Savage on Media Matters: "I'm not even going to read its name anymore"
On the January 30 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters for America item that quoted Savage as saying he "doubt[ed]" Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "would take our side after a catastrophic attack on America" but instead would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy." In his response, Savage said, "There's not a word of this statement that I would like to take back," and claimed that he "stand[s] by those words." Savage also claimed that "there are people in this country who hate me more than those who would kill them," and proceeded to describe Media Matters as a "little website," saying, "I'm not even going to read its name anymore; it has become almost a parody amongst myself and the production staff here at The Savage Nation."
Earlier in the same broadcast, Savage played an audio clip of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who spoke alongside Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) at a protest against the Iraq war on January 27 in Washington, D.C., and said, "There's Maxine Waters -- working for the Muslims who want to kill us."
From the January 30 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
WATERS [audio clip]: The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that will come when it's time to decide whether or not we're going to fund this immoral war. I will not vote one dime for this war.
SAVAGE: So that's Maxine Waters working for the Muslims who want to kill us, welcome back to The Savage Nation.
[...]
SAVAGE: And here I have people in this country who hate me more than they do those who would kill them. There's a little website, I'm not even going to read its name anymore, it has become almost a parody amongst myself and the production staff here at The Savage Nation. Every day they listen to hear what I say, so they publish it, and they say -- here's the headline from their website, it says: "Savage doubts Obama and Clinton would take our side after terrorist attack." On the January 29 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated that, rather than, quote, "tak[ing] our side should there be some kind of catastrophic attack on America," Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton would "march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy," close quote. He also said that Obama and Clinton -- whom he identified as "Hussein Barack Obama" and "Hillary Rotten Clinton" -- would, quote, "gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within," close quote.
Then they go on to talk about my show and how big it is, blah, blah, blah. And I don't understand why they took offense at what I was saying because it makes perfectly good -- I read it again, and there's not a word of this statement that I would like to take back. I said that Obama and Hillary Clinton would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within. I stand by those words. That's what I see. It's one man's opinion.
Savage is a troglodyte bombthrower, and an idiot to boot. What more is there to say?
I found this great picture of Savage.
Pssstt!! HNey Savage...don't think of a pink elephant...
Hi Roy...
Holy Mackerel Fish & Tackle....
Roy, you not only like this jerk, but you stone headed and fearlessly admit it in public. I respect someone making a stand, but not where Savage is concerned. Anyone who supports this Savage Man needs mental assistance and/or a course in mental guidance.
At least Savage stands by what he says?
Roy, that doesn’t make him likable. Why do you come here to defend Savage? Why do you really like his ideas? Is Savage speaking for you?
hey at least he stands by what he says. thats what i like about the guy.
You like the guy?
That says it all.
what isnt to like about someone who speaks his mind, owns up to his words, and isnt afraid to take a certain website to task? unlike oreilly who ignores it and smears it by calling it a smear, at least savage has some cajones you know.
So you love Hitler AND president Bush???
What the hell does Savage have to do with Hitler.
Has he killed anyboy? Has he ordered thousands of deaths? IS HE OPRESSING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE?
THe answer is real easy, NO. You may not like him, but how plain stupid to compare him to Hitler.
*Siigghhhhh...* Evildude...I was being sarcastic...Hitler SPOKE his mind AND owned up to it...and I was making a joke by comparing those attributes to Bush because he has done the SAME things...
Gottchya, my bad.
IS HE OPRESSING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE?
Not to nitpick... okay, I'm nitpicking, but Weiner Savage's hate speech is oppressive for those it is directed at (e.g. homosexuals), though not on Hitler's level. Just sayin'.
As if offending those in positions of confidence and trust wasn't disgusting enough, Michael Savage also enjoys (indirectly) mocking those with mental illnesses, diseases or defects by implying that (to quote the title of his most recent collection of screeds and bromides) Liberalism is a Mental Disorder--a flawed equation, and then some, if tver there was one.
Which conveniently ignores the likelihood of conservatives suffering as much from mental illnesses, diseases or defects as "liberals," not to mention implying that conservatives are "naturally incapable of suffering mental disorders" when evidence suggests otherwise.
En 'n Ander Ding:
How will we expect Mr. Savage to be true to his word about not mentioning MediaMatters any more on his programme (instead referring to such, perhaps, by tasteless and obscene terms which may or may not stop short of what the FCC deems obscene or indecent, let alone a "bleep-out" device which requires a delay circuit of under ten seconds)?
Is he trying to tempt the FCC into provoking confrontation with stations carrying his show in case Savage lets loose with the Seven Dirty Words live and on air?
I love these Cons...
They're either so stupid--or delusional--they'll defend their people even on their most ridiculous and moronic statements.
Talk about kool-aid drinkers
I drank alot of kool-aid...... Wait, that was in Tab form, nevermind.
TeeHee. I was a wavey gravey guy.
I got to meet Wavy one time a a Dead show.
Sorry for the poor spelling Wavey.....
colonel sanders, this is where you and I will never see eye to eye. You respect savage for taking a stand and sticking by it. I respect those who can defend their position with something other than that gut feel. Savage may look sweet to a lot of people because he won't back down, but in my book he's an idiot because he can't admit when he's wrong. The definition of fanatiscism is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Savage is a fanatic.
Col. I support your right to say what you want and voice your opinion, but please tell me you are not serious that you like this racist , homophobic, women hater?This man even Bush supporters should not like since he hates Bush as well, I dont know anyone this man likes.
Doris,
The problem with MMFA is the same problem with reading negative posts about a prescription drug med on a message board, it isnt scientific and youre getting only the negative. I actually listen to his show on a daily basis and many times he explains is views but MMFA doesn't post the good things, only the bad things, so people are left with a single sided impression.
But yes I am serious about liking him. He isn't racist and I'm sure he doesn't like gays but I doubt he is afraid of them:) - I disapprove of their lifestyle but I don't fear them.
We of the gay homosexual mafia new world order will still allow you to voice your drivel...and, using your logic, you are your own worst portrayer of yourself because YOU only spew NEGATIVE GARBAGE...where is YOUR 'good' side...or are you just a left-wing hypocrite...?
You said you are Gay, right? I know Savage has been put many times on here referring to gays as the "Gay Mafia". However, many many times, he has made it clear his is talking about the radical gays. And do not give me that,."There are none" crap.
He has said many times, the gay community is one of the most, if not the most, strong willed(sp?) classes of todays time. That to me sounds like a compliment. And I completely agree with him, the radical gays are dangerous. No different that the radical christians. Much different from the radical muslims.
"And I completely agree with him, the radical gays are dangerous." --evillib
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I couldn't agree more. One of them broke into my house the other day and held my wife, kids and I at gunpoint and forced to watch as he redecorated! The savage!
Funny!
Actually, "radicals" in any group, political or otherwise, usually means fringe/extremists. Society normally finds a way to keep them there and they end up being very vocal, yet relatively harmless......except in the case of radical Islamic fanatics, who use violence and murder as tactics of terror. Other "radicals" are normally far less dangerous, including gays.
You are mostly correct in your assessment except that in today's western (mainly American) culture, the term 'radical' is applied to a minority group in a negative connotation...usually, 'radical' gays, feminists, etc. are just fiighting for equal staus and rights that the majority already has and are labeled that way, by bigots, to bring up images of 'crazy', 'looney' people who shouldn't have a real voice in society...
People use all sorts of pejorative terms to marginalize those they disagree with all the time. You're right, some use "radical" to unfairly label certain people.......just as some use "racist right wingers" or "American hating loony left".
But just as radical is akin to fringe and extremism, so are these terms baseless and inflammatory.
"the term 'radical' is applied to a minority group in a negative connotation"
Lets get something straight. I am not apllying this to a minority group.
...and the neocon radicals that took over the congress and White House, the airwaves. They weren't marginalized because we assumed that if we ignored their rants they would go away. They didn't and look what happened.
Congress and the President are elected, so blame the voters. And the airwaves are driven by ratings, blame the listeners and the advertisers.
I blame the extremists for misleading them into believing that they had the voters best interests at heart with their doublespeak. My countrymen know better now. I actually think that the neocons have made voters more politically aware and they are much savvier than they've ever been. They last six years has helped create a pretty smart bunch of politically independent voters, and sites like MMFA help.
If the republicans win the presidency in 08 will you still say the voters are a "smart bunch of politically independent voters"?
Tell that to Timothy McViegh, Jim Jones, David Koresh the IRA and all those people who bombed abortion clinics and murdered abortion doctors. Once you get to fanaticism the potential for danger is there the idea that only Muslim extremists are dangerous is bigotry. The group that has done more suicide terrorists bombins in the history of the world is NOT Islamic but the Tamil Tigers a completely secular group of ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka.
" The group that has done more suicide terrorists bombins in the history of the world is NOT Islamic but the Tamil Tigers "
Hmmm, I find that hard to believe. What proof do you have?
Uuummm....how are radical gays 'dangerous...'
I do not mean like violent. But lets look at the closing of the Military school program in SF. I understand the reason for the board being upset. But, the only thing accomplished by closing them (in the near future)is harming the kids that really enjoy the program. Note: most of them seemed to be Filipino kids. I have the up most respect for the Filipino community, and am married to a Filipina from the city. What the counsil did is wrong. Personal Agenda.
Hey now. "The Radical Gays" (which would make a great band name) have their opinions and a right to speak them. In that way, they're no more dangerous than all the wingnuts you guys are constantly telling us have their own opinions and a right to speak them. Like O'Reilly, Savage, Hannity, etc.
Evil I'm going to use you as my linguistic expert to interpret right wing hate speak, obviously I don't understand it. What did Savage mean when he said that minorities and Gays were stealing the White man's birthright? BTW aren't many Gays White Men?
Well, I can not answer that with confidence because I am not sure what he meant by that. I admint, that sounds racist.
What did he mean when he said he was tired of hearing there were on Billion Muslims in the world and we should kill one hundred MILLION of them?
Yes, and many historians ignore the good things done by Hitler, so we have a negative impression of him too.
ROY?
Savage is a pathetic excuse for a man, and a pathetic excuse for an American.
To denigrate individuals because you disagree with their point of view in the most vile and disgusting way is just ignorant.
If you enjoy listening to this kind of bully, name calling, attack, hateful and lying crap, then of course it's your right to do so.
I don't know what your doing here though.
MMA simply states in full context what radical wing-nuts like Savage are saying and doing on America's free air waves.
Now please go away.
" Savage is a pathetic excuse for a man, and a pathetic excuse for an American.
To denigrate individuals because you disagree with their point of view in the most vile and disgusting way is just ignorant. "
Monstermash, do you realize you just called yourself ignorant?
Sorry to keep on picking on Col., but what I have to say is this: Although MMFA may seem bias and partisan, its goal is actually quite noble and fair. The fact of the matter is that people like Savage try to pass themselves off as knowlegable and accurate, when in actuallity, what is often conveyed is ad hominum messages against those they disagree with, in addition to hate speech. Although Savage may (and I emphasize the "may") say things that make some shake their heads, he is still saying things that are unacceptable and/or has little political significance. I'm all for free speech, but sometimes I wish it could be limitted so that people like Savage could not slander, preach hate, and deceive the impressionable.
Roy,
Well, by "disapproving of their lifestyle", you and a bunch of other conservatives are giving fanatics like GWB and Savage the political muscle to carry out their agenda of idiocy--see his MLK day comments, they're on here somewhere. He's a racist, also. I don't know where you got the idea that he wasn't, but again, see his MLK day comments.
Woman Hater?
What do you call the many many woman that call into he show, "Transexxxxxxuals? Why would woman listen to him?
"Why would woman listen to him?"
For the same reason some women will stay with an abusive partner, maybe?
or a push-over?
Stick to your guns even if your WRONG. The bush method.
You are a child molester, watch me stand by what I say. Which I have every bit as much reason to say and believe is true as Weiner does to believe what HE says is true
That was to the Col who seems to think ANYTHING is ok to say as long as you are willing to stand by it. As if decency never enters the picture and as long as you are stubborn in your lack of a shred of decency and sanity then you are somehow good and entertaining.
So did Adolf Hitler.
So did Saddam Hussein.
You like standing by something someone says no matter how harmful it is?
I'm sure I speak for many around here...
What the hell are you talking about? Take your reactionary bs elsewhere.
LOL...!! So let me get this straight...lefties are sad Hitler was defeated because jewish people are still around...hhmmm....you are, as it shows up on Yahoo chess rooms' dialouges, a @@@@@@@, @@@@@@@ moron...
"I'm sure I speak for many around here..."
-----
Exactly how many voices are in your head?
...on a good day?
You guy's are out of touch, the hard left is very much anti israel. perhaps your thirst for put - downs and insults has clouded your thinking.
let go of the hate, take a deep br...
Now that's funny!
No doubt you will provide some evidence or cite examples to support your statement. Moreover, certainly you are not confusing condemnation of Isreal's military actions with anti-jewish sentiment? Also, I condemn U.S. militarism. Am I anti-American?
I guess its your taste for baseless assertions and baseless smears that makes you so wrong so often. The left is NOT anti Israel. You can go ahead and SAY it another 52 times or so but it STILL wont make it true. Believe it or not rightwing talking points dont become true just because you repeat them
Look, as reprehensible as I find Savage, the Col. has every right to listen to him and express his viewpoint on why he likes him.
State your own opinions on why you don't care for Savage.
Whatever, Tommy. Pearlene simply exercised her right to state her opinion too, deal with it.
There is nothing to "deal with"???
Slurring insults are OK by you as long as they are directed at those you don't like, it's all good.
Have the last word Tommy. There is no need to explain my post. Done.
Is your name "Col.RoyCampbell"? She wasn't talking to you, Tommy :)
another of tommy's tag team.
i meant the colonel not you brab in case it wasn't clear.
Hey, who made you boss. This might come as a shock to you but you dont get to tell us what to do. You have no basis to DEMAND anything. Sure he has every right to say whatever he wants then we have the SAME right to tell him what we think about it. When will you rightwingers get that it isnt only YOUR side that gets to give their opinion.
You need to take that over to the pervs at DU, pal.
That must be a typo there are no pervs at DU, I understand you must have meant the pervs at FreeRepublic. I wouldnt be so rude as to suggest anyone go to THAT toilet though.
The net is a free marketplace my friend, and there's alot of good and bad on both sides. Although Mike is a breath of fresh air in the o/w mostly stale air of talk radio.
But, again, Hussein Obama is still a NOBODY, and Mike is right on the money. (again)
Like Morgan, this guy's damn lucky to be getting this kind of play.
I thought he liked this site because he was always quoted accurately and fairly. ;-)
It's so funny that Wiener-Man said, "I have people in this country who hate me more than they do those who would kill them." Actually, I'd hazard a guess that a good many of us who hate Wiener-Man hate him because we fear that, if given a chance and he thought he could get away with it, he would kill those of us who disagree with his politics. That's why we hate this vile bastards.
Obviously MM is touching a nerve or he wouldn't even bring it up. This site must be doing dsomething right.
No, no, no - Weener...
We don't want you to take back anything. No, not at all.
Just keep talking; you just keep talking.
I am confused? Does the left want Savage to keep talking, as you insist, or do they want him to stop, as many others here say all the time?
WE want BOTH, Tommy...what's so hard to imagine..?
Huh??
You want it both ways? I am more confused.
It's like that story 'The Maiden King...' where the hero is confronted by the man-eating witch who asks him how he got there, and he replies 'half by will alone and two-thirds by chance...' (she liked that answer and didn't eat him)-meaning, to have both of a contrary thing is only possible through some sort of magical, or transforming, power....We would like to see all Savages quit their hate-spewed rhetoric and bigotry, but, we would also like to see them continue because they are like beacons of hatred that can be easily identified, and appropiately dealt with...
In other words, as much as you and other's here rant and rave and rail against the Savage's of the world, admonshing them and calling for them to stop all this divisiveness and misinformation............secretly, deep down, you don't want them to stop?
So are the calls to stop disingenuous or hypocritical?
"So are the calls to stop disingenuous or hypocritical?"
You've got to be kidding right?
I hope that was sarcasm. I am being serious when I ask the question.
I guess I fail to understand where how it can be mutually exclusive that someone can be offended by another's speech and actions yet still respect their right to express themselves in such a fashion.
(begin sarcasm)
I guess because we're liberals/leftwingers we don't understand the concept of being American, yeah, we're America haters"
(end sarcasm)
Give me a break, there is nothing about respecting another's opinion. Did you even read the exchange? The poster was clearly stating he wanted it both ways, at least he was honest. He wanted Savage to keep at it so his comments can be highlighted and ridiculed. And he wanted Savage to stop at the same time.
My question, which was not sarcasm, stands.
Your question stands because you just like to see your name on the message board over and over.
It's quite simple. Many of us would prefer that someone not have such hateful thoughts toward others. We'd prefer that racism not be out there. That homophobia go away. And that the nonsense like "[insert Democratic candidate here] would turn us over to the terrorists" not even be thought because it just doesn't occur to anyone.
BUT... if there is a segment out there that believes these things, by all means, speak up. It's a reminder that this kind of hatred exists, and that we've got a long way to go.
Typical liberal doublespeak - never really wanting anyone to know where they stand - wiggle room at all costs.......nicely done.
Oh please. Anything other than the strictest black-and-while is "typical liberal doublespeak?" I think the commenter put it plainly and simply - while one might like it if hate disappeared from the world, it's not gonna happen, and so it's better to have it out in the open where we can deal with it.
What? So you're saying that you'd rather have the "hate" out in the open for public consumption as opposed to privately? That makes no sense. Why do you want hate-filled speech broadcast or spoken out in public? Isn't it better if it's either not spoken at all, and if it is it's where the fewest number of people are exposed to it?
Tommy Can You Hear Me?
Is the GOP paying you for overtime yet?
"So are the calls to stop disingenuous or hypocritical?" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think you may be combining the views of several liberals to create a single dichotomy here. Personally, I would like it if people would simply decide they didn't like Savage anymore and stopped listening to him. I don't want him fired because he says stupid things, but because the market demand for his speech evaporates.
I am not aware of anything disingenuous or hypocritical about that, which leaves me confused as those are my only two apparent options.
I hop he keeps going as a constant reminder that there are millions just like him in this country. I don't want him pulled, I hope he gets everything he deserves in life and I mean that sncerely.
72 virgins?
Where?
I heard a comedian once say that 72 virgins wouldn't be an inducement for him. He said virgins are a lot of work. He wanted professionals.
I heard it too! Pretty funny!
One will hasten the other. Savage will keep talking until he not only puts his foot in his mouth but his whole ass. People will finally understand what kind of human being he is and he will take his millions of dollars and disappear.
Mike stirs up the waters enough for the left and the right to get roughed up a bit. There are far too many idealogues out there who need a good thrashing now and then.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777000/posts#comment?q=1
Ahh, yes. The Freepersissies. What a pathetic joke they are over there.
These armchair cowboys don't even realize how lucky they are to have strong, intrepid Progressives fighting to protect their rights and liberties from the tyranny of so many of these Savage right-wing authoritarians.
Don't dare question the ideologues @ Freeperpussies.com or you'll get your free speech 'privileges' revoked. They can't handle the slightest pressure of even the most modest challenge to their collective regressive dogma. I was banned as a troll from that iniquitous den for suggesting libs and cons can and should find common ground on issues of environment, healthcare, education and moral economics. I postulated that from these grounds of mutual agreement we could formulate trust and work to solve more egregious differences we have regarding national security and domestic social issues. But alas that was abridge too far.
Speaking of sissies, did you ever try editing at wikipedia? The anal guardians over there take the cake for banning anyone they please. Try it for yourself.
As for FR, if your not of the conservative mindset (liberty, economic freedom, the constitution...) regardless of the current administration, go on over to DU.
As for DU, FU. (just kidding)
That is not a valid point. Wikipedia, last time I checked, is not a liberal blog. See, IMHO, jerk-off reactionary crybabies of the sort who patronize freepersissy.com oppose the fairness doctrine because they would be subject to provide a platform for progressives voices on their site. They can't let that happen can they? They can't handle opposition so they fabricate some ridiculous free speech stifling strawman argument to counter proponents of the fairness doctrine. As if there is such a thing as free speech @ freepersissies. Buncha damn insulated regressives who when they visit our site, as they are more than free to do, they have their arguments shredded in a dozen keystrokes. By the by, what is DU?
Take it easy GLASSJAW before you get your @ss handed to you in pieces. Wikkis are wimps whether you realize it or not. DU is supposedly the polar opposite of FR, so look it up if you like.
This is your last warning. Next time the gloves come off.
Ahh, did someone get their feelings hurt? Can't handle the truth about your beloved freeperbabies?
Glassjaw? My tag has zero to do with hand to hand combat. It refers to equal distribution, balance and fariness. Concepts of which a thin skinned freepersissy would know little.
And oh yeah, wikipedia still is not a liberal blog, so your point is still invalid.
Wiki proprietors may rigorously scrutinize their content, I have no idea, but is it a bad thing to strive for precision and accuracy through the peer review process? Just because a person is a gas-bag obfuscater who wishes to post lies and distortions there doesn't make wikipedia odious.
As for DU, are reasonable conservatives voices banned? Never been there so I don't know. Maybe you have point about them. In which case I would condemn their inability handle opposition. Then again this is MMFA not DU and nobody linked to DU in the way you linked to freepersissies to make a point. So you argument still flailing without merit.
Have a nice day!
Yes like any strange person who post a link to that toilet freerepublic as if it were anything but a sewer, that person would be an ideologue that needs thrashing.
Like this one from last night's show.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1777603/posts#comment?q=1
Did you think the left was monolithic on virtually any issue? Personally I would love to see him disappear from public view and be remembered as a kind of bad dream.
Ya, he will keep talking, and talking, until people like you finally understand that Mikey is right almost all the time.
Like this Hussein Onothing being all hot air.
He will keep talking so the intellectually challenged will have someone like them to look up to.
You mean like the intellectually challenged (IC) guy who called in last night about "global warming."
Mike hung him out to dry (after the good thrashing), like all the other IC's who call Mike.
No - actually the first step is soy ... There actually is some nutball "researcher" that suggested a link between soy and being gay.. I'm sure you can google it. :)
I was going to post something about the 'having it both ways' and say 'I want my soy cake and to eat it, too...' But I didn't think people were going to catch the soy related to estrogen related to both ways (as in, umm, you know...., sex stuff..)
Weiner, when you wear that hat, you look just like Don Anus, er, Imus . . .And, as is the case with Anus - and Bush - the phrase that comes to my mind is, "all hat, no cattle."
Wow. So Maxine Waters is "working for the Muslims who want to kill us"?
Does he realize that a sizeable majority of the entire country wants to end the Iraq War? Is that entire majority of millions and millions of Americans now "working for the Muslims who want to kill us"?
I know Savage tries to direct his attacks at small targets, like Maxine Waters, and try to portray them as out of touch radicals, but Waters' views are now held by the mainstream of the country.
Yeah. That "for the people who want to kill us" comment was what really shocked me. I can't believe that he generalizes everybody in an entire region of the earth as anti-western terrorists. Could it be that the many people who live both happy and agonizing lives over there before and during the war (like young children) had little hateful sentiments on the issue. Iraq does not really belong to terrorist networds. I wouldn't be surprized if many who belong to the insurgency hate the U.S. as a response to the war. One question for all the people who take time out of their wonderful lives to post on MMFA: Do you think that it's possible that Savage only says what he does for ratings and a large pay cheque, while not meaning it?
Not going to read it again, no problem, longer than four letters. Probably couldn't read it anyway.
I think it's OK to stand for your convictions but you can be 7 ft. tall and have balls of steel the size of melons and still be WRONG.
What's with All The Wng Nuts on Here Defending Savage?
Why are Con wackos on here trying to defend a racist homophobic gasbag extremist? Looks like the inmates are trying to run the assylum here.
Who's defending him gannon? Mike doesn't need anyone to defend him. What he needs are detractors like you to get him fired up and rip lefty fools to shreds.
And it's great to hear him do it so very well.
Keep it up.
You defended Savage just 11 minutes earlier:
"Ya, he will keep talking, and talking, until people like you finally understand that Mikey is right almost all the time."
Go away, Troll
"You defended him 11 mins ago."
Nope, gannon.
I just stated the obvious, something that you needed all too much.
BTW, anyone who likes to brag about their cranial power like you or SOLON, needs to go back to "projection" school 101.
Good luck.
Man you are stupid. Making grade school insults is only ripping someone to shreds to underachieving morons like you. To those of us with a functioning cerebral cortex he makes a fool out of himself and embrasses decent people. He is insane and needs to increase his medication.
Read your post over, see the mistake, and make sure not to make it again.
Live and learn. It's not that hard.
Mike has the best show on radio, and if you don't like it....take up knitting.
He is insane and without a shred of decency and if you dont like it rent a couple of brain cells and see for yourself.
Why does Dr. Weiner screech with outrage about a website that, by his own estimation, accurately transcribes statements he stands by? Seems to me like he should be donating.
I would imagine for reasons like such. When he starts his Gay Mafia thang, he is referring to the radicals. He has made that clear many many times. Yet this site never quotes his saying so. He has also said many many times, the Gay community in large is a hard working, politically strong group of people/class.. But this site never mentions that. SO, really, this site has not been all to clear on his remarks.
I do not like radical anybody.
Really? And when he says we need to kill one hundred million Muslims specifically WHICH one hundred million is he talking about because he didnt specify. When he says liberalism is a mental disorder which specific liberals does he mean because when you say liberals that could really only mean, you know, LIBERALS. Keep trying to make appologies for the man but he is insane and anyone taking him seriously needs to get a mental health checkup.
SOLON
You need to go back to that post and listen to what he said about killing 100 million muslims. Prior to him saying that was that someone had mentioned to him that there are over a billion muslims in the population of the world and if you look at the percentage of those that are the extremists, that would make it about 100 million. So that is what he meant when he said that if you listen or read the post carefully.
Good, point. I'm shocked to find a website dedicated to bashing conservative views would take a conservative talk show host out of context.
This isnt one. I didnt and neither did MMFA. The context is the insanity of Savage advocating killing one hundred million human beings who have committed no crime and outside his imagination no evidence exists they will. He is talking about killing people at random because he is an insane bigot. He wants to demote Adolph Hitler to the minor leagues of evil.
Not even close to good enough. Exactly where do you get the information that one Muslim in TEN is an extremist? I once saw a study that said only one in 42,000 Muslims has ever even attended a violent demonstration. IF there were one hundred million Muslims that were so extremist they were violent then civilization as we know it would dissapear that would make for about one million terrorist acts a year easily. He is clearly talking about killing people at random that have committed no crime. Perhaps YOU are the one that needs to read the transcript again.
"if you look at the percentage of those that are the extremists," --chrisgubatan1699
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what was the source for the 10% figure? Do you have a legitimate link that demonstrates reasonably that approximately 10% of Muslims are radical?
Where did he get that figure? Hmm.... I wonder....
What a great time for my first comment!
I'm not defending Savage here (I find him to be small minded and hateful), but in reading the responses to Savage's supporters, I can say that many here are guilty of spewing the same hateful, thoughtless garbage that you accuse Savage of doing.
Is anyone capable of responding to Savage's supporters without resorting to tired old insults?
I'm guessing that most people here are in their 20's, still young enough to think they know everything.