and (assuming you pay taxes) you end up paying yourself for your complaints. Would you be able to claim that on your taxes (assuming you pay taxes)?
is based on Civil Rights Actions like "Affirmative Action". Really, how effective was that? Giving people a job based on racial quota rather then the real need. BS. That is what led up to the rant above.
He does not denounce the importance of Civil Rights, but some of what has come from it.
Like every important job now has been taken over by "damn minorities", "dumb women" or "some lame cripple".. Anytime someone whines about Affirmative Action I say this..
Who runs the multinational corporations? Who owns the majority of sports franchises? What's the majority makeup of elected federal Officials?
........... Yeah, I thought so..
Get back to me about the scourge of Affirmative Action when you eliminate preferences related to nepotism and such.
After all we do have a President that benefitted from family pull...
Boy are you bitter.
So, you support giving jobs to people that do not qualify for it? What kind of business you own?
So, you support giving jobs to people that do not qualify for it?
Affirmative action does not give jobs to people who do not qualify for them. It is designed to increase access to jobs for qualified minorities. I don't care if you argue against it, but at least argue against it accurately.
Thank you for relating that information.
I should have stated that in my previous post about AA providing the opportunity for qualified people.
Unfortunately you won't be able to convince evillib on that.
And it did, I understand that. As well, it did the oposite as well. You can not deny that? Or are you?
It was simply about meeting a quota. Many people, by no means all, where hired simply because of thier skin color? Wrong or right?
Right. And at first blush that seems unfair. But remember that for over a hundred years many people of OUR race were hired because of their skin color. Affirmative action was intended to help alleviate the substantial socioeconomic inequalities that grew from that state of affairs. It's imperfect, sure, but it was an action that could be taken. You can argue that it's not needed anymore, but I think it's important to always keep in mind history and the context in which affirmative action operates.
How qualified are the legacies? It gives ACCESS, it doesnt help them do the job or get the grades. Looking at the context isnt a bad thing to do. Is it realy true that someone who got a few more points on the SAT but went to Simi Valley high REALLY more qualified than someone who got a few points less but went to Compton high? I have one of those jobs, where it is easier to get if one of your family members has the job, one that with a high school education you can still make 100,000 dollars a year. There are very few blacks and only a few more hispanics on the job. If you look at the seniority roster there are NONE before 1971. Historic discrimination is STILL a cost minorities are paying. Addressing this is a good thing. Quotas are illegal. Its not like you can tell by looking at someone whether or not they are qualified to do a job, a short interview really doesnt establish that either, not completely. A person might SEEM to have all the qualifications but in the end they dont. No one is required to hire unqualified people in order to fill a job with a minority. The hostility for this comes from those who dont like having the priveleges maintained for them.As I said before they seem to have no problem with legacies but AA makes them hysterical. Maintaining privleges for the priveleged is fine extending it to the underpriveleged is somehow anathema
Excellent observations Solon.
I'm just sick of hearing "rich white guys" whining about how (pick your favorite group) is trying to take everything away from them when they are the ones who have true control of everything.
By control, I mean - You're the ones that run the multinationals, hold the majority of elected seats in our government etc..
I guess now that I've said that I'm going to be painted as one of those "the man is holding us down" types.
You look at the faces in the media and in government etc.. I don't think I'm lying about this.
It's paranoia. I honestly don't know where this irrational fear comes from.
"I guess now that I've said that I'm going to be painted as one of those "the man is holding us down" types"
I wont say that.
I understand where you are coming from. I am playing the middle here. I as well do not care for the people you describe above.
You have defended Savage time and time again, HAVE YOU NOT? That said if you're changing you assessment of Savage I'd say you have finally seen the light and you see Savage for what he is. Savage is a hate speech salesman, no more and no less. He's paid to spout out hateful rhetoric on his radio, because his listeners like lapping it up.
defending part of his argument.
You’re still wandering in darkness my friend. According to MS you and he have a birth right that people like me (female and minority) are infringing upon. Promoting equal opportunity and access is those who were marginalized and kept from it for hundreds of years is unfair to you?
until recently you supported George Bush who clearly has not ever been qualified for any job he has ever held, unless this birthright thing means that because he is who he is his birthright is to get whatever the hell he wants. Please explain this inconsitency in your assertion.
Show me where. BTW, for hundreth time, I did not vote for him, either time. I do not side with him, period.
So, you support giving jobs to people that do not qualify for it? What kind of business you own?
- evillib1727
-------------------------
This coming from a guy who voted twice for a moron (Duhbya) for President.
EL, I think what led to Dr. Weiner's rant above was his audience's need to hear that the reason their lives haven't been as successful as they wish isn't because of their own failures, but because of somebody else doing them wrong.
However, if you can find me a white, Christian, heterosexual male who is talented, ambitious, and hard-working but hasn't been able to succeed because of Affirmative Action, I'll reconsider.
""However, if you can find me a white, Christian, heterosexual male who is talented, ambitious, and hard-working but hasn't been able to succeed because of Affirmative Action, I'll reconsider.""
That is not my argument on the subject.
My father ran/owned a Fire Protection company. He was hit by affirmative action. He already had "Minorities" working for him, but not a African American. So, they had to hire someone to fill the "Racial Quota". It did not work.
How was he "hit" by affirmative action? Did he have a contract with a government agency that forced him to hire an African-American?
He did federal work. And look, I am not trying to sound negative here. I am simply pointing out where I, I have seen it not work.
I understand. My father also ran a business that often worked with the government, and when seeking government contracts there was frequently some advantage to be gained by teaming with minority-owned businesses and subcontractors. I am not completely unreceptive to the argument that the situation is somewhat unfair, at least on the surface.
However, I don't recall any competent non-minority businesses failing for that reason, or any incompetent minority-owned businesses succeeding.
Those contracts don't work like that. The federal government simply requires that the recruitment of people from groups that had a past history of discrimination in the work place be proactive. There is NO rule that requires the kind of specifics you're talking about, there is no you must have 2 blacks and 3 Hispanics, 1 Native American, etc. Now people attempting to get these contracts will put their own spin on things and I can just hear your father being advised by someone who has misconstrued the mandate -" You know if you want this contract you have to hire a Black person"
I can just hear your father being advised by someone who has misconstrued the mandate -" You know if you want this contract you have to hire a Black person"
- Lynn
-------------------------------
I can just hear his father fronting a black guy to get dollars targeted for minority firms. Glad it didn't work out.
My father ran/owned a Fire Protection company. He was hit by affirmative action. He already had "Minorities" working for him, but not a African American. So, they had to hire someone to fill the "Racial Quota". It did not work. - evillib1727
--------------------------------
Stop lying. Affirmative action is not based on quotas.
Oh C'mon, he said civil rights has become a con how is that NOT denouncing it?
For those that have learned to take advantage of it, it has become thier con.
It only says you agree with him. That is certainly arguable but NOT relevant. What he said was STILL a denunciation.
surely you jest? Just what is the heterosexual male's birth right? And how does it differ from anyone elses? Please explain.
That is not my argument.
Our Founders believed that human rights were given by God, not government. We've rejected those ideas and chosen government as our "rights-giver". The phrase "Be careful what you wish for" applies.
Is the protector of those rights - that is when it works in the interests of it's citizens.
I've always taken that as one of the things Dr. King wanted to remind us of.
Unfortunately in this day and age we have people running around using the name of "God" to deny others basic human rights.
is that government, our American government, is of the people, by the people, for the people.
Furthermore, our founders never said God, in the Christian sense, was the granter of rights. They specifically indicated that a Creator, a general term, endowed man with unalienable Rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
but don't mention that in a government school. The ACLU will be down on you like flies on president Bush.
has no problem with the Declaration of Independence. Or can you cite evidence to the contrary?
The ACLU has a problem with the concept of a "Creator" being mentioned in the classroom and if you deny that, you're more than a little disingenuous.
Hmm. I don't remember the ACLU suing anybody for a discussion of the wording, history, and meaning of the Declaration of Independence. Can you cite an example?
what I meant.
Oh, I know exactly what you meant.
Of course you did. That's why you dodged the issue. It's off topic anyway.
you were the one who dodged the "issue," by failing to back up your assertion.
(I know slamming the ACLU at every opportunity is boffo humor at the little righty sites, and gets you lots of grunts and high-fives from your fellow trogs, but you'll get a less appreciative audience here. Better luck next time.)
is that the ACLU is hell-bent on eroding the foundations of America. Care to disagree? No? I didn't think so.
Prove your assertion.
Sorry for going off topic with the fact that the ACLU wants to erode America's foundations. I know the topic of "civil rights" is much more important than the destruction of America so here goes...
There are 2 Border Patrol agents in Texas who are reporting to Federal prison today to spend a decade each for violating the "civil rights" of a Mexican drug dealer who was shot in the ass while trying to bring in $1M worth of pot into the U.S.
Can we please wake up, folks?
.....ball's in your court, rusty. Do you agree or not?
Also, what about aclu's destrction of America when they attempt to have crosses removed from federal cemeteries. Aclu's position on this is "Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The right of each and every American to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business. " [link to www.aclu.org]
That does seem to smack at the heart of degrading America's foundations when they openly say they do not agree with putting crosses on federal cemeteries is correct. Say what you will, rusty, it's impossible for you to win an arguement that says the aclu is not eroding America's foundations. Two questions above the one I noted, they even defended nambla because "The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. " So, perhaps the aclu will even defend Dr. Savage from comments made about him on this site. It does seem a majority of you would like to take away his freedom to speak because you find his message repulsive.
First, Toobed's last post has nothing to do with the ACLU as far as I know. I don't know what he/she's talking about.
Second, PC, your assertion about the ACLU "wanting to remove crosses from federal cemeteries" is flat-out false, as you would understand if you read the entirety of what you cut-and-pasted from. It begins: "The ACLU has never pursued the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU vigorously defends peoples’ freedom to choose the religious symbols of their choice." Now, if the federal government is putting up its own crosses in cemeteries (as opposed to crosses marking individual graves) and excluding other religious symbols that people might want, there might be a problem.
As for the NAMBLA case, at least you got the ACLU's quote correct. Do you understand that the ACLU was defending the right to free speech, not the (non-existent) right to be a pedophile? Because I think a lot of your peers do not understand that simple fact (which is clear if you read the entire piece from which you lifted the quote).
And yes, the ACLU would support Dr. Weiner if his free speech rights were under assault. He is no better or worse than NAMBLA. But remember: Dr. Weiner's constitutional right to free speech does not include the "right" to have a radio program, so advocating that he be taken off the air is not advocating taking away his right to free speech.
Say what you will, rusty, it's impossible for you to win an arguement that says the aclu is not eroding America's foundations.
I suppose that's true if you think defending the Bill of Rights is "eroding America's foundations." I personally think that the Bill of Rights is one of the most important of America's foundations. You apparently do not. I suppose we will have to disagree.
I got it ALL right. Aclu said "personal" headstones and personal religious freedoms. That opinion does NOT include federal cemeteries where crosses are used on ALL plots, no matter what religion you are. Perhaps you should read the quote again.
The ACLU has not advocated taking the crosses off gravestones. The quote you provided simply does not say they do. What they're saying is that it's up to the family of the deceased, not the government, to decide what religious symbol, if any, should mark the grave. I suppose the ACLU might advocate to have a cross removed from a federal grave if the family didn't want it there but that's the only situation I can imagine. And would that be wrong?
Perhaps you can provide some evidence - other than the quote you're misreading - that shows the ACLU has tried to have crosses removed from graves. If that has ever happened it should be very easy for you to prove it.
As for the rest of my response to your first post on this topic, I'll take your silence to mean you've seen the light.
It's obvious they say they have not persued the removal of religous symbols from personal gravestones. The next senstence they say it is NOT the choice of the government what headstone is put on a grave. They continue to stress that "personal" choice is fine with them, and continue to stress that government choice is NOT. Well in some federal cemetaries you simply get a cross, no matter who you are. While the aclu has not "yet" required federal cemetaries to stop, it is only a matter of time. They DO state that they will continue working to keep government out of our religious choices.
For you to win an argument saying the ACLU is doing any such thing. The proposition is so inane its embarrassing. See YOU are not the arbiter of what the foundations of America IS. I personally see them as the very bill of rights which is the ACLU's ONLY client. The very individual rights and freedoms enshrined in that bill of rights. YOU having your ability to shove YOUR beliefs religious and otherwise down others throats is not even in the same UNIVERSE as the foundations of America. As usual you simply dont know what you are talking about. I would have taken the post apart point by point but THAT has already been done quite well.
I say the very statement is ludicrous and no one with a single functioning brain cell could possibly take it seriously
Savage is an asshat. "Take a guess out of whose hide all of these rights are coming."
So the granting of civil rights are limited to the number of people there are to pass them out to? Let's see we've got 300 million people to give rights to but only enough rights for 240 million? Hmmmm, we could take 60 million away from that other group which would still leave them with 180 million, which seems a little unfair. Here's the Savage solution: those other 60 million will just have to do without! Not enough to go around!
What an idiot. Is there no way to ever rid ourselves of these radio talk show vermin?
Michael, hon. Please come out of the closet. No, not the gay one. The one with your Nazi SS outfits.
This man is basically a white supremacists without the stones to own up to that label.
By now, I suppose he has claimed this was just "satire", the new "out" for rightwing hate speech.
they took Air America off the air in Columbus, Ohio and put this dolt on..
Does Michael Savage really want to open himself up to accusations of being a white supremacist? If not, perhaps he should stop talking like one. These kinds of remarks would be bad enough on any day of the year -- but uttering them on the day when we honor the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is absolutely or execrable.
Where exactly is it written that white Christian heterosexual males have any kind of birthright above and beyond that granted to any other human being? If we're going to talk about birthrights, does Savage really need to be reminded that most black people were originally brought to this country by force to be bought and sold as slaves? And that even after slavery was abolished, African-Americans continued to be treated as second-class citizens throughout much of the Twentieth Century? If that was not "stealing their birthright", then what exactly was it? White heterosexual Christian males are the ones who held the power in this country for most of its history, but this is not because they had some sort of divine or inborn right to do so -- they only told themselves that in order to justify their deliberate subjugation of women and people of other races. White Christian heterosexual men are no more and no less entitled to hold power or enjoy the good life than are women or people of other races and faiths. Savage just feels threatened because his race, his gender, and his faith don't and won't automatically guarantee him the advantage anymore.
Just what I always wanted, a pink penis. . .
Do I have to stand in line for this to be handed out to me, or will it arrive in the mail?
This is tooo funny!
"Savage just feels threatened because his race, his gender, and his faith don't and won't automatically guarantee him the advantage anymore."
Weiner isn't a Christian. But you knew that...
The article I made reference to reading earlier, but it relays an opinion about the misappropriation of Dr. King's message.
[link to alternet.org]
Look, I said I would no longer post here but I figured it was important that you get the whole picture of what Savage was trying to say instead of what MMFA tries to do with this cherry picking. First off when he talked about the white heterosexual males being targeted he was referring to how the case in Durham, North Carolina is being handled and what is going on in the court rooms with the New Black Panther Party. Second he mentioned how President Lincoln and President Washingtons birthdays were removed from the calendar and blended into what we now know as Presidents Day. So he said, "Why don't we do the same thing here with Martin Luther King Jr. and take his name off the calendar and simply call it Civil Rights Day, after all there were other civil rights activists that were around during his time weren't there?". How do you feel about that? Lastly when he says that civils rights has become a racket in this country he compares to what George Orwell wrote in his book in 1984, "Animal Farm", "Some animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Get it?!
WEINER: ...[Civil rights are] a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.
How is that related to the Duke case?
As for the suggestion about combining MLK day with other civil rights leaders, a la "President's Day," can MLK have his own holiday for a hundred years like George and Abe did before we do it?
(Here in Mississippi we've already added noted civil rights leader Robert E. Lee to the celebration of MLK day. I guess that's a start.)
"Some animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Get it?!" ========================================= I get it, although it would be more MANLY to state your views more DIRECTLY than this. Savage is a racist sexist homophobe and this latest screech exemplifies this unequivocally. Minorities, women, and Gays don't have the same birth right as Savage does because he's counted among the animals that are MORE equal than others.
The quote from "Animal Farm" is actually, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Maybe the inference I am taking from this quote isn't what you intended, so I'll ask you directly. What do you think about Savage saying that White heterosexual males have a different or specific birth right that minorities like myself are stealing? Do you agree with this?
Lastly when he says that civils rights has become a racket in this country he compares to what George Orwell wrote in his book in 1984, "Animal Farm", "Some animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Get it?!
- chrisgubatan1699
-----------------------------
Yeah, I get it. Savage is a moron!
Although I disagree with the comment Savage said about the birth rights of white heterosexual males, however his intention is to explain not only the mess with the Duke case, but also with this affirmative action deal which IS a racket. Take the case in point on how students are accepted or not accepted in certain universities today. Whereas before people were accepted merely by their "brains", or the grade point average whatever which way you want to look at it. Now what seems to be happening is that if a person with whom, is not qualified to be accepted at let's say Stanford for example and the person happens to be in one of the "minorities", instead of using that as a motivation to work harder and push yourself to the point where you can be accepted, they seem to use it as a civil rights issue when in reality it isn't. Now if you think I'm wrong on this, please give me an example of how a person of a particular "minority" is not being accepted to his/her college of choice simply because of his/her skin color rather than their actual qualifications.
Now if you think I'm wrong on this, please give me an example of how a person of a particular "minority" is not being accepted to his/her college of choice simply because of his/her skin color rather than their actual qualifications.
- chrisgubatan1699
-------------------------------------
Nobody is getting into the college of their choice because they're black moron. There is no quota system. Remember the Bakke decision of 25 or so years ago?
On the other side of the aisle you have the, white heterosexual males/ females applying for universities of their choice. The fact of the matter is , in some parts of the country there are universities steering these people away, white males more than white females, because they happen to be white and because they are or aren't qualified to be accepted rather what they are doing is saying, "there are too many whites here, so we need people of different color or ethnic background to make us look more diverse. Do you agree to at least a certain extent that this happening in some parts of the country?
"instead of using that as a motivation to work harder and push yourself to the point where you can be accepted, they seem to use it as a civil rights issue when in reality it isn't."
WOW!!! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let me be presumptuous here for a minute and speak for the theys of the world. I've always worked very hard and I resent your implication that somehow we THEYS don't work as hard as the non-theys. Moreover a lot of the theys you speak of attend inferior public schools and the variation in the performance as assessed by SATs can be directly connected to being educated in schools with insufficient resources and schools that are staffed by marginal teachers in too many cases. Affirmative Action should begin by equalizing the distribution of funds among the public school districts. I also fully support mandating certification for teachers; they should demonstrate that they have the base line skills to be professional educators. When this is done I'll talk to you again about AA programs at the college/university level.
In response to your second post I would like to remind you in addition to teaching academics college is supposed to round a student and prepare them for entry into the real world, so diversity promotion is a worth while endeavor as far as I'm concerned. This way when the AA kid from Harlem lands a great job at corporate headquarters in SD or that SD student lands a great job at corporate headquarters in NYC they won't act like ignorant asses and engage in the kind of stereotyping of other people that is perpetuated in communities that lack diversity. Lack of exposure to people of different ethnicities can creates a we and they mentality.
Funny how these white men ASSUME that their superiority over black applicants. I know black students who did not get into colleges of their choice even with 3.5 GPAs and 90th percentile ACT and SAT scores. I know more who got in but couldn't afford the tuition.
I doubt this guy was in the 50th percentile with his lack of reasoning skills. It makes him feel better to think that if it were not for affirmative action, he would have taken the place of some black genius at Harvard.
Gimme a break. These losers make me vomit.
I do not imply nor do I believe that those only in the "minority" groups tend to be lazy and unwilling learn. Infact the exact opposite is true. However there ARE a particular portion of those that choose to turn it into a civil rights case. Now you and I can both agree that there are those that come from wealthy backgrounds that might be a white heterosexual male, don't seem to think they need learn. They end up being total ignoramouses and are put into positions of power. George Bush ring a bell? Thats right I a conservative think George Bush is an ignoramous and so does Savage. Infact on a recent show he said,'The reason why the Republicans lost the election is because George Bush is a dumb ass!". He also said,"If George Bush can become president, anyone can". Agree or disagree?
I agree that GW is a dumb ass so is Michael Savage. I don't agree that anyone can become president. GW a dumb ass became president because he is from a privileged family with money and connections. Clinton on the other hand came from a very humble background and had to make it through this world on intellect and ability that was complimented by an affable personality. If GW had been the son of nurse and a car salesmen as Clinton was his grades wouldn’t have allowed him into any of the prestigious schools he attended, oh yeah lets just say it's very doubtful that he would have been the power house he is in Republican politics if had been born another set of parents. GW got to where he is because of the oldest affirmative action program in the world; it’s the one that only benefits the privileged. It’s amazing because it allows the beneficiaries to fail upwards. Fail at one job and Daddy’s friend gives you a better job.
What you say about Clinton only reafirms what heru is saying about affirmative action. That even dumb white guys are given priority over smart blacks if affirmative action isn't used.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men (if they're white, male, christian and straight) are created equal.
Unfortunately, that is what they meant. Fortunately, it's not what they wrote.
angels were guiding the quills.
...with his moronic utterances, he has made it clear that he faces no threat from the Civil Rights movement: i.e., if it's an attack on white, christian, heterosexual males, he has nothing to worry about.
He fails those categories on all fronts.
The liberals in here have everything wrong as usual. Savage isn't against equal rights for minorities. He's against giving them special rights through racist, sexist, unconstitutional affirmative action. Affirmative action CLEARLY violates the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. End of story. Savage doesn't believe in a birthright for whites over blacks. He believes that all Americans were born with the right to make it in America based on talent and hard work. Affirmative action takes away that right for white males.
One poster in here said that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly prevent people from doing something, then it's a "right." Wrong. The Constitution doesn't specifically say that you can't commit rape. I'm assuming that you good liberals don't believe that rape is a right. I just needed to clear that up.
As far as Katrina goes, that should have been a state issue. Nothing in the Constitution mentions disaster relief. In fact, President Cleveland denied relief to victims of a disaster based on his strict construction of the Constitution. Cleveland was a Democrat, btw.
Finally, as Savage has clearly stated, there is no man made global warming. To blame Bush for global warming is just silly. Savage easily defeats any caller who challenges him on this issue. Common sense dictates that since several ice ages receded before the industrialization, global warming is a natural occurrence.
P.S. You liberals need to check your spelling before you post stuff in here.
Man, that was good. I don't think any liberal will be able (or willing) to argue truth. They are good at making things up, so be ready to defend things you never said.
It seems weird, as black's get more rights everyone else in this country must take a back seat to them. Our culture is terrible because there is to much black in it. Our U.S. cultire was founded on white culture not the black african culture. If you want to be black go to africa and strave to death. Give me an America with White values, and also the gays can go back to africa or in the closet! I will be damn if I ever pay blacks for the past because I never owned any slaves!
Nothing more to say than you are a racist, bigotted, hater. Your mother should be ashamed you turned out this way. You have embarrassed yourself. Please show yourself out and darken our doorway with your racist bigotry no longer