Savage: Journalists "with curly hair and large glasses" won't cover shooting without "a Christian to crucify"
On the February 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage claimed that the media "doesn't cover" the story of Sulejman Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian immigrant who reportedly killed five people and wounded four at a Salt Lake City shopping center on February 12, "because of one reason ... the 'M' word" -- presumably a reference to Talovic's reported Muslim heritage. Savage stated that "had the shooter been blond hair and blue-eyed ... why then all of the boys with the curly hair and the large glasses in the newsrooms of America -- 'Stop the presses! We have a white boy, a Christian to crucify!' " In fact, a number of media outlets identified Talovic as a Muslim. The Associated Press quoted FBI agent Patrick Kiernan saying that the bureau has no reason to believe Talovic "was motivated by religious extremism" or intended "an act of terrorism."
In the same broadcast, Savage stated that "every day, I try to give the show a title," going on to say, "I actually make each show ... sort of a Persian miniature -- I'm sorry to have to use the word 'Persian' but they were experts at miniatures before they became experts at cutting throats."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the February 14 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Well, I guess it was the racist society that took him in and didn't make him the president of a major Salt Lake City corporation within six months that made him do it. It was probably the white people who made him do it, because they were happy and he wasn't. Or it could be the fact that all of the talk about Valentine's Day insulted his heritage in some way. Or -- who knows why? But, you know, he really is the victim here.
We are, of course, talking about the Salt Lake City -- the Salt Lake City assassin, who, in cold blood, with the mind of a petrid -- a putrid coward, just went and started killing people. Killed a father -- his son is in the hospital -- wiped out families; and, of course, the media doesn't cover the story because of one reason: It's the "M" word.
Now, had the shooter been blond hair and blue-eyed -- hoo, hoo -- why then all of the boys with the curly hair and the large glasses in the newsrooms of America -- "Stop the presses! We have a white boy, a Christian to crucify!" But no, because he is not a white boy, because he doesn't look like Timothy McVeigh, the story doesn't exist.
And that is why today's program on The Savage Nation is entitled, "Let them eat cheesecake." See, every day, I try to give the show a title, unlike others who just drift here and there, because I have a career -- I had many careers before the radio. I'm highly educated and I used to write books for a living. I actually make each show a mini -- a sort of a Persian miniature -- I'm sorry to have to use the word "Persian" but they were experts at miniatures before they became experts at cutting throats.
"Let them eat cheesecake" is the title of today's program.
Come on Evil. We need someone to translate.
What the hell does your boy mean here with the curly hair and glasses comment?
And is he trying to imply that McVeigh was railroaded?
I have not done much research on this, but was listening to him when he led up to the above statemnent. I personaly never saw one referance to him being a Muslim on any Major Network. CBS, Fox, ABC. No cable news, your typical channels. My first thought was, White Male in a Trenchcoat. I had no idea he was a Muslim until I saw it on his SAvages website. As well, reading through news sites make him the victim. "Poor boy grew up in Bosinia" What about the people who he killed? I have not heard from one family member about this on any news channel. You would think this would be HUGE news.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=utah%20shooter&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Its all about him...... sad sad
My first thought was, White Male in a Trenchcoat.
Your first thought was correct.
"He fled a war with his family as a child and came to Utah as a refugee. He floated from school to school before dropping out. A Muslim, he sometimes attended a Salt Lake City mosque for Friday prayers before landing a full-time job to help support his parents and three sisters.
Although he was a loner and withdrawn, Sulejman Talovic seemed normal and "nice" to the few people who knew him. "
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/national/article/0,1406,KNS_350_5353994,00.html
I don't remember hearing anything in the news about the religious affiliations of any of the other rampage shooters of the last decade or so, EL. Why should this be different?
I am just backing up his statement.
But, let me ask you. The last 5 violent attacks like this. Do you remember? I can think of three other recent episodes over the last 5 years that where rather violent.
Rusty, the Amish-school shooter ????
The shooter was not Amish. The little girls he killed were Amish. the shooting took place in an Amish School.
I don't remember hearing about the faith or lack of faith of the guy who murdered those kids.
The shooter in the Amish case was a home-schooled Christian (not that this impacts the story one way or the other).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carl_Roberts_IV
bomber Tim McVeigh a Christian
Yes, we all know Tim McVeigh was a Christian. However, I don't think the media at the time reported the Oklahoma City bombing in any kind of religious context because none was warranted. The headlines didn't scream "Christian Bombs Federal Building." Yet Dr. Weiner seems to want the headlines now to scream "Muslim Shoots Up Mall."
No argument there. But, what this site leaves out is what led up to him saying that. Very decieveing.
So every time somebody commits a crime their religious background should be specified, even if there's no connection to the crime? Otherwise it's "deceiving"?
No, not what I am saying. What led him up to that was the lack of coverage from the victims families. ALl we read about is this loser of a kid that was opressed in his country. Am I supposed to feel bad for him BECAUSE OF THAT? F'n No Way......
Good coverage Evil...keep it up.
Dunno man... usually they leave the victims' families the hell alone. You tell me, some asshole just shot your kid... are you really going to want to talk to some idiot in make-up with a camera and a microphone?
That is actually false. Timothy McVeight was not a Christian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/mcveigh/story/0,,504876,00.html"In his letter, McVeigh said he was an agnostic but that he would 'improvise, adapt and overcome'..."And secondly, the reason he blew up the building were not religious.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mcveigh/mcveigh6.html"Detailing his motives in the Oklahoma City bombing for the first time publicly, Timothy McVeigh says he pulverized the federal building to avenge Waco and Ruby Ridge"
A number of news media outlets have pointed out that the Utah shooter was Muslim.
But in Savage's wingnutfairyland, that means, "None of them did."
Of course, the Savage Weiner never did let facts get in the way of his racism and religious bigotry.
None of them reported it the first day- even though they knew he was Muslim. The papers including the Utah paper purposely hid the fact from the public. In fact, MMFA didn't even use the quotes where the FBI said nothing was being ruled out.
Purposely hid the fact he was Muslim from the public?
Prove it or go away.
I can't believe even Weiner's most idiotic listeners buy this crap. The story wasn't reported? It was all over the news.
Then again, the trogs over at LGF have been singing this same tune for a couple of days. Which makes me wonder, which came first: the dumbass chicken, or the dumbass egg?
Hey, you know Mike likes to toot his on horn (heh) , but what he's really saying is Fox/CNN are too worried about Anna N. Smith and all that other crap. Last night Mike called Diane Sawyer a "whore", and a "prostitute" for her interview with the Iranian madman.
I was expecting a thread on that but NOOOOOO, we get this nonsense.
As much as Savage normally repulses me, he has a point about the lack of coverage of this Mall-Murder story.
However, I'm not sure the lack of coverage has as much to do with the media not wanting to deal with the "M" word as it does with the sad fact that MOST stories are on the backburner because the media would rather cover that deceased no talent bimbo and the many men she obviously screwed now claiming to have fathered her baby. Wanna bet she didn't even know who the father was? But I digress...
Back on topic, I do think the fact that this killer kid was a Muslim should be examined further. Wouldn't shock me at all IF his motives had something to do with wiping out a few infidels.
I get your point ,Jeter, that the media might think twice about emphasizing the Muslim aspect, but at the same time I'd think "Is this the most important aspect of the story", a story that has been covered pretty thoroughly.
I think the bigger point is Weiner's strange theory that the media is dying to do stories on blond-haired, blue-eyed Christian murderers.
Sounds like a perfect story for the likes of Glenn Beck.
Plus, plenty of material to exploit fear and loathing of anyone Muslim. I just wonder what happens when everyone gets whipped up in a frenzy and "vigilante-types" start breaking into people's homes that they suspect are Muslim and beating up and killing them. With the "mean-spirited" vibe in this country right now, I wonder how far we are away from this.
That darn liberal media. They're always trying to bury the story:
CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/14/utah.mall.gunman.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest
MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17156121/
CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/national/main2480419.shtml
ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2881384
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364677.stm
UPI:http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070215-070957-6552r/
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401633.html?nav=rss_nation
The Journal Gazette:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/16694951.htm
Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5218570
Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590596,00.html
Seattle Post-Intelligencer:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Utah_Shooting_Bosnia.html
Damn you and your facts! Can't you just go along with Savage and say that, to the press, this story doesn't exist? There's cheesecake in it for you if you cooperate.
Hey, he is talking about your nightly news. I am will to bet, a strong % of americans o not even own a computer to see links like those above.
Nightly news? Savage just says that the media hasn't covered the story. Besides, although Pete provided internet links (usually used to convey information when discussing matters on a website), the majority of the media he links to also doubles as traditional media. Almost anyone in the country who has a black & white TV with rabbit ears can pick up CBS. Or is it your position that it hasn't been covered because someone who lives in a cave might not have heard it?
the sites where stupid. Most play him to be the victim, which led up to what savage said, But this stupid website leaves that out.,
No the sites werent stupid but YOU are a moron who cant read but is weakly trying to make appologies for this insane bigot. Savage wasnt decrying that they painted him as a victim, but that curly haired guys with big glasses his racist codewords for Jews only want to do stories about Blond Christians who commit murders. He is a liar and a fool. The media did cover him being a Muslim. Rent a clue. Weiner is a worthless cretin, it will be a good day when the men in the white coats take him away where he can finally get the help he desperatly needs. Anyone who takes him seriously should see a psychiatrist
" Anyone who takes him seriously should see a psychiatrist "
Savage constantly is able to debate liberals on his show, none are able to give decent arguements supporting their beliefs without lowering themselves to personel name calling. It appears you are no different. You can't make a decent arguement supporting your stance without calling someone (anyone) names, even though it is against the 'terms of use' agreement you agree to abide by daily. http://mediamatters.org/etc/terms How do you keep from being banned, when you constantly break the rules of this site?
It's obvious that most at mmfa "should see a phychiatrist", as you say it, since they take him very seriously and constantly keep him propped up and in the headlines. Updating his picture often and hardly allowing him off the front and main mmfa web page. Then, you have virtually EVERY liberal who attends this site constantly taking him seriously to the point that they get into the same name calling you do. Yes, solon, you make a very good point.... "anyone who takes him seriously should see a psychiatrist", after all, as Savage often says...liberalism is a mental disorder. Solon now proves it.
And as usual your selective outrage shows you to be a hypocrite. I assume you think its ok for EL to call the website stupid but we shouldnt do the same to him. I guess as usual you want to protect the conservatives exclusive franchise on namecalling. I am not buying. I of course DID point out where he was wrong as have many people. Weiners bigotry, using his stereotype codewords for Jews and his baseless assertions about the media, I didnt think the guy was being painted as a victim and I doubt others would either except they were TOLD that is what they should think by Weiner. Its not that I didnt point out where he was wrong its that your reading comprehension needs a bit of a touchup. You conservatives dont like it when you are called names and snivel like six year old girls but it sure doesnt stop YOU guys from the namecalling. As for Weiners insanity its clear for all to see. The man is just nuts. I am concerned for his health. He is in dire need of psychiatric help. That isnt my fault.
" I didnt think the guy was being painted as a victim "
Of course you don't. Because you are a liberal you do what you are told. You are told by other liberals to think the way you do so you think that way. I wouldn't expect anything less from you. You state your opinions on Savage as if everyone in the world is supposed to bow down in front of you and whisper; hail solon. Sorry, but there are independant thinkers out there that don't need to follow everyone else like you. When you come up with individual thinking, be sure to let someone know. Otherwise, your name calling (and anyone elses) is against mmfa terms of use policy and as you liberals so often get conservatives banned, I see none of you banned for doing the same thing. Complain as much as you like about hyposcrosy and mental illness, but if the shoe fits...wear it!
Yes, being a "proud christian", you would be an expert in individual thinnking, in NOT doing what you are told, right PC?
Right.
"You are told by other liberals to think the way you do so you think that way" - PC
That's really funny, you should do stand up, really. You label yourself "proud christian" and then babble on about "I'm a free thinker.....etc" "you just do what your told, because your a liberal."
PC? have you ever actually had a thought that was not hand delivered to you by others?
You more than most of the other conservatives on this forum, spout GOP talking points and the garbage generated by weiner and others. I have yet to hear you acually make a coherent arguement of your own and support it with real information.
Solon, the stand up comedian!
Evil lib, the idiot. Did it occur to you that when you call the website stupid by extension you are calling those of us that support the site stupid? Or is that type of thinking a bit to complex for you?
See, that shows how damn sensitive you are. You could say the same about the RX& forum I hang on, and I would not give a chit. Grow up a bit, and get some nutts.
RX7 Forum that is.
That darn liberal media. They're always trying to bury the story:
CNN: Utah mall gunman was Srebrenica survivor, cousin says (Vicitm)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/14/utah.mall.gunman.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest
MSNBC:Utah mall gunman was Srebrenica survivor, cousin says (Viticm)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17156121/
CBS Bosnian Relatives Shocked By Mall (ok)Shootinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/15/national/main2480419.shtml
ABC News:News:Officers Justified in Killing Gunman(and why wouldn't it be justified?)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2881384
BBC:Utah killer 'survived Bosnia war' (VICTIM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364677.stm
UPI: (worthless link)http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070215-070957-6552r/
Washington Post:Nation In Grief (finaaly, a decent headline)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021401633.html?nav=rss_nation
The Journal Gazette:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/16694951.htm
Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5218570
Time Magazine:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590596,00.html
Seattle Post-Intelligencer:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103AP_Utah_Shooting_Bosnia.html
See, they make him out to be the victim. Next thing you know, the officer will be sued that shot him.
The Media is a JOKE!
Talking about the killer's background isn't "making him the victim." It's a natural course for journalists to take. When something like this happens, people want to know "how could he have done such a thing?" Stories like these try to answer that question. They may not succeed, but I don't see how you can read the stories as "making him the victim." All the stories I read referred to the victims as the victims.
Where are the victims stories? WHERE?
Every story reports that five people died and four were wounded. Do you want detailed accounts of who they were? Does it occur to you that their families are grieving and maybe think their stories are none of your business?
LOLOLOLOL... Like the Media really gives a chit. Come on Rusty, the media is full oif self-serving vermin. Leeches.
Here's a little assignment for you, EL. Go to Google, type in "utah shooting victims" (don't use the quotes), and click the "News" button. Report back what you find.
Funny how hte first three links came out less than a hour ago.
The rest are worthless.....
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=utah%20shooting%20victims&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wnThank god you're here to counter these mental patients.
You two are morons. Brainwashed braindead morons. Neither of you could recognize a cogent argument if your life depended on it and get rhetorically slapped around here day after day. Only your comittment to self delusion keeps you from understanding this.
" You two are morons.... Neither of you could recognize a cogent argument if your life depended on it and get rhetorically slapped around here day after day. "
Are you "rhetorically" slapping them around right now? I have not seen ANY "cogent argument" out of you on this subject since it started. You just troll from conservative poster to conservative poster and blast how moronic they are. As I said earlier, you do a better job at proving the mental problems of liberals than anyone else here. Keep up the good work.
Those links were all looked at and dissected for what they are. Did you go to any of them or are you just doing what you are told by your liberal leaders? Did you do any googling as rusty suggested? Or are you just trolling posters who disagree with your opinion (which you haven't expressed on subject yet)? Before you start slamming someones opinion, you should do your homework and stop your strawman arguements. Actually, it can't be called 'strawman' because you haven't made an arguement, yet. You've only called people names. Irregardless, you are still breaking mmfa's terms of use agreement post after post after post. How do you keep from being banned?
Rusty,
Evil seems to like to be in a continual state of outrage just like Michael Savage, let' just let him enjoy that.
No Lynn, I do not like being angered like this. But I am at congress. Both sides. You think I only have it out with liberals? You are sadly mistaken. The division in this country is pitiful. I am way more in the middle than anyone I see posting on this board. We less division, and more unity. maybe this will comfort you a bit. I would never vote someone like Savage into office. NEVER.
Well Evil that certainly is a relief to here.
I meant to HEAR
What you really meant was, "READ"
:0)
How is your use of the alias "Evil Lib" supposed to square with your appeal for more unity?
Lynn
Mikey rules the airwaves whether you like it or not. When he's gone, in about 3 years, there'll be no one remotely close as entertaining as he is. Love it while you still can.
Weiner has just cornered the insane bigot demographic which seems to be larger than anyone ever knew. When he is gone, however long it takes for him to seek the psychiatric help he so desperatly needs and it either cures him or seperates him from decent people, the airwaves will be a cleaner and less polluted place for it. That will be a good day.
Yeah Solon, thanks to Savage Slavery is making a HUGE comeback. Please.....
Michael Savage has cornered the insane bigot demographic which seems to be larger than anyone ever knew. This is well documented as that demographic has now taken over the house and senate. God willing, our country will survive.
Yeah because Democrats are the Weiner demographic. Look you dont have to try so hard to prove just how ignorant you are. That is well established. We all get that I know you are but what am I is the best drivel you can come up with. Peppered with hypocritically pious spewing about how mean us liberals are for treating YOU like YOU treat us like you did in this post. Why do you bother? You have no game, you have no brain and you have no style. Why dont you do some intense training and if you ever achieve the ability for higher brain function get back to us.
"utah shooting victims" googled gives you 950 results. "muslim shooter in utah" gathers 67 results. "teenage shooter in utah" gives 44 results. "utah shooting suspect" gets you 197 results.
That proves the story is dead. The press is ignoring it. I haven't even seen it in the paper since the day it happened. 3 days later and you only get 44 hits for storys on the teenage shooter in utah.
Just because the story doesn't sell, doesn't mean the media is actively trying to cover it up, much less because the killer involved was a Muslim. And your statistics about searching haven't convinced me.
-Proud Atheist... er, I mean, iflurry
Good news furry, if you google "utah mall shooting" you get 1,200,000 hits. However, if you read them you will find they are all old news (except the first 2). So, basically this story is old news and they are back on the bimbo (live coverage of the reading of the will, tonight at 7). Too bad you guys have been proven wrong again. Michael Savage is right, again, the news is purposely not covering it because the guy is muslim. What other reason would there be?
So 1.2 MILLION hits proves it is not being covered and we are wrong. I say the complete delusion of that post shows that Weiners insanity is contagious, and you need an antidote
Did you stop reading there?? Why don't you try doing the search yourself. How many of those 1.2 million were from TODAY? How about YESTERDAY? Yeah, that's what I thought, more strawman arguements from the straw farmer.
How fast a story burns out is contingent on many things. It certainly doesnt prove any conspiricy to burry the truth. On the other hand 1.2 million hits, whenever they were DOES pretty much dismiss the bizarre contention that it wasnt covered.
" On the other hand 1.2 million hits, whenever they were DOES pretty much dismiss the bizarre contention that it wasnt covered. "
However, it DOES prove Michael Savage correct. Since all the stories are old, then the press is obviously blocking further coverage of the event since the guy is Muslim. The very fact that there are no new stories when the even happened ONLY a week ago, further indicates the press's obligation to block any bad news concerning Muslims.
It proves no such thing. It was extensively covered. It died. Just because they wont continue to beat a horse that isnt breathing and is smelling funny to push YOUR agenda is not proof of anything. Exactly what proof do you have that the media is BLOCKING coverage instead of deciding the story has run its course? None? Imagine my suprise. YOUR baseless assertions do not define reality. There were more than one million hits, the story was covered, nothing was blocked nothing covered up. YOUR agenda isnt what decides what is news and what is yesterdays news.
However, it DOES prove Michael Savage correct. Since all the stories are old, then the press is obviously blocking further coverage of the event since the guy is Muslim.
Everyone together now... "In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead!"
"utah shooting victims" googled gives you 950 results. "muslim shooter in utah" gathers 67 results. "teenage shooter in utah" gives 44 results. "utah shooting suspect" gets you 197 results.
That proves the story is dead. The press is ignoring it.
It is impossible to argue with people who deny objective reality.
"Like the Media really gives a chit. Come on Rusty, the media is full oif self-serving vermin. Leeches." - EvilLib1727
You're including Savage and Limbaugh, yes?
If anything, mentioning his history as a 'survivor' reinforces that this quy probably wasn't playing with a full deck (PTSD, etc).
oh, hte poor poor boy.
You assume that mentioning this offers up sympathy. I could care less. Just explains his behavior.
Maybe maybe not. Who made the media the expert?
Since when did "survivor" mean "victim"? The newsmedia you cite are specifically NOT referring to him as a victim!
I can only imagine most people goig, "Awwwweee, poor guy"....
I can only imagine most people goig, "Awwwweee, poor guy"....
You have a very warped sense of humanity, and I pity you.
Very well said: you can only imagine it, because it isn't actually happening.
I read thru every one of your links.
They made the murdering scum out to be a victim.
Many of them didn't mention that he was muslim until the later paragraphs.
Many of them didn't mention that he was muslim until the later paragraphs.
I demand that whenever a Christian commits a crime, their religion be in the headline somewhere.
You already get that.
Only in your world of complete delusion
Which religion has a radical element has declared war on the U.S.?
Which religion has a radical group that called for killing people at shopping malls a couple years back?
That's called jumping to conclusions. After all, the members of what religion kill more American citizens than any other? Christianity.
It's not jumping to conclusions. OBL said he declared war on the US and then he attacked the US. Is it 'jumping to conclusions' to say OBL was behind it? Why don't you give us some data to back up your claims. What's the percentage of Christians performing killings in comparison to Christians in America? Now, what's the percentage of members of religious radical elements that are killing compared to members of religious radical elements that are in America. Somehow, I doubt you will do that, because you aren't interested in FACTS. You are only interested in making things up as you go.
Here is a link to Christian righwing authoritarian violence perpetrated on physicians and pro-choice activists from 1989-2004.
I'm sure you can counter with U.S. Muslim violence stats of your own. We can compare and contrast.
What fun it is to obsess over violence!
[link to www.religioustolerance.org]
My bad.
24 killed in 17 years, 1 in the last 8 years. If that is your point you are going to lose this argument really, really badly.
15 years: 24 deaths
Good to know you can tolerate even a single murder by religious extremists. Now, why do Muslims exclusively bother you?
Furthermore, look at the cycle of intimidation and instances of bodily harm. Not even Al Qaeda can achieve this level of domestic terrorism.
15 years: 179 Bombing, Arson, Attempted Bombing or Arson.
15 years: 3,349 Invasion, Assault & Battery, Vandalism, Trespassing, Death Threats, Burglary, Stalking...
15 years: 11,458 Hate Mail, Harassing Phone Calls, Bomb Threats...
But hey, only 24 deaths. No biggie, right?
Do I disdain all Christians or Muslims for the transgressions of a radicalized minority? Not in the least.
Why do Muslims exclusively bother you?
You know your list could be more impressive if you included the religous left radicals who have committed nearly 15 million murders in those 15 years. Somehow I don't think you consider 15 million to be worth a discussion. I don't think 11,000 harrassing phone calls counts as violence. Since not many radical islamists are interested in harrassing with their cell phone, I think they are more interested in harrassing gays, women, children and other inocent folk who are just trying to live a life of peace. But, since 15 years of violence by Christians is on the equal to the last 15 years of violence by radical islamist (as you imply) then it is only expected that 15 million murders is ok by the left's standards. But don't use the phone to harrass them!
It's like I thought. You don't really care if Christians are involved in domestic terrorism.
The harassment and violence stats are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand. It is terrorism. Terrorism is not confined to physical violence. Terrorism is coercion, coercion is terrorism.
Can you please clarify or support your claim of 15 million murders in 15 years by the radical religious left?
Ok, you supplied a link to violence against abortion doctors and clinics. I support the theory that abortion is murder if it isn't needed to save the women's life. Since the religous right is blamed for abortion clinic/doctor violence, I blame the religous left for abortions. Since there are roughly 1 million abortions each year (in America) then 15 years equals 15 million. So your claim that Christians are murdering/killing many is true afterall. But, you MUST include the religous left in your figuring (but I doubt many are Christian).
You can support the theory that martians invented Geometry. Your delusions do not define reality
If you support the theory that the two cells within a human woman do NOT become a human baby then "Your delusions do not define reality". At least you give some kind of arguement, still no rational thought brought to the table, but at least you stopped insulting others. Ooops, maybe next time
Ah but I am not claiming it does. No one knows when a seperate life is created. We dont even know what life is. We arent completely sure if viruses are alive, we dont understand why life shows on a cellular level but not on the molecular level. We dont know enough to be doing the research to find out. The difference is I am not trying to change the law to conform to my OPINION. And that is all you have your OPINION. I am not calling people murderers because I am so self righteous I demand that they accept my OPINION, that is what YOU are doing. Since I am not doing those things and YOU are its a whole lot more relevant to point out that your OPINION does not define reality. When I demand the law change to conform to MY OPINION, when I start calling people murderers based on nothing more than MY OPINION you will have a point. I havent YOU HAVE NO POINT. What a shock
Fair enough. At least you have employed your own internal logic. That's a good start regardless how out of whack with reality the results. The assumption that all abortions are obtained by the left or are done out of convenience shows staggering dishonesty.
This thread isn't about abortion is it? It's about Muslim terrorists and (in Savage's view) media bias against Christians. My simple point is that actions of the few need not taint the perception of the many. I apply that standard to all people.
" This thread isn't about abortion is it? "
Well then, WHY did YOU bring it into the conversation? You had no problem 'reading into your story' about how Christians are all vial evil people, how is that different than me 'reading into my reasons' that liberals cause the deaths of millions of humans without ANY remorse?
I can't understand your post. Where are these 15 million murders committed in the name of the left wing?
And if by "religious left radicals" you mean men who oppress women, hate anyone who disagrees with their backwards religious views, and support the use of violence against others to push a political agenda... well, sound familiar?
Yes, it was reported but in the many examples you gave only 3 pointed out that the shooter was muslim. A few other hinted at it without saying it while some did not even have the "m" word in their article. This is what Savage was talking about.
Savage claimed the story was not reported at all because the media were wary of the shooter's religion, which the FBI claimed was not a factor in the shootings.
This is like defending a Holocaust denier by saying the actual number of victims is up for debate.
That's a lie:
While the FBI stated it has found no evidence Islamic terrorism was a motive in the Salt Lake City mall shooting, investigators have not ruled it out, a police spokeswoman told WND.
FBI agent Patrick Kiernan declared to reporters Wednesday he had no reason to believe the random, dispassionately executed murder of five people by 18-year-old Bosnian Muslim immigrant Sulejman Talovic Monday night had anything to do with Islamic terrorism, calling it "just unexplainable."
But Salt Lake Police spokeswoman Robin Snyder told WND the FBI is still working with her department on the case, and investigators continue to explore the terrorism angle
Proof of a media cover-up of information. Notice the disinformation claiming the shooter did not go to a mosque, which we know know was not true:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660195692,00.html
Okay, I wrote that the FBI had ruled out the killer's faith as a factor when I should have said they hadn't decided yet. And a small-time news source got a minor fact wrong. So now I'm a lair and there's a media conspiracy? How does this fit in with Wiener Savage's "No Christian to Crucify" ideology?
Twisting the truth, you been called out.
1st article: cnn, 3 days old, only about how he was in Bosnian war. No mention of religion. Oh, BTW mentions who he shot in last sentence.
2nd article: msn, condensed version of first.
3rd article: cbs, 2 days old, 1st page talked about kids troubles in life, second page talked about how good a kid he was. Mentioned religion on second page.
4th article: abc, 1 day old (didn't take long for this one) talks about whether the cops are in trouble for shooting the kid or not in trouble.
5th article: bbc, 2 days old, Had no trouble mentioning Muslims were the target of a massacre in his home town area, but did not mention he was muslim. Story only about him and his 'troubled' background.
6th article: upi, 2 days old, reporter must have traveled to bosnia to get this story, another about his troubled youth, no mention of his religion.
7th article: w-post, 3 days old, Speculation article, with family saying they are not terrorists. Mentions his religion.
8th article: ftw gazette, 3 days old, went out of their way to prevent saying he was Muslim. Called him 'trenchcoat clad teenager'. No mention of religion.
9th article: st lake tribune, 3 days old, short article calling shooter 'bosnian refugee'. no mention of religion.
10th article: time/cnn, 2 days old, story from bosnia. Empty article strictly about murderers life in bosnia and his troubled youth. mentions religion as a side note. much written about muslim massacre.
11th article: seatle p/i, 2 days old, virtually the same as article 10.
So, in the end, I see you are able to prove that the liberal media is ignoring the story. ONE current article. AND I notice they speak of the massacre of 8K muslims http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/691/35888 and http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/bosnia.htm during the yugoslavian civil war. Do you think the murderer may have been 'getting even' for all the autrocities caused to his family and religion? Probably heard plenty of stories from his parents. THAT is the story the news is ignoring AND failing to report! AND the one liberals feel is insignificant to the cause of this shooting.
No, the "liberal media" were telling the story. They just weren't doing all the speculating you and Weiner wanted.
THis was all over the news for a few days. Although I have heard it mentioned in reports that the shooter was muslim, how often does the news report the religious afiliaton of murderes when reporting homicides. I live near philly and on average so far 1+ people are murdered everday and not once have the murders been refered to by their religion (If it even makes national headlines at all).
Exactly. Is there some golen rule of journalism about murder stories that the religious affiliation of the perpetraitor must be mentioned for the story to have any credibility?
The DC sniper, MuslimThe guy the went into the Jewish community in seattle and shot someone. Muslim
The guy that ran over a guy on a bike in Fremont and hit a dozen others in SF, Muslim.
This guy in Utah, Muslim
The Amish shool shooter.
I think the Amish school shooter was a Christian. (But of course the liberal media don't want you to know that.)
The shooter in the Amish case, Charles Carl Roberts IV, was a home-schooled Christian (not that it matters one way or the other).
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/02/amish.shooting/index.html
This guy was a Christian and a Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader
I wouldn't want to generalize, but it seems no different from the theme of listing individual Muslims as a way of tarring all of them.
"amish school shooting" still gets 159 hits on google news. ALL from 2007, goes to show they don't let the Christian killer be forgotten. I'll bet you anything that within this same time span (4 months) if you type in "utah mall shooting" you will NOT get 159 hits that are less than 2 months old!!!
Here's your test in action.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&as_qdr=y&q=+%22amish+school+shooting%22&as_qdr=m3&btnG=Search
60,300 hits total.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&as_qdr=m3&q=%22utah+mall+shooting%22&as_qdr=m3&btnG=Search
207,000 hits total.
Is there something I did wrong with my searches?
Try your search again, furry. Hit 'news' for the search criteria. Then tell me what you get for hits. I'm sorry, I should have clarified.
Six results for "Amish school shooting"
Seventy-five for "utah mall shooting"
And this is searching news.google.com, as you said. By the way, why do you keep calling me "furry"? I'm not going to roll over and play dead for you.
That Amish shooter had major issues in his past, but we were never told what they were.
Dear Evil,
What is your point? There were thousands of homicides in the United States last year, I am pretty certain without even looking at any data that only a fraction of the murderers were Muslim. Most of the culprits are home grown killers probably like most Americans including myself reared as Christians, although they obviously chose to ignore the lesson of thou shall not kill.Mass Homicides or injuries? It is just raising a question, why where most muslim?
Thank God serial killers and mass murders are extremely rare, but again most serial killers thorughout US history have been White males and most cam from Christian backrounds. The DC sniper was actually very atypical. BTW the DC sniper's killing spree was as is the case with all serial killers the result of a completely demented mind, but it was not motivated by any religious reasons. What makes you believe that most mass murders in the US are committed by Muslims? I'm not following your logic and I don't understand how you reached that conclusion. It's not fact based.
Why do you insist on having people respond to chit you just make up? I suppose the Boston Strangler and son of Sam were Muslim too in your "I can just make up chit and people will take me seriously" world.
WTF did I make up?
" including myself reared as Christians, although they obviously chose to ignore the lesson of thou shall not kill. "
You mean "thou shall not murder", right? You should quote it correctly if you're going to quote it at all. Big difference in meaning is like saying "thou shall not steal a lot".
Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not kill.
Is it that slim distinction between murder and kill that justifies the violent deaths of homosexuals or abortion doctors by the hands of proud Christians?
I get it. I understand the distinction. Men kill animals. Men murder men.
All the authoritarian right wing talkers have to do is dehumanize their opponenets. Classify us as vermin, cockroaches, subhuman, traitors etc. Then you need leaders like Bill Donahue or Don Young (R-AK) to preach violent rhetoric and eventually some misguided, angry soul or souls will take up the righteous struggle to purify this land of liberals or whoever disagrees.
Christian or Muslim makes a hair's width of difference when people are incited to murder for their God. Sorry, I meant incited to kill for their God.
" Is it that slim distinction between murder and kill that justifies the violent deaths of homosexuals or abortion doctors by the hands of proud Christians? "
I guess it's the same "slim distinction" between how many cells constitutes a human before you are able to murder "it", I mean kill "it". Oh, it works either way, you still call "it" an "it" until "it" is born, then suddenly "it's" a human. Wow the transformation 7 more inches makes before murder (killing) becomes legal in your eyes!
Now I know you are a flippin' idiot. You not only evaded the subject you made an egregious assumption about my opinon of abortion.
Weak, dude. Weak
No! I went straight to the heart of your "distinctions". You cannot tell the difference between murdering and killing, so you lump them together for all deaths occuring at the hands of Christians, then deny the connection that you fail to grasp that human cells become human. Since YOU started the discussion on abortion why don't you tell us when you think abortion is ok. Let's settle your "distinctions" right now.
So "kill" means "murder a lot"?
The point is this:
Most murders are friends, family or business related, not random killing in a mall.
There is one religious cult that threatened terrorism in malls:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 20, 2004
Schumer: New Intelligence Shows Terrorists Targeting Shopping Centers; Feds Need Stronger Response To Strengthen Security In Malls
Feds indicted a Somali this week this week for al Qaeda plot to bomb Ohio mall; recently-uncovered documents show Spanish train bombers also planned terrorist attack on large suburban shopping center outside Madrid Schumer details new plan to equip high-risk malls with high-tech radiation detectors, vastly expand research anti-explosive biological and chemical detection devices for publ
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/record.cfm?id=265215&
If the bombing was an abortion clinic, would you expect the media to ask if it was a radical christian, or would you fight to keep the bomber's religious affiliation secret?
If the bombing was an abortion clinic, would you expect the media to ask if it was a radical christian, or would you fight to keep the bomber's religious affiliation secret?
Neither. I'd hope the media let law enforcement establish a motive and keep to the (relevant) facts.
and keep to the (relevant) facts
The Media? LOLOLOL.. I have little faith they ever will....
A Bosnian? He is white, Savage, you ignorant loudmouth.
Savage - Please do us all a favor and come out of the closet? You would feel al whole lot better.
And the alias, "Savage Weiner" would take on a whole new meaning.
Well, might make WOMEN feel better...
"Back on topic, I do think the fact that this killer kid was a Muslim should be examined further. Wouldn't shock me at all IF his motives had something to do with wiping out a few infidels. - jeter2 / Friday February 16, 2007 03:20:13 PM EST"
Or maybe he was just a garden variety psycho. It's not like that's a rarity these days. Savage's bizarre speculations aside (Valentines Day and not being made CEO), the only evidence I've seen that addresses motive is the AP story. The story quoted the FBI as saying that they had no reason to believe Talovic "was motivated by religious extremism" or intended "an act of terrorism." If there is evidence to the contrary, I am sure it will come out in the course of time.
"curly hair and large glasses?"
Did Savage just subtly accuse Jews of killing Christ(ians)?
Probably.
Either that, or he accused Jews of being biased in favor of Muslims. Because that makes sense.
I wondered the same thing. Curly hair and glasses does sound like a short hand for Jewish intellectuals (especially in the context of Savage apparently using blonde and white to signify Christian). Savage is, of course, himself Jewish, which might give you pause to interpret it that way. Then again, Savage gay-bashes with the best of them and anyone familiar with his career has to suspect the cognitive dissonance involved there.
So it's quite possible he's also accusing Jews of controlling the media? Savage is almost gonna hit the self-hatred trifecta with this one.
Sassami,
If that's true than it's very odd. Savage is of Jewish heritage, of Russian Jewish extraction I believe I read somehwere. I wonder why would he want to advance that kind of stereotype against Jews???
Savage is an interesting one. If I recall he has also accused Jews of hiding their Jewish identity, while choosing to go by the name 'Savage' instead of 'Weiner'.
I think he believes there's a secular Jewish control of the media, but not "Jewish". I think his rant was just pretty poorly worded and I'm poking some fun at the lunatic.
It is called a stage name. GET WITH IT!
LYNN-- He is disappointed at the Jews in the media not getting behind Israel AS MUCH as he feels they should. He wants America to go much further in it's current war, especially with the Muslim nations he feels are a threat to Isreal.
This year he has started airing reports from Israel supporters on the security situation of Israel.
The posters here should give him a call. He's not shy.
Bottle,
...and converse with the devil. I'm not doing it.
Are you a believer Lynn?
A rabid dog isnt shy either
For the same reason he demonizes homosexuals. His pathological self loathing
Or movie critic Gene Shalit.
Now, that's funny!
Post of the day award^^^^^
Yeah I think thats a Jewish reference. Nice one Savage.
Real Reason Mall was not covered
Well lets see this week the nation had a blizzard, ice storm and do not forget the Anna Nicole Smith saga. Local stories involving murders take a back seat.
Am I missing something? It has nothing to do with what may or may not have been this persons religion.
Savage makes me sick.
Here is a barfbag for ya.
No barf-bag is large enough to contain the Savage vomit.
" Real Reason Mall was not covered Well lets see this week the nation had a blizzard, ice storm and do not forget the Anna Nicole Smith saga. Local stories involving murders take a back seat. "
Gosh, middle of Febuary and there are snow storms...VERY news worthy. Former exhibitionist dies from being drunk...VERY news worthy. Let's ignore muslim killing infidels, that ISN'T very news worthy. After all, we're only in the middle of a war on terror. Why would terrorists fighting back be considered news worthy? Oh, I know, because we killed him and now we can't mistreat him in jail....which would be VERY news worthy.
You have any evidence this had anything to do with his faith? Evidence the FBI with all their resources missed? Wow you are talented. I suggest you contact them immediatly and give them the benifit of your expertise, explain to them how much they need you to make up for their shortcomings. Or did you pull that, like most of what you post out of your rectal database? Your bigotted hatred for Islam doesnt define what is and what isnt newsworthy. Get over yourself
"Let them eat cheesecake" is the title of today's program.
All of you who complain that MMFA takes weiner out of context probably have a beef today. Or else I'm in the midst of a debilitating stroke. Because I have absolutely NO EFFIN' CLUE where the connection is between the topic and what he's "entitling" the program.
What'd I miss? Anybody help me out here? Anybody?
"Let them eat cheesecake"
He made this statement based upon how we the people are starving for the truth just how in France many years ago the people were starving for food by which Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake". So he changed that statement and called it "Let them eat cheesecake". Because instead of informing the people about what is really going on they just want to continue jamming Anna Nicole Smith down our throats every day. I hope that cleared it up for you.
Did he ever deliver any truth, or was it just a bunch of inflammatory nonsense like this excerpt?
You forgot to add that what prompted Marie to make that historic and now fabulously paraphrased quote was the assertion that the peasants had no bread, not that they were starving. Her reply illustrated her ignorance of that fact - ignorance born of her status as a ruling elite - with humorous irony. So, yes, I think my question is answered.
Problem, though Marie Antoinette never provided - nor intended to provide - the cake to which she referred. So if, as you say he claims, the media's providing the "cheesecake", he invalidates his own analogy. The answer is that Weiner's an idiot.
I guess the missing context doesn't really matter after all. If weiner can't get his title right, what makes anyone think he can analyze anything more complicated than that?
He does a radio show, not a graduate level history seminar.
Other than his partisan comments....
He gets a large listenership because he often goes off on History lesson tangents - which are acutally entertaining and interesting.
...and mis-informed and stupid which is just a cover for his cry for help because of his impotence as a man and a Jew.
And no I am not reading his mind, just interpreting his behaviour.
And I am sure he does that as well as a man suffering his level of insanity can. He needent offer a course in history for HIM not to make sloppy analogies. Then again he is insane. Perhaps if he increased his medication he MIGHT spew less garbage
There is doubt among historians at to whether Marie Antoinette ever said, “let them eat cake”. I’ve read where she was concerned but both monarchs were very ineffective and could not remedy the situation. The rumor of this quote spread among the people and became a rallying point. Does Karl Rove have French ancestors?
Where's Rino? I'd like him to absorb Weiner's rant and then tell us how it's liberals who are always "dividing everybody into groups."
All right, Shackleford- go stand over there with the rest of the big glasses, curly-haired weisenheimers.
Who is Rino?
Rino is Rino Hunter.
Rino was The Truth Detector. (among others)
RINO is an acronym for Reality In, Nonsense Out. Basically, it goes in one ear and out the other.
RINO Hunter is busy chasing all the moderates out of the Republican Party. He's been quite successful; according to a recent poll fewer people identify themselves as Republicans. The Democrats have gained numbers, but of course the political independent rolls gained more. In addition, the independents that described themselves as leaning toward the Democrats outnumbered the self identified Republican leaning independents. I think the RNC is going to be on the hunt for RINO Hunter.
"RINO Hunter is busy chasing all the moderates out of the Republican Party"
Not really. I just want to get all the liberals out. I'm talking about people like Lincoln Chafee. We're better off with him gone. He voted with the Dems about 75% of the time or more. I don't have as much of a problem with Senators like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. They are both true moderates. They are generally conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. I just want to get the people out like Chafee who basically agree with the Dems on everything. I live in Kansas, and there's definetely a lot of Republicans like that in the Kansas House and Senate. A lot of them are just people who used to be Democrats but switched parties so that they could get elected easier. They are the RINO's who are hurting the party.
RINO,
God knows you have a right to hunt what you want and I not complaining, but you do realize that actually what you want will end up hurting the Republican Party. You're going to cause the membership to dwindel with your intolerance. Now you may elect lots of representatives from KS, but it's going to be difficult to ever have any national impact if people are running away in droves from your party. As for Lincoln Chafee, he's a Northeastern Republican and he's representing a Blue region of the US. It will either be Chaffe or a Democrat that will vote with the Democrats 100% of the time, because those constituents are not going to elect a conservative of the KS stripe from that region of the country. You do know that right? That's why Michael Steel is still cooling his heels and MD and not in the US Senate. He was too conservative for the people of MD, and it's the reason the people of PA sent the nutty Santorum back to his home in PA/VA or wherever it is he lives.
Ya, I understand your point. You make a good argument. But I just don't see the point of electing Republicans who end up voting with the Democrats the majority of the time. That's what Lincoln Chafee did. He didn't even vote with the Republicans on fiscal issues. You can't really be a Republican if you don't support tax cuts. That's a core issue that you can't really deviate from. I think that it's all right for Republicans to stray from the party line on issues like abortion, gay rights, gun control and the like, but when you can't even support tax cuts, you're not really much of a Republican.
will end up hurting the Republican Party.
They get what they deserve.
Like it or not, Lincoln Chafee has always been a Republican. I may be wrong, but the name of the party is the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party.
If the Republicans were to purge all of those who you think to be RINOs, who would be left?
They'd lose a lot of their supporters and would eventually go the way of the Whig Party or The Bull Moose Party.
Hey Rusty,
For the record, I'm not a big Savage fan. He's an extreme conservative who pretty much hates everybody. I think he's pretty much insane. I've listened to him a couple times for entertainment value, but nothing more. He's in a league of his own. He shouldn't be compared to Limbaugh and Hannity, who are both mainstream conservatives. Savage doesn't represent conservative values in the least.
He shouldn't be compared to Limbaugh and Hannity, who are both mainstream conservatives.
Better rethink the former, there. Unless mainstream conservatives are pill-popping, Parkinson's-mocking racists.
Wow. That was sure an eloquent statement. It must have taken you a long time to think of something so brilliant.
I thought it was very concise and 100% true. Like wolfsbane to conservatives.
Ok, I agree, I dont blame conservatives for Weiner. He is absolutly insane. While Limbaugh is just a liar, and Hannity is just a moron. Them you can have
For the record, I'm not a big Savage fan. He's an extreme conservative who pretty much hates everybody.
Thus disproving your assertion from a few days ago that it is liberals who are constantly dividing everybody into groups.
Where's Savagerockhead to weiner's defense?
I heard about this story many times. Each time it was mentioned that the guy was muslim.
...also, each time it was mentioned that he was a muslim from Bosnia...and each time I thought, "Hmmm, so he's not really one of those muslims that we're supposed to hate right now?" (ie..cuz he's 'white'). Very confusing mess... all of it.
But, glad Weiner cleared it all up for us.
Yes it is confusing. White and Muslim? Please tell me it isn't so. I just don't know what to do with my bigoted values, Rush, Sean, Savage, save meeeeeeeeeee.......
He was railing on about this last night as well. As I was driving home from work late, I like to have some good comedy, tuned in. He was rambling onward, and onward about how nobody is covering this story (even though it has been). And he was saying things like, "I'm betting this kid was part of al Qaeda, and that now those guys are talking about how they can inflict pain and suffering in the heartland of America." and he kept making that allusion, that this kid was a terrorist. Just because he's a Muslim, and went nuts and tragically shot a bunch of people does not make him a terrorist. Sounds to me like the "typical" super angst ridden teenager who got picked on too much at school, and finally snapped in a big way.
Another "shocking" piece of evidence that Savage came up with, was that one of his callers, who said he was a teacher at the school where the kid went, knew that this kid was looking at guns on the internet whilst at school. Oh no! He's looking at guns! He must be going to kill someone. Look, where I went to high school, there was a gun locker in the principal's office where kids would bring their hunting rifles to school, look them in there for the day, pick them up after school, cross the road into the woods, and go hunting in the fall. Kid, are sometimes interested in guns, doesn't make them lunatics like Savage.
On a totally unrelated note on his show last night, he was jibber jabbering about how a little bit of caffeine is good for you, which in this case, he's right, but then he went on to say how the "leftist liberals in this country don't want you to have caffeine, they want to ban it altogether." What? I know being one of those leftist liberals, I thrive on caffeine.
I don't think caffeine should be banned. I did give it up entirely, though.
Kind of strange, though. Apparently liberals support gay orgies, abortions, every type of lucid drug you can imagine, etc. but not caffeine..?
Probably has to do with the fact that liberals are sick and tired of these neoconservative coffee shops popping up every where. Warbucks, anybody?
Thanks to liberals and the PC world we live in, looking at guns in school is wrong! Blame yourselves.
I'm sure if it was a Muslim kid looking at guns at school you'd have the same sentiment.
Race, creed, color, no difference there.
Huh? I do believe your heart is in the right place (for the most part). But, sometimes...you just don't make a whole lot of sense.
What do liberals and PC have to do with guns? I don't get it.
I know, a bit of a poke. The dems are the ones putting all these restrictions on guns. Therefore, looking at guns in a public school just don't jive. I mean, if you can not use words like, Illegal Alien, or, Hobo, how can one expect not to get scrutinized when looking at guns? You going to tell me a liberal teacher would not have a fit if his/her kid in class was researching guns?
So you admit to being a troll?
If it will make you feel better.
Why do you think I am being a troll? Maybe I feel my opinion is worth hearing at times. It seems you do not like opposite opinions?
restrictions such as.....?
don't be a fool, you know exactly what I am talking about. Just take a look a San Franfreako..
Let's pretend I'm a fool, and don't live in SanFrancisco. Let me hear what restrictions I'd have to deal with in San Francisco.
They passed a law damanding anyone owning a hand gun, (not rifle) must turn it in. There is a grace period, but how lame that is.
Measure H was passed by the voters and overturned by the courts. Damn activist judges...
Oh yes, it's a shame those activist judges had to enforce the 2nd Amendment. Shame on them!
You do realise I was being ironic, don't you?
Also, what does the 2nd amendment to the Federal Constiitution have to do with a city ordinance?
The 2nd Amendment gives U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. San Fran. made a law that took away the right to bear arms. Thus, the law had to be struck down, because it was blatantly unconstitutional.
The 2nd amendment says "Congress shall make no law." The 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
The 2nd Amendment specifically gives U.S. Citizens the right to bear arms. It doesn't matter if it's a state or local government that tries to ban gun ownership. Gun ownership is a constitutional right that can't be infringed upon by any form of government, including state and city. There's a reason why the San Francisco law got repealed, even by the liberal judges out in California.
My aging memory INSISTS that the Supremes have repeatedly interpreted the 2nd, to allow the States to regulate firearms . . . most recently, 1939?
The ordinance was struck down by the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, for the very specific reason that there is a specific State law that takes precedence.
There is no 2nd amendment issue here, just a question of jurisdiction. California state law bans assault weapons, it could just as legitimately ban handguns without a Constitutional challenge.
There are amendments other than the 2nd, as you may recall...
Right. They can regulate firearms, such as banning assault weapons, but they can't effectively ban ALL GUNS like the city of San Francisco tried to do. It would be struck down by the Supreme Court. It would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Dude. It's called Google. Please use it. It's boring to try and debate someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
Sigh...
Proposition H would have banned handguns (not all guns) in San Francisco, as D.C. has done since I was a kid.
The types of cases the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over are spelled out in Article III.
I mean, in a bar you can pretty much get away with pulling stuff out of your ass if you state it confidently enough. Online... not so much.
Fine. Enlighten me a little bit then. How can the Supreme Court strike down state restrictions on abortion, but yet they can't strike down state restrictions on gun ownership? How does that work?
The ordinance was not a gun ban. The court was not a Federal court. You are talking out of your ass, and it's not a pretty sound...
You're actually the one who brought up the Supreme Court. You seemed to imply that the Supreme Court only had jurisdiction over Congressional laws and couldn't strike down state laws restricting gun ownership rights. That was my point. And it was a law that was voted on by the people of San Francisco. The people of San Francisco voted to ban all hand guns in the city. The majority effectively trampled on the rights of the minority, which is something that you usually condemn, but not in this particular case.
I don't think you know me well enough to say what I would "usually" do... in any case, the ordinance was struck down over jurisdictional issues, not any supposed trampling of rights.
For your position to hold any water, it would have to be the case that San Francisco citizens have firearm rights that D.C. citizens do not have.
No it doesnt, at least it is not an absolute right:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view...Therefore, ''[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7
dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''
Also the case of Morton Grove shows that cities CAN under some circumstances ban guns
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quilici2.html
VICTOR D. QUILICI vs. VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 6, 1982, Decided
BAUER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Morton Grove's Ordinance No. 81-11, which prohibits the possession of handguns within the Village's borders.The district court held that the Ordinance was constitutional. We affirm.
We next consider whether Ordinance No. 81-11 violates the second amendment to the United States Constitution....
Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and because possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment....
No it isnt, check out Miller and the Morton Grove decisions. Try again
I still don't see the connection... looking for guns and being PC?
Sure, I want to tell you "a liberal teacher would not have a fit if his/her kid in class was researching guns."
I know a lot of liberal teachers. If the kid was doing a report on the 2nd amendment or something, I can't imagine them "hav[ing] a fit."
Just what is it that you're talking about now, Evil?
Thanks to liberals and the PC world we live in, looking at guns in school is wrong! Blame yourselves. ---EL
Yeah, I take all the blame since gun violence in schools is not a concern for those of us with kids. What a freakin' sweet heart you are, pal.
If you have never had to worry about your kid getting.......just STFU!
You area closet Savage head, admit it!
"knew that this kid was looking at guns on the internet whilst at school"Savage said "whilst" huh.According to the handout from the FCC called "Children's Internet Protection Act". Iin order to get E-rate money, the school must filter internet content to block among other things access to internet sites that have information, pictures, glamourizing or other content relating to weapons. I would guess that a school district with a school board of Mormons wants to at least fulfill the requirements of the CIPA regulation, thus calling into question the legitimacy of that particular caller.
Why is it the news sites make him out to be some victim?
Funny I didn't notice that at all. But what some are trying to do is figure out WHY he did what he did... Maybe it had something to do being brought up in a war torn country and all. Maybe it didn't. Maybe he just didn't like himself, or others. There are lots of maybes, but I haven't seen anyone portray this kid as a victim. Tragic yes, victim, no.
I could care less what happened to the kid in the past. No really, but when you weigh it out, the familes of the vicitms should be number one.
And I understand why you say that, liberals cant look past the fact that everyone is human and deserves a break.
I meant to say, "Not really".
Unfortunately, what happens to us in the past, can sometimes affect us way into the future. I didn't say that I feel that this kid was a victim, indeed not. He killed a bunch of people, and hurt many others. That's bad, all over, but there are reasons behind why he did it, and wouldn't you like to know what they were instead of just speculating so that possibly, it could be prevented from happening in the future by some other kid who has similar or the same issues?
And don't worry about the families of the victims, if there is one thing we do right here in the US is support victims' families in their time of need. They are not, and will not be ignored methinks.
well written Magnolialover.
You need to remember, though, Mag, that caring for those who may already have problems isn't nearly as satisfying as self-righteously blowing away somebody after they've taken a few other lives.
(sniff) Ahhhh, yeah.. Nothing warms the soul like justice...
Liberal empathy isnt really the reason the media gives backround on spree killers. There is a fascination with pathology. This is why there are so many true crime shows on TV and true crime books written. People have a tendency to think people are like they are. When someone does something monsterous people are curious as to what makes someone a monster. I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, I dont know, I am saying it is a common interest people have. This is what motivates the media to talk about such a persons backround. It is not an attempt to gain them sympathy nor portray them as victims. We got backround on the BTK killer, on Timothy McViegh, we get backround that either shows how they are different or how they are so very normal either storyline, and the media loves a simple storyline, plays into that fascination people have about pathology
I think everyone is overlooking where this shooting took place.
My God, if Ghandi were alive and had to go to the mall, he might reconsider that whole pacifist thing.
Not less than 20 minutes away is another mall known for its diversity. A caller sharred that with us. So, LOOK WHERE IT IS!
No worrier, it's not all white in that area.
Diversity in Salt Lake City?
You must be including the Utah Jazz...
I think you misunderstood me.
I have no idea where this particular mall is.
My point is that any mall, anywhere in this country is the most mind numbing, soulless place imaginable.
I'm pretty sure Bosnians are Caucasian, so technically the shooter is White. I understand completely what Savage is attempting to say with this latest rant and that is All Muslims are evil an apparently none according to Savage are White.
Reminds me of the story about the guy who ran over the fremont biker then drove to the city and plowed over almost a dozen people. When it first broke out, there was a report about him acting in terrorism. I saw the news clip on Channel 2. He said it to a officer in the city. After that one time, I never heard it again. So, to think the media is not covering stuff like this up, is utterly stupid.
Neener neener wiener, even NPR covered this tragedy.
Yeah....they made the murdering scum out to be a victim. And they didn't mention about the murdering scum being a muslim until the broadcast was almost over.
But calling him a murderer would not be SENSITIVE
You guys seem to think that simply paying any attention to the things that led up to a tragedy - be it a murder, a school shooting, a terrorist attack, whatever - somehow implies sympathy for the perpetrator, or a lessening of their culpability for their crime.
When I think back on Oklahoma City, Columbine, 9/11, the first reaction I remember people having was to ask "why?" Not to offer sympathy for the murderers, but to try and make sense of something so senseless. It's a natural response, I think, and I'm sorry you want to twist it into some political statement.
Here is how I would cover the story.
MUSLIM BOY SHOOTS UP MALL
Today a muslim boy shot up a mall today. Thankfully a brave plain-clothed police officer was there to kill the murderer before he could randomly execute any more people.
Reports say that the boy went into the mall, shot several people, then as they were dying, he went up to them at close range and again pulled the trigger.
Then I would report the victims names.
Then I would find out whether or not he had radical muslim associations.
Then I would blame the parents.
So I guess with the Oklahoma bombing you would report it as:
CHRISTIAN MAN BLOWS UP FEDERAL BUILDING
A Christian man exploded men, woman, and small children into many small pices of flesh and blood. A man with Christian upbringing plotted against the US goevernment. Other Christians in the area are being detained to see if there are larger plans to undermine the US Government.
Yeah, AJ, that would be acceptable...IF we were at war with extreme Christianity. IF extremist Christians were performing daily bombings of their own people to keep them fearful. IF extreme Christianity threatened to convert the entire world or kill you if not. IF extreme Christianity had a directive to kill the infidels wherever they are, including shopping malls...then, yes your ideas would be totally acceptable.
And WHEN Christians were doing just that in the 70's with the IRA was it blamed on Christianity? When in the 40's the Jews were blowing things up like the King David Hotel, or assasainating UN negotiator Folke Burnadotte. Was that blamed on Judaism? No because it was understood that it was the political situation in their region of the world that was the cause and NOT the religion that the extremists doing these things were NOT representative of the religion. Now bigots want to blame Islam for the, absolutly, vile terrorism for THEIR extermist nutbags.
Difference, muslims have been doing this for CENTURIES!
MANKIND has been doing this for centuries. Go back a few hundred years and wars and attrocities were the norm. Check out the Inquisitions. Conquests were just what nations did. It has only been recently men have even pretended to believe they shouldnt slaughter each other wholesale.
Remember what the Spaniards did to the Incas, Maya and Aztecs? What we did to the Native Americans? Europes fought horrific bloody religious wars for about 500 years before this last century. A historical argument falls down there. No one has been very civilized very long.
Ldorien,I don't understand why you guys are so focused on the significance of the man being Muslim. Most mass killers, spree killers, serial killers are simply NUTS!! So what is the significance of focusing on religion except that you guys don't like Muslims? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that you just want to propagate the biases that you have towards Muslims, so somehow the bad behavior of this one nut is representative of all Muslims, that's not fair. Is the behavior of the Columbine shooters representative of all White teenage boys? I don't thinks so, and you guys would have a hissy fit if someone said that it was. When I was younger and some terrible crime would occur I remember I used to say oh Lord please don't let the perpetrator be Black, because I knew that there were bigots out there that would attribute that criminal behavior to all Blacks. I'm sure there are many Muslim Americans doing this now. I don't do that anymore. I can't control anyone's behavior but my own and I won't let someone project another person's bad behavior onto me simply because I share the same skin pigmentation as the offender. You guys need to stop this.
Test
Maybe you haven't kept up w/ the news lately, but radical muslims are the people who are crazy.After the Danish cartoons were posted here was the response....Danish citizens and, indeed Westerners generally, were physically threatened; Christian churches in Pakistan, with no Danish or Euorpean connections at all, were burned. Nine people were killed when Libyan rioters attacked and burned Italian consulate in Benghazi.
A bounty of $1 million was placed on the head of the Danish cartoonist by a Pakistani imam. In Nigeria, Muslim protesters against the Danish cartoon burned down several Christian churches, and used machetes to attack and kill black Nigerian Christians. One person was put inside a rubber tyre, doused with gasoline and set on fire.
Protestors in Britain were photographed with signed saying, " Slay those who insult Islam" "Butcher those who mock Islam" "Europe you will pay" and "Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion" (the last one is for real).
These and countless suicide bombers and the fact that Sunnis and Shiite have been warring for centuries demonstrate that being a Muslim in this day and age (and in light of 9/11) are clearly relevant.
Actually not COUNTLESS suicide bombings they HAVE been counted, a study has been done on them. The group that has done more of them than any other is NOT Muslim. Also the motivation for them is NOT religious even among Muslims. Check out the study by Professor Pape from the university of Chicago. When the worst terrorists in the world were the Jews in the 40s no one blamed Judaism for the terrorism and knew it was an attempt by extremists to get a homeland. When in the 70's it was the IRA no one blamed Catholocism but now that the political unrest is in the middle east and its Muslims who ARE the worst terrorists in the world right now its all about the religion.
These and countless suicide bombers and the fact that Sunnis and Shiite have been warring for centuries demonstrate that being a Muslim in this day and age (and in light of 9/11) are clearly relevant.Much more than the fact that this poor boy had difficulty in school.
Any religion can be depicted as violent and despicable if you limit your discussion to the most violent application of a religion. The same cases can be made about Christianity by pointing to the years of open hostility between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. People outside the Christian community might point to statements by Pat Robertson as an indication of Christianity’s endorsement of violence. I certainly don’t want my religion judged by the words and deeds of the most unfortunate and extreme cases. If your only source of perspective on Islam is news gleaned from Savage and Free Republic, you are doing a disservice to yourself and to Islam.
" If your only source of perspective on Islam is news gleaned from Savage and Free Republic, you are doing a disservice to yourself and to Islam. "
Are you insinuating that the events posted earlier did NOT happen? Sure the events you talk about are relevent and at the time Christianity was being blamed for much of the problem. Same with the jewish condition solon mentioned. Yes they were blamed for the damage done by them. So, how is this supposed to be different? Are we to just ignore that a faction of Islam has vowed to destroy all aspects of humanity? Maybe the many liberals who think there is no danger from this group will say 'yes, ignore them and they will go away', but the fact is they are a danger to society. Not just our society, but to ALL free societies.
Our perspective of Islam is gleened from the actions of the members of Islam. When they stop killing inocent people (like jews and Christians, of the past, have) then they will earn more respect. Until then, they get what they ask for. Heck, even the moderate Islamist are afraid to say anything negative against the extremists. If they won't even deny extremism openly, how are we to believe they deny them privately?
No, I am not denying that these events did occur. They did and, they were horrific. I don’t condone those actions and I don’t condone the actions of Islamic terrorists and I think we should be doing everything that we can to disrupt their threat to the United States.
What I am saying is that the actions of radical Islamic terrorists should no more define Islam than the actions of say the Reverend Phelps in Kansas should define Christianity. I certainly don’t want my religion defined by the likes of Phelps. If you look for and focus only on the most twisted manipulations of a religion to define it as Savage and Free Republic do to Islam, you are buying into a deliberately twisted interpretation of the entire religion that breeds bigotry and intolerance, and feeds into the terrorist’s message that the West is not only intolerant, but hostile toward Islam. What I am asking for is for you to stop confusing tolerance of Islam with tolerance for terrorism.
This is a good argument. I am with you most of the way. I want to confronnt the extremist terrorists as much as anyone, our only difference on THIS question is HOW to do it. I think it will be much more effective to isolate the extremists and seperate them from the moderate and reasonable members of Islam which will NEVER happen as long as we demonize the whole religion. That way lies Holy War and a good chance of ending civilization as we know it. Not to mention its just flat wrong to attack innocent people for what others who look like them or have the same religion have done. This guy was a murderer. Try him punish him. Al Queda is dangerous and insane, lets fight them with all our resources. I think there is a military component of doing that. Pretty much every liberal I know agrees. The moral high ground is imperative to this fight since it is not a conventional battle but an intelligence battle. We NEED the information, and international cooperation, which we WONT get as long as we cede the moral high ground.
Ldorien,
These examples you cite are horrific.. There are millions of Muslims in the world, do you really believe this extreme behavior is representative of all Muslims? That is no more true than saying all AAs are crack dealers because you cite me examples of some Blacks being arrested for selling crack. BTW, I'm a news nut so I'm quite familiar with all the stories you posted across three post. But I'm not going to join you in your little Muslim hate fest.
Not a hate fest, just pointing out that it is relevant and the PC police prevent news people from mentioning it.
Who are the "PC police" and what is your evidence that the media was "prevented" from mentioning anything?
Let me guess, LDoren1626: the PC Police have curly hair and wear big glasses, yeah?
You do realize that you quoted four different signs, but added that the last one was for real.
Am I to understand that the first three were not. I know you're all worked up over this but I think you need to clarify.
It's easy to understand the last sign seemed so unreal that he had to add the disclaimer. Please tell me you could figure that out.
Wow, LDoren, I'm surprised some newspaper hasn't snatched you up. Great article!
Let them eat cheesecake.
The death of Anna Nicole Smith.
That is sooooo bad.
If you're talking about my post :
Eat cheesecake-Death of Anna.
It's what Mike is refering to in his statement. Look what the media is doing with her death. It continues, and will continue because the media are, dare I say it, SCUM. Larry King, Nancy Graceless, Gerry Rivers.... it never ends. THAT is what is soooo truly bad!!!!!!
As long as he was bragging about his skill with assigning titles, I wish Savage had mentioned some of the fantastic titles he gave to his books. My favorites (and no, I'm not making these up) include:
LOL....
Sorry to disappoint you, dumbass.
There should be another Savage thread for you to drool over soon tho ... No shortage of stupid things emanating from his piehole. Just hard to decide which one to post, I imagine.
Okay sportsgirl, whatever. You sound like that REAL dumbass Mark Levin. If you are, what the heck is your hang-up with Mikey. Why the jealosy. He's 10 times the broadcaster you are, and if it wasn't for Sean and Rush to hold your hand you would be nothing.
If you're not Levin: nevermind.
I have a strong suspicion that somewhere there exists a photo of a young, curly haired Michael Alan Weiner in large glasses...