Savage on Sawyer: a "lying whore" who "in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur"
On the February 16 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asserted that ABC News correspondent Diane Sawyer was "aiding and abetting" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a February 13 interview in which, Savage claimed, Sawyer had refused to challenge Ahmadinejad's statements denying the existence of the Holocaust. Savage said: "Here Diane Sawyer goes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and does not once say to him, 'How could you deny the Holocaust? Here are the pictures of the 6 or 7 million Jews that Hitler killed. How dare you do this to the world?' " Savage added: "So Diane Sawyer, in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur." In fact, in her interview with Ahmadinejad, Sawyer stated, "I do not want to debate again the whole question of the Holocaust -- whether the Holocaust is a myth, which you have said," but then asked: "Would you be willing to go to Auschwitz and see their documentation? You're a scientist. Would you be willing to look at the room with documentation?" When Ahmadinejad responded: "Do you think it would solve any problem?" Sawyer replied: "It would be information for you if you genuinely believe it's a myth."
In the same broadcast, Savage played audio clips from the February 15 edition of ABC's Good Morning America in which Sawyer spoke in detail about her interview with Ahmadinejad. While discussing this interview, Savage said Sawyer was "disgusting" and "full of crap" and repeatedly called her a "lying whore," a "prostitute," and a "witch." He added, "I stand by those words, and if you don't like it, sue me. Take me to a court of law for calling you a whore, because you are an intellectual prostitute for what you have done for ratings."
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 16 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Diane Sawyer took a trip to Iran where she kissed the feet of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Oh my gosh, she's disgusting.
See, in my world, Diane Sawyer would have had her passport seized upon coming back to America. And the smirk would have been driven off her face as she was booked, the handcuffs on the back of her hands, for aiding and abetting the enemy, the Hitler of our time. She would have been fingerprinted and booked for sedition. Then we would have seen if she was still smirking giving her little speech. OK?
Here's Diane Sawyer goes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and does not once say to him, "How could you deny the Holocaust? Here are the pictures of the 6 or 7 million Jews that Hitler killed. How dare you do this to the world?" So Dianne Sawyer, in essence, is agreeing that the Holocaust didn't occur. This is what ABC has become.
Listen to clip 13:
SAWYER: I understand that it's confusing sometimes what we do and why we're there, but even --
SAVAGE: Oh, shut up! Get the hag off! Oh, shut up! Get that hag off my show.
We're not confused by what you do, you witch. You witch, you. You think that you're better than all of us, that's what it is, Diane. You think we're confused by what we do and why we're there? We're not confused by the fact that you're a low-life witch who would do anything for ratings, including going over to the Hitler of our time.
You rotten, stinking witch -- I pray to God, I pray to God that one day, one day, you come to understand how low you have become, Diane Sawyer, what a low-life vermin you really are. Play that again, I want to hear the whole thing.
SAWYER: I understand that it's confusing sometimes what we do and why we're there, but even, even your adversaries have their own point of view, and how can you tackle this part of the world if you don't understand why they say --
SAVAGE: You lying whore.
SAWYER: -- they're doing what they're doing. Even --
SAVAGE: You lying whore.
SAWYER: -- can teach you something about why they are doing what they're doing.
SAVAGE: You lying whore, you.
SAWYER: And we are trying to bring back real information in this critical time for these people who live in that part of the world. It is so complicated.
SAVAGE: You're full of crap. Who do you think you're fooling? You're a liar, and the reason you gave this interview about that interview is because you realized what you have done. You're being told that the people hate your guts.
I don't know how this goes on in this country, that a witch, a whore like Diane Sawyer -- and I'm going to stick to those words -- to me she's a whore, she's a whore for selling out her intellect like this, whoring herself for ratings. She goes and visits the Hitler of our time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, does not challenge him on one of his statements, not one, and she does it just for ratings. And she has the nerve to come back here and pretend that it's confusing on what we do and why we're there. Who do you think you're talking to? Even your adversaries have their own point of view.
So let's see if I can follow this. It's 1940, and you go visit Adolf Hitler, and people are already being assassinated and executed and worked to death in Nazi Germany, and you say that even your adversaries have their own point of view? And how can you tackle Germany if you don't even understand why they say what they're doing and why they're doing it?
Diane, all I can say to you is you're probably the lowest creature in American journalistic history. You're probably the lowest creature in the history of American journalism. Did you hear me, Diane Sawyer? I hope to God this gets to you because this is one man's opinion. But let me tell you, it's not only one man's opinion, it's tens of millions of Americans know that you're the lowest whore in the United States of America.
I stand by those words, and if you don't like it, sue me. Take me to a court of law for calling you a whore, because you are an intellectual prostitute for what you have done for ratings. You're lower than Anna Nicole Smith on her worst day. You're dumber than Paris Hilton. You're more shallow than Lindsay Lohan.
[...]
SAVAGE: I don't suppose Diane might have a Jewish friend or two in New York that would stand up to her. Anyone in New York City in the media who knows Diane Sawyer who may be of the Jewish faith, who might have an opportunity to say to her, "You've become lower than the lowest whore outside the Holland Tunnel in fishnet stockings at 3 in the morning, that you stink, lady"? And if ABC had a scintilla of decency, they'd fire her for what she just did.
Yeah, this guy's a real peach. Can't wait to see our resident "I love Savage" troll defend this one.
if you had waited another minute to post you could've seen it first! It's just classic savage, yeah i hate the mysogynistic namecalling but his underlying point about her being a 'whore' for an interview and a 'prostitute' for $ fits here if she appeases someone who denies the holocaust.
How did she "appease" him? Did she cede Czechoslovakia?
I guess in the phony kernel's mind, being polite to someone is "appeasement".
That's right, civility has no place in a civilized society!
I think the only way Sawyer would be appreciated by the right-wing rabid morons like Wiener is if she somehow managed to kill AND eat Ahmedinejad during the interview. Nothing short of that would seem to appease these morons.
well said -- but you left out the fact that Iran is a sworn emeny of the US and has called for it's destruction. Why is Diane S. aiding and abating an enemy of the US?
She's the Jane Fonda of Media
Yup, she should have gotten an interview with a trustworthy guy like Mushariff!
"Why is Diane S. aiding and abating(sic) an enemy of the US?"--stop_the_ACLU
What evidence do you have of that? What specifically do you think Sawyer did to "aid[] and abat[](sic) an enemy of the US"
Ask him some questions? Is that "aiding and abating(sic)"?
Do you think it is helpful to completely shut out dialogue from countries we have a problem with? It seems like that would inevitably lead to war. Is that what you want here?
Probably. Symbolic tough guy gestures seem to go over better with the right than dialogue.
abate: verb, meaning to minimize the effect of.
yes, by giving the people of america the chance to actually see and hear this man, she probably has "abated" an enemy of the US.
<>I loved everything Mikey said about that witch, Diane Sawyer. I love the fact that a thread about this finally got rolling. She is a traitor to America and should be dealt with harshly. I say she should be forced to do a 1 hour interview on the Larry King show to explain herself, guest-hosted by Bob Costas.
Looks like another kook got loose from FreeRepublic again.
In my mind anyone who challenges someone who denies the holocaust is a nazi appeaser. At least Wallace did from what I recall. Listen to her tone of voice, she is so trying to make nice with him.
Savage wins on this one. I just object to the sexist 'whore'/'prostitute' namecalling. His basic point is correct though.
MMFA you have a real JONES' on with Savage:)
Roy, she did challenge him in a way. She asked him if he'd be willing to look at documented evidence proving the Holocaust. And you call her a "NAZI-appeaser" for that?
Well that's like asking the head of the KKK who just gave a speech on lynching blacks, "uh excshuuuuze me sir, *looks down*, would you PLEASE look at this biology book showing blacks are equal to whites, PLEASE????"
i mean come on.
Yeah, if only someone had said "you're wrong about blacks", I'm sure the KKK would have changed their collective opinion.
I mean, come on...
Look at documented evidence... ya that'll work. I'm sure he'll promptly change his mind. Then he'll adopt the Jewish faith, and marry a christian. WTH are you smoking/snorting/drinking?
Do all conservatives base their arguments on speculation and mind-reading taken as fact? Or just you?
Okay, colroy. I can't read it for you, but I can hopefully help you focus on it:
In fact, in her interview with Ahmadinejad, Sawyer stated, "I do not want to debate again the whole question of the Holocaust -- whether the Holocaust is a myth, which you have said," but then asked: "Would you be willing to go to Auschwitz and see their documentation? You're a scientist. Would you be willing to look at the room with documentation?" When Ahmadinejad responded: "Do you think it would solve any problem?" Sawyer replied: "It would be information for you if you genuinely believe it's a myth."
If you need help comprehending it, let me know. In the meantime, get a clue, or some reading glasses.
Where are those Nazis? Do you really believe your own words that she is on the Nazi side of the street?
Col,Savage is too big of a loser to ever win at anything. He cedes any points when he dives into his vile and often bigoted name calling.
Colonel, you were here not long ago saying all the Jews who died during the Holocaust are burning in Hell right now, so why are you so upset?
uhhh duh, not because they were bad people but because you need Jesus to go to heaven. If you ask anyone who believes that you HAVE to accept Jesus to go to heaven they will tell you that anyone who doesn't believe this is going to hell. The problem with you liberals is that you base it all on good deeds and if the people were victims or not when us Christians believe that God doesn't see it that way and doesn't care about anything other than accepting Jesus Christ and repenting of your sins.
Why are you so intolerant of my beliefs btw?
"uhhh duh, not because they were bad people but because you need Jesus to go to heaven. If you ask anyone who believes that you HAVE to accept Jesus to go to heaven they will tell you that anyone who doesn't believe this is going to hell."So God's chosen people from the Old Testament (the Jews) who were murdered by Hitler (who you and Savage rightly decry) are now being tortured for eternity in Hell by a just God. Check. By the way, how did God handle the infant children who were thrown into the gas chambers? They were hardly old enough to embrace Jesus as their personal savior. Are they burning too? "The problem with you liberals is that you base it all on good deeds and if the people were victims or not when us Christians believe that God doesn't see it that way and doesn't care about anything other than accepting Jesus Christ and repenting of your sins."
Someone has to be concerned about "good deeds" because it certainly isn't your buddy Michael Savage (soon, according to your logic, to be burning in Hell because he is Jewish). Also, your "us Christians believe" line is simply false; there are many Christians who do not believe this garbage. I like how you tried to create a false dichotomy between "you liberals" and "us Christians."
"...God doesn't see it that way and doesn't care about anything other than accepting Jesus Christ and repenting of your sins."
What a dim deity you worship. That's all he cares about? He doesn't have any hobbies?"Why are you so intolerant of my beliefs btw?"Because your beliefs are inherently intolerant and because they reduce the infinitely compassionate God many worship into an infantile, narcissistic child.Sorry I just have too....
"In my mind anyone who challenges someone who denies the holocaust is a nazi appeaser." - Roy
So if you tell me the holocaust never happened and I argue that it did, I'm the Nazi??? So if I show you a book that talks about the holocaust, I must be marching in the street with a swastika?
I like that. I guess he should've said "anyone who challenges someone who challenges someone who denies the holocaust..."
That would've straightened his circuitous logic ;-)
Man, I can't wait for Evillib to try and defend Savage right here. Savage clearly never looked at the transcript of the interview or even heard it. I can't wait for Evillib to say that Savage was taken out of context (which technically means his words were recorded and transcribed). He's probably going to say that Savage is right in that Diane Sawyer is an anti-semite.
And then, we are going to here from Tommy "Why is this posted here?" Yet again. It's Media Matters doing their job Tommy.
LOLOLOL... not this one. I was not listening at that time.
Nothing is out of context. Mike was right on the money about Sawyer the witch. It was a great show: look forward to many more.
Mike Nichols could easily wipe the floor with Weiner for slandering his wife, but I'm sure Mr. Nichols understands how truly worthless and ineffectual Weiner is. It wouldn't be worth wiping Weiner's blood from his shoes.
Am I misunderstanding or does this money-whore Savage not like Diane? Mr.Savage, ratings, ratings, ratings, what does that make you? Why are you so jealous of real reporters? Your show is a joke. You talk and talk but never do anything. C'mon, Savage, if you weren't always screaming out hatred, what would you have to say? Nothing.
Mr. Savage Rocks...some people, the non-thinkers, agree with this ratings whore. Can any of them explain how you can agree with this man...not the so-called commentatorbut the man and his words.
You better back your guy or he'll call you a name...
P.S. Savage, you have been using the word vermin too often, think of something new, please. It is ineffective.
Yesterday used "lower than a worms' droppings", so she got off easy.
Wow,It must be horrible to be in a constant state of hateful fury, it has to be bad for his heart. I hope Diane Sawyer ignores Savage, acknowledging this latest juvenile tirade would give him way too much publicity. He’s such a pitiful and tiny little man.
Lynn
I think Diane Sawyer will not even respond to this hateful man. She has too much class. I was listening to this jerk for 5 minutes last night and he was going on about the media and how they are ignoring Iraq and other things but then he said they are paying attention to a "Dead Sl*t with an expanded chest" . I am not trying to say either than Anna Nicole Smiths death is real news but this man has NO RESPECT for anyone , dead included and I strongly believe he hates women. Diane Sawyer did a good interview with the Iranian President. Savage is someone the first amendment should not be covered under.
Doris,
You lasted 5 whole minutes, that's more than I could do. Your stomach is much stronger than mine. (smile)
Thank god for the First Amendment.
The woman has 5 men claiming to be the father of her daughter. The medical examiner at her death trial says if the "body" needs to be viewed it has to be this week or "they cannot guarantee that there won't be changes to affect the deceased". She dies in a casino in a drunken stupor with hundreds of pharmacuticals available at arms length.
If she walks like a duck and talks like a duck...she must be a duck. You may not like Savages terminology, but he is absolutely correct on his assessment of Smith and Sawyer. They are what they are, and no amount of liberal astonishment will prevent that from being true.
He is absolutely correct on his assessment of Smith and Sawyer.
No he isn't. And all your conservative hysteria can't change that fact.
He’s such a pitiful and tiny little man....by Lynn
Agree 100%
Out of the thousands of remarks this guy has ever made, maybe only a handful ever made sense. Well just barely ;-)
I find it hard to believe that anyone [intelligent] actually listens to this guy and finds him credible.
Jeter, do you listen to him or are you basing your feeling off what this site displays of him?
Do you listen to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or do you base your opinion based on only what the Administration says? (I.e., it's a stupid question and fallacious.)
Of course. I ask a simpole question and you come back with SOME STUPID ANSWER. I was not even talking to you.
I guess you didn't understand my point, since none of what you posted responds to them...or perhaps the only way you know how to respond to criticism of one fallacy is with more fallacies.
I was looking for a simple yes or no. I do not get your point.
I was being sincere in my question. Do you not know the god damn difference?
Evil,
Those who defend him so vigorously often dismiss his hateful offensiveness as unimportant because he ruffles all political parties feathers with no regard. That may be true, but in his effort to be "candid and owing no allegiance to any policial party", he delegitimizes himself and many of his opinions because he cannot refrain from being hateful and offensive, for it's own sake.
That is my objection to him. He has the right to say what he wants, and at times his candor and disregard for political correctness is refreshing......but slurs like this topic thread highlight, are ridiculous.
And I agree with his slanders being out of line. I an not defending that slander at all. Jeter called his listeners in essnece, Stupid. LOLOLOL.......
Listening to him almost daily, I hear many intellegent people n his show. So I can only imagine he came up to that conclusion because he does NOT listen to him. That is all. And ofcourse, some idiot like the one above has to chime in without a answer. Turning the question around. Typical liberal move.
Listening to him almost daily, I hear many intellegent people n his show.
By your judgement.
So I can only imagine he came up to that conclusion because he does NOT listen to him.
In other words, you assumed. Not that it matters, since Jeter stated that he found it "hard to believe," which is different than stating it as a matter of fact. Also, we often base our opinions of people on clips and excerpts without having actually listened to them at length. I'm sure most of us here have an opinion of Ahmadinejad without having listened to him at length.
And ofcourse, some idiot like the one above has to chime in without a answer. Turning the question around.
If you don't like it, then phrase your question more carefully.
Typical liberal move.
In three words, you managed to make a dubious, fallacious generalization. I'll give you credit for your economy with words.
Just want to point out to that he has skewered many, many people over the years. Some dozens of times such as John Murtha, Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy---especially those who he feels his republican audience dislikes or wants to dislike or who interfere with the war in the MiddleEast. Sawyers is just joining the club.
Hey evillib,
I've never heard his radio program, and in fact had never even heard of Savage till I began posting here. So to answer your question, yes I am basing my opinion on what I've read here at MMFA. Please keep in mind there have been probably 200 plus threads concerning Savage since I began posting here approx 2 years ago. IF they are a true indication of his usual rants then I'll stick by my opinion that I find it hard to believe that anyone intelligent listens to the guy and finds him credible.
Savage has voiced some of the MOST inane & bigoted remarks that I have ever seen attributed to anyone. Rush Limbaugh is almost angelic compared to Savage.
Jeter2, to answer your question
Yes they are, "IF they are a true indication of his usual rants then I'll stick by my opinion..."
I've listened to him a few times, and I turned it off 95% of the way through every time. The lack of logic and the rampant replacement of "opinion" stated as fact, jsut hurt my head after a while.
I suggest reading a good Dr. Seuss book after listening to mr. weiner. It will seem more logical and based in reality, when compared to weiner.
Thanks Jeter. That is all I as wondering.
too bad Savage doesn't hold that same standard to Limbaugh, Coulter, anyone at Fox and any righty I may have forgotten. Including hisself.
-It must be horrible to be in a constant state of hateful fury-
Sounds like alot of this site.
You are talking about a person who expounds his opinions by way of synthesis through a vile, hateful religion (though not uniquely so). I am appalled, though not surprised, to hear such venom spit from a believer in the Old Testament...or should that be Tanakh?
I wonder if the Savage Weiner has asked Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an interview. Why doesn't Weiner rely on his enormous clout and credibility to land an interview with Ahmadinejad so he can deliver a dose of Weiner justice himself?
If the Weiner feels he can do a better job of interviewing then why doesn't he bring it?
Ahmadinejad's aides would likely laugh their ass off after doing 5 minutes of Weiner research.
Pete
Does Savage ever do interviews on his show? I wonder if he has the courage to say this stuff to people's faces. I can't listen to his show. Now I don't mind listening to diversed points of view, but this guy is too hateful for me. I don't want to feel the bad vibes eminating from the radio and messing with my peaceful karma (smile)
He does do interviews, but not very often. Had Alexander Hague for a half hour or so a couple months back for example. If she would call in I think he'd gladly speak to her or anyone else.
Maybe Dr. Weiner should ask to come on Good Morning America. They have Glen Beck on there so they obviously have no standards.
Glen Beck is wimpy version of a wimpy conservative. If you have a problem with Beck you must be a Bella Abzug devotee.
1976 called. It wants its insult back.
Funny how you side with Ahmadinejad's aides over a US citizen.
Are you really that stupid?
Ha ha just kidding! (not really)
LOLOLOLOL.......
You like a little ribbing now and then don't you Evil?
Glad you can maintain a sense of humor.
LOLOLOLOL....... I don't mind! :0)
I guess that shows how pitiful Wiener is. I wouldn't be surprised if a foreign leader thought Wiener was a moron. That's not taking sides, it is simply recognizing the reality.
Guessing what their reaction will be to an interivew request from the Savage Weiner is SIDING WITH THEM?
Judging from this single blurb you can assess my feelings toward Iran, Ahmadinejad and those who work for him.
Sell stupid and crazy somewhere else.
it was a stupid comment and not a serious one. Get over it.
"it was a stupid comment and not a serious one."
-----
The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. You have finally recognized the content of all of your posts. Now work on solving the problem.
ohh, my fellings are hurt.
FYI, only one person on this thread has handed me my ass back, and it is not you.
I meant Website, not thread.
Are you sure about that? Just 1? Really only one person?
I think its more then just one sir....
Actually, to put it more accurately --
Hundreds have taken EL's a$$ in arguments...Apparently one poster felt guilty enough to hand it back.
;)
Lots of US citizens are complete friggin morons, who are dangerous and should be shouted down. Being a US citizen gives a person all the rights of citizenship, but it doesn't mean that I have to thinks he's smart.
I wish Diane Sawyer would sue the neanderthal foul talking ignoramus.
This "aiding and abetting" line that is so tired and so offensive is just the tip of the iceberg.
I am not a fan of ABC "news" or Diane Sawyer- but I did see a good part of her interview with Ahmadinejad. She did address his views on the Holocaust directly.
It is incredible the way Savage misrepresents her interview. The interview she had with him was informative and interesting. We need to have dialogs like this at the highest level, we need to see the "devil" and then follow-up with research and reports to balance what he's saying.
Diane Sawyer has gone into North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran. Showing us parts of the "axle of evil" that most Americans know so little about. I commend Diane Sawyer for going to these highly volatile areas of the world and representing the Untied Stats with dignity, intellect, and diplomacy.
Savage degradation of Diane Sawyer as a journalist representing a democracy in these dark, closed places of the world speaks volumes about his own level of belief in our freedoms based on our Constitution.
He's a disgusting mouthpiece of senseless ravings.
Please sue him Diane. You'd have millions and millions cheer you on as you face down that snake in a courtroom. Show him exactly who the prostitute is.
Sue him for the freedom of speach? Why dont you get the hell out of our country if you want censorship like that. I understand you may not like his hate filled rants, but how unpatriotic of you to want such a thing.
Slander and libel are not protected by the First Amendment, EL.
If people can slander Bush and no one here cares, why is this any different?
Example?
I do not have nay to show. Let me look.
But lets say it happened. Would you care?
How would it even be possible to slander Bungle?
Nothing bad could be said about him that would not be defensible as truthful and substantial; and lying about him would require saying good things - see the S.C.U.M.* defenses of Bungle and generic Repugnants.
*So-Called Unbiased Media - courtesy of Easy to Refute Wingnuts
See, what is good for the goose is not for the gander in your world.
Just how did you arrive at that conclusion? Oh, I know - you didn't like the thurst of my post, so you devolved into falacious snark? I uphold no slander whatsoever - unless I administer it.
I wish that it were possible to slander Bungle, but, until one can demonstrate that slander can be managed against the essence of evil, or servants thereto, I continue to wonder how one could slander it?
that could have been "thrust" in a better world.
It is possible to slander Bungle. But when one has so much HATE for a person, a human, it is impossible to see it.
The question was "HOW?"
I likely could see it better if you could point out examples, or provide instruction - a "how-to-slander-evil" manual for online users.
Pete you caught Evilib in his vert own act of slander!
Savage is sooo amazingly oxymoronic it terrifies me that he has an audience.
Savage states that no one should ever speak to the leader of Iran because he has challenged the holocaust. Any rational reading of world history will show that geo-political contenders who are in physical proximity will go eventually go to war without negotiations and agreements, or a dramatic leadership change.
By declaring any conversation, at any level, with an Iranian leader to be off limits Mr. Savage is sewing the seed of a Holocaust on the entire Iranian people because of the statements of a lone political figure.
I don't believe that the survivors who stumbled out of Auschwitz in 1944 were thinking, "if anyone denies this crime has happened we will kill everyone in their entire country".
You are a real ass freckles. I was asking a question. Plain and simple.
Evil,
Please stop channeling Savage.Lynn
Why bother asking me?
I said stop channeling Savage. This guy has way too much influence on you Evil and I’m worried about you.
I know what you wrote. i had to copy and paste it into word though to see it.
Lynn, do not worry about me. I do not go around making biggot/racist remarks, or acting on them in my privacy. Is it a crime to listen to him? I listen a lot to Noam Chomsky as well. Should I stop because my friends on the right think he is a commie?
"I don't believe that the survivors who stumbled out of Auschwitz in 1944 were thinking, "if anyone denies this crime has happened we will kill everyone in their entire country"."
*****************************************************
No, but the people who say, "If you try to put me back into Auschwitz, I'm gonna defend myself," live in Israel.
Being diplomatic, President Tom of Iran openly states that he will wipe Israel off the map.
It isn't, really. Sawyer probably couldn't win a slander suit against Weiner because she, like Bush, is a public figure and it's harder for public figures to win slander lawsuits (for reasons I won't get into here). But she could sue, and it wouldn't be "censorship" or un-American. She just wouldn't win.
Thanks Rusty for the ONLY rational answer.
De nada old buddy.
hihi, bush, victim of slander? what world do you live in? Aside from the fact that you try to divert the topic, your diversion itself could not be more ridiculous.
It is no diversion. What a bunch of selfish idiots. My point being, people like you hate Bush/Savage sooo much nothing he does is good. Nothing that could happen to him would be bad enough. But then if one of YOUR HEROS is made fun of, you freak out. So much for liberal equality.
All evil is equal before the court of liberal opinion.
Bungle is evil inherently, engaged in actions which are hurtful to this nation and the world; consequently liberals condemn him. Do you not?
As to differentiation among those of mixed nature - i.e., humans - liberals tend to judge each on his/her merits; and slander becomes a consideration in such judgement.
Let us know when a major radio personality like Weiner calls Bush a Holocaust denier.
He has called Bush many other things Rusty.
Perhaps he has slandered Bungle? Or are those things he has called the Prez also defensible as truthful and substantial?
No, I would call it slander......
Aha! Now we have pinpointed some examples you could show us, to help us understand your contention that it is possible to slander Bungle! If you would cite a couple that appear to you to be slanderous, we could all learn!
2nd thought: in other words, if it were possible to slander Bungle, trust Savage to be the guy who would figure out how?
Mna, your hate for the guy wreaks of dead flesh.
Would that be "reeks"? (In a better world, at least?)
Hey, I despise Bungle, and all he hath wrought; I am less sure that I "hate" him. So, what has that to do with any of the subject matter - or even the off-topic blather you have raised about slandering the creature? Having yourself stated that Savage had called him lots of things, the question became "Did any of those things rise to slander?" If so, point out a couple, links not even necessary, so that we can determine what, exactly, you mean about this site's posters slandering him; or, at least, what you mean about Savage rising to a challenge we could not meet.
" If so, point out a couple, links not even necessary, so that we can determine what, exactly, you mean about this site's posters slandering him "
Is "money-whore Savage" (February 21, 2007 01:39:18 PM) and "the neanderthal foul talking ignoramus" (February 21, 2007 01:47:06 PM) the same as calling her a "lying whore," a "prostitute," and a "witch"? From how I understand the 1st ammendment, both have as much right to use that language as anyone else towards a public figure.
But WWJD PC?
What does Savage add to the conversation other then vitrol and hate? How does Savage help people come to an understanding so we can all resolve our differences?
Being a good christian I would think that would be your focus right?
Yes that would be the focus for a good Christian. Does Michael Savage make any claims to BEING ONE??
Apparently not, but some self-proclaimed "good Christians" listen to Wiener sow seeds of discontent and cheer him on.
" some self-proclaimed "good Christians" listen to Wiener sow seeds of discontent and cheer him on. "
In your judgement. In my judgement this site sows the seed of discontent and you cheer it on, what's the difference? It's all a matter of perspective on whether he is doing something wrong or not. Your perspective from the far left and mine from the far right.
How is quoting the right-wing verbatim and showing their comments in context in any way comparable to Wiener's bomb-throwing tactics. You make a false equivalency yet again.
No, but you do smart guy and that is who I was refering to.
You've made essentially the same assertion twice now with no proof. The best you've offered is an example that was diminished to a hypothetical. Perhaps rational posts would yield more rational responses.
I was asking a question. I stated I had no examples. But wanted a opinion. You failed......
You wanted an opinion and in order to give that opinion people asked you for more information. I think we know who failed here and that person is you sir... There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification on your question. Stop being lazy and go look up a slanderous comment about Bush.
You should also stop assuming that everyone here hates Bush. He's one of the last people I would want to have a beer with and I don't think he's very qualified to run the country, but I think "hate" is a little overboard.Was I being tested? I do not recal getting in line for a test. Therefore, how could I have failed. The question was not a win/ lose.
Testing is used figuratively in his post. When people asked you for an example, that was a test of sorts. By not providing the example, you failed the test.
It is always better to provide real examples to support your arguments instead of weak hypotheticals as you did.
I admitted I couldnot provide one, therefore exusing myself from the table. I did not post a link and you knock it down. That would be a failure.
No. Your failure was providing support for your argument. You can try to re-frame it all you want, but no one is falling for your spin.
You world is sooo black and white. So, one can not ask a opinion?
why can't we ask you to clarify before answering?
"YOUR HEROS is made fun of, you freak out" -evil
I believe you are the one freaking out right now.
(BTW I can think of one thing mr. weiner could do that would be good and I would approve of. He just needs to do it).
Yes McCain, but isn't Dr. Kevorkian in prison? I don't think he can receive calls.
I'm in favor of this too.
I am not freaking out. I am honestly trying to stay rational. You find that hard to believe? And what can Savage do to please you?
I would be quite pleased if he behaved like a civilized adult. Look I don't agree with most of what comes out of George Will's conservative head (and I've never once called him vermin or a whore), but the man has what my grandmother referred to as home training - meaning he has been socialized to interact appropriately in society.
" I would be quite pleased if he behaved like a civilized adult. "
What kind of 'civilized' are you referring to? Liberal civilized or conservative civilized. You know that one form of civilized advocates the murder of babies as a form of birth control and the other advocates having thousands of troops killed in war. Which 'civilized' do you want Savage to be more like....the baby murderers or troop killers??
Your really need to learn that the world isn't white / black and you cannot lump everyone into generic catagories.
All conservatives do not support war and not every liberal supports abortion. Your arguments make you sound childish and it's very difficult to listen to any of your points when you continue to frame your arguments that way.
Isn't Jesus about understanding?
Yes, Jesus IS about understanding. I'm not Jesus, and I would be fairly accurately guessing YOU are not also. So, what's your point?
Isn't a major point of Christianity to be more like Jesus? Do you agree with that? Of course, none of us can be perfect like Him, but do you not even make the slightest effort towards understanding?
PC you seem to enjoy getting up on a soap box to lecture and judge others based off the bible, but apparently your unwilling to hold yourself to those same high standards.
Does WWJD mean anything to you?
Aren't you suppose to emulate those qualities? Your words suggest that your being selective about the parts of his message you want to follow. Is it so you can judge others?.
Your starting to make me think that your a Christian in name only. Your nothing like the true Christians I know and respect.
As long as we're gong to go completely off topic here, "supports abortion" cannot be attributed to ANYONE. Nobody supports abortion. Lot's of people support the right to choose an abortion, but everyone hopes that the number of women who end up with an unplanned pregnancy is reduced. Everyone realizes it is an extremely stressfull and difficult postion to be in, where one must decide to have an abortion or not. Far better to work towards reducing the need for abortions.
Savage/Weiner could...
1. Read a book about the subjects he covers. that way he can be some what informed.
2. Remember that his rants do nothing to further the conversation.
3. Understand that his hate and fury, make him less of a person.
and if he can't do the above, end his show. All of these would be acceptable to me and I would aprove of them. Also he could drop the fake last name and use his real name.
I want bush to sue me. Bush is a dangerous idiot who abuses his office. There. I said it. Write him a letter. I WANT him to sue me.
No, but treason is. Diane should be in an orange jumpsuit at gitmo.
" Slander and libel are not protected by the First Amendment "
Can you prove 'actual malice'? If not then it IS protected! Learn the law before you make unwarranted claims.
I know the law, kid. I was just pointing out to EL that slander and/or libel, which would likely be the causes of action if Sawyer sued, are not protected by the First Amendment. If you had bothered to read all the posts you would have seen that I ALSO told EL that such a suit would be unsuccessful because Sawyer is a public figure.
"Evil" -Savage was not expressing his "view" that it was not in our nation's best interest that Diane Sawyer interview Iran's elected leader- he viciously attacked her with vile name calling and out and out slander accusing her of basically treason, a genocide supporter ( Nazi), not to mention purposely misrepresenting what she did ask.
As was pointed out to you this is slander, defamation of character- NOT freedom of speech.
What Diane Sawyer was doing was exercising her right as a journalist and American citizen to interview in a way that was structured to inform the public who chose to watch and listen to her interview.
This is what we attacked Iraq to do- and continue to wage war there. To support a democracy based on freedom of speech!
Savage's tirade is hate speech directed to demean and stir anger. He did this to a respected professional with no provocation form her.
Please, please sue him Diane. His hate speech does much more than pollute the air waves and feed ignorance, it encourages violence, dehumanization, and destruction.
I'm afraid suing him would have a reverse-Franken effect.
I myself hadn't heard of "Liars..." until Billo tried to sue Franken and his publisher for it. I went out and bought a copy, and another for a friend. I think right after that they had to do another printing.
By "reverse" I mean evil rather than good.
SAVAGE, so acutely sensitive about "context" himself, gives off the signal when HE is venturing into the savaging of context.
Whenever Savage utters "IN ESSENCE", whatever follows is his own ignorant "interpretation" of what he claims to be reading between the lines.
Sawyer in no way agreed that the Holocaust didn't occur. Yet, to Savage, this is what she said "IN ESSENCE". Maybe I'm being too kind, claiming Savage to be savaging context. Instead, he is fabricating an entire dialogue that did not occur. He's fantasizing, hallucinating, engaging in absolute fiction, LYING HIS ASS OFF.
So, Savage is a deranged psycopath, IN ESSENCE ... And in reality as well. And he has 8 million "fans", sereral of which grace this site. Ah, well. Hitler had his supporters as well (and his own propaganda minister). The common denominator is HATE.
I think you're right, Tex. Savage is lying. I also think he lies just to attract listeners. You know, more listeners, higher ratings, more advertising dollars... He "in essence" is prostituting his integrity for money.
Wait a minute.....an epiphany! Weiner is a lying whore!!!
" I also think he lies just to attract listeners. You know, more listeners, higher ratings, more advertising dollars... "
There's a web site out there that would lose 1/5 of it's business if it weren't for Dr. Savage. 2 more 5ths would be lost if you had your way with BOR+Rush. Then you would have no use for that certain web site! Gosh, who would you whine about then?
PC the day that this website can go out of exisitance because it's no longer neccisary is the day that all of us should get together and have a big party!
Ha Ha,Great post Tex!!
Oh yeah, and Savage, what the hell did Diane Sawyer lie about? You call her a "lying whore." You told a lie saying that Diane Sawyer didn't challenge Ahmadinejad. Doesn't that make you a lying whore as well? You lied that the media never identified Sulejman Talovic as a Muslim, when in fact several media outlets did. The Associated Press did so, and almost every newspaper and internet outlet reads uses it.
You also accused the page who accused Foley of sexually soliciting to him as a Democrat, when he was working for a Republican.
You said the Senate has become more vicious because women have been injected into it. There have been women in the Senate since 1922. You know absolutely no history, Mr. Weiner.
Oh yeah, your words on Madeline Albright, "that hag who happens to be Jewish is a triple disgrace." Your words there buddy.
You repeated a false quote of John Kerry ( where you accused him of saying that he supports"pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest") and told it as fact.
Your words. "I'm not voting for a party of ethnic minorities and women and immigrants." Thanks for being an admitted racist and sexist.
Who's a lying whore, Weiner? Listen Weiner, if you're going to accuse someone of being a lying whore, don't be a lying whore yourself.
tman 1, savage 0.
" as a Democrat, when he was working for a Republican. "
And what proof do you have that he WASN'T a democrat? Working for a republican does not make you a republican.
" Oh yeah, your words on Madeline Albright, "that hag who happens to be Jewish is a triple disgrace." Your words there buddy. "
And what part of that isn't true?
" You repeated a false quote of John Kerry ( where you accused him of saying that he supports"pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest") "
Again, what proof do you have? Or is all of this just personal opinion designed to appear as factual (like you claim Savage does)?
tman418 - 0 Savage - 3
"And what proof do you have that he WASN'T a democrat? Working for a republican does not make you a republican." --PC
Actually, it was Wiener's original statement and Wiener never backed it up despite evidence (actually working for a Republican) that would seem to undermine Wiener's argument.
You are shamelessly trying to turn the argument around and make everyone else prove the negative. It was Wiener's statement. He needed to back it up with an argument. He apparently never did.
And what part of that isn't true?" --ProudChristian
None of it is necessarily true. It is all simply opinion. Vile and unChristian, but opinion nonetheless.
"Again, what proof do you have? Or is all of this just personal opinion designed to appear as factual (like you claim Savage does)?" --ProudChristian
Again, you get it backwards. It is your burden (or Wiener's) to tell us where the quote comes from. It is unreasonable to ask anyone else to prove Kerry didn't say it.
If you disagree then I will simply ask you this:
Prove you never said you "like to have sex with little boys". Come on...Prove it! It is ridiculous logic.
" Again, you get it backwards. It is your burden (or Wiener's) to tell us where the quote comes from. It is unreasonable to ask anyone else to prove Kerry didn't say it. "
Ok, you can go here and read a story on his statement: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041005-013030-2689r.htm "I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country. No one gets a veto over our security. No one." John Kerry.
I think you will say that doesn't mean "pre-emptive strike" simply because he didn't use the exact wording. But, considering how well you are able to "imply" what others mean by what they do say, I think you'll agree he means pre-emptive.
BTW, I've been wearing a personal recorder since I was 2 and have recorded every word I have ever spoken, you can check the proof if you want. ;) Just send a self addressed stamped envelope to.... ha ha
"I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country. No one gets a veto over our security. No one." John Kerry.
Where did John Kerry indicate this was specifically in regards to pre-emptive war as Savage suggests? I suppose I missed that. Wiener's mind-reading abilities must simply be far more advanced than us stupid liberals.
As for the supposed recordings...how do I know you didn't make such a statement before you were 2? In utero maybe?
;)
" I think you will say that doesn't mean "pre-emptive strike" simply because he didn't use the exact wording. "
Wow! Did I call that one exactly right?! Obviously, if you can't understand what he is saying then you are exactly as you claim you are.
As for the recordings. You don't, but that is before the 'age of accountability' for me so I'm clear and free of any responsibility for anything said at that point.
Wow! That is some foresight you have. Even you recognized the obvious weakness in your argument as you were posting it. Do you want points for that or something? I would have to question why you even posted that argument to begin with.
Ah, but to a right winger like PC, "national security" means attacking others before they can attack us.
(BTW: I think Nigeria might have a nuclear device in 20-30 years, we should probably invade now. Just to make sure.)
Weiner doesn't like it when people deny the Holocaust because he has such deep respect for the curly-haired, large glasses people.
Hey, this whole "8 million listeners" thing got me wondering: is it just possibly a plot by the wing-nuts, to play the ratings game to win?
Maybe with three radios each, running 24/7, and at least two televisions on simultaneously, could there be a much smaller number of really dedicated nuts, distorting the ratings somehow? Reflecting poorly on the US public, by subtracting several points from the collective IQ? Just wondering . . .
Yeah, I tune in all 4 of my computers at home, and my radio in my car to him daily. So there is 5 of the 8 million.
I think you've passed the recomened Weiner intake level for a heathly, happy, and normal individual...
Evil.... I'm really concerned about your addiction to Weiner.
What about my addiction to herion?
lololol... my typing SUCKS>>>>>>>>>>>> HEROIN!
Man you really do need help! (wink, wink)
Evil you seem like a nice enough fellow. Don't you understand that people don't like Weiner because he is causing more division within our country? I know, I know, you think he's funny and entertaining and I get that, but the problem is that too many people think that everything he says is accurate and the manner in which he communicates is how our country should talk about the issues that divide us. The first thing you need to do when talking to someone that you don't agree with (if your truley interested in coming to an understanding) is that you have to listen that other person's point of view in order to open a dialog. You cannot attack someone and expect them to listen to what you have to say. You get that right?
Do you really think Diane Sawyer secretly supports the nazi cause and is a lying whore?
I know little about her. I can not make that assesment.
How do you KNOW people take him serious and act on it. How do yo KNOW he causes division. He has not divided me and my very liberal neighbores. We are very tight. Communicate very well.
I understand your point.
Evil
I think your smarter then the average bear, that's why I cannot figure out why you’re attracted to the Weiner. I think you find him entertaining for some bizarre reason, but I also think your smart enough to listen past the B.S. and draw your own conclusions. I'm not putting you in that category, but I think if your honest enough you would have to admit that his style of "entertainment" isn't meant to make us all love one another. Regardless of how you feel about Diane Sawyer, it's really not appropriate to call her a "lying whore" or frame her interview to make her look like she is anti-Semitic. It's not very responsible and kind of disturbing that he is making boatloads of cash off of making us divide and hate one another.
I've had personal contact with people that listen to him or individuals like him. They tend to emulate that style of discourse when discuss social and political issues. Do you think I want to listen to a point being made by a conservative, no matter how valid that point might be, when they start or end the conversation with "liberalism is a mental illness" or something along those lines?I'm having cut and paste font issues when I write my posts in another program and paste them into MMFA. Get out your magnifying glass!
An easy way to scrub formating from copied text:
Paste the copied text into notepad. Notepad only stores the ascii characters and not any formating information.
Copy the items again from notepad and then paste it here.
Thanks for that info, Open_Mind.
yes thanks!
There are two kinds of people who listen to Michael Weiner: people who think it's funny to listen to a mentally ill person's rantings, or mentally ill people who agree with Weiner.
(One way to tell the difference: if someone buys one of his books, that's one of the mentally ill people.)
If you don't believe me, consider the fact that Mike Nichols, Diane Sawyer's husband, is Jewish. Weiner is so dead set on slandering her, he didn't even bother to think about that, much less check it.
He laughs crazily all the way to the bank.
savage has gone on the record many, MANY times saying that AMerican Jews hate Israel, so the whole Mike Nichols is Jewish thing won't work on him. I called in one time time to tell him that I think he himslef might someday need the services of the demonic ACLU he's always railing against. He was on one of his usual "Krytallnacht" rants against immigrants or the "empty skirt" waering whores of FOX News or George Soros or some s**t. His screener chuckled, said that was interesting, and hung up on me. Dude is the only person I've EVER heard literally call himself a GENIUS. Needs to get taken down a notch. I suspect there's a lot we don't know about his relationship with Allen Ginsberg that has made him the monster he is today...If you catch my drift (wink, wink).
Who gives a bleep who Sawyer's husband is? She's a witch as Savage has correctly pointed out, and that's all that matters. The talk radio business is all about entertainment (infotainment) and Mike figured that out years ago. So he gets people fired/riled up like no other and you get your panties in a bunch: Big Freakin' Deal.
Mike's basic point about this "interview" is that it represents tha media's degenerate nature. The Iranian madman is shown to be a "down to earth" type when we know he would push the nuclear button on Isreal and America and.... if given half the chance. Wake up to reality you morons.
Funny how conservatives spin pure opinion and speculation/mind-reading into their rabid paranoia.
I hate to say it, but I agree with him.
And why is that?
I know we have a traditional and legal basis for allowing the Savages (and Limbaughs, et al) of this country, but these guys are dangerously crazy and should be AT LEAST held responsible for the type of language that they send over our airwaves. If that nasty mouth had been broadcast over the air during SuperBowl or on the old Howard Stern Show (before Satellite), I'm sure there would have at least been a financial punishment. But because this is Right/Conservative talk it's considered okay. Unbelievable!
So Mike, how do you really feel about Diane? Don't hold back this time.
Did Weiner really have an argument with a recording of Diane Sawyer?
And she still beat him?
He does that constantly. He'll get clips that he's interested in, and play them in increments of a few seconds, being sure to get his $0.02 in (loudly, if the person speaking is a political opponent). He often uses high leveled terms of debate such as, "Shut up!" or "Shut it off! I can't take it anymore!" to prove his points.
The one time I listened to his show and he played - at length - any bit of audio was when he was playing audio from one of the handful of scientists paid by the oil companies who argue that our warming trend is impacted little if any by human hands. When political dissenters call in, two types get put through: The meek, ("Hi, Dokkktor Savage, I'd just like to say that I disagree..") and the comparatively. The meek are talked over (although not as bad as Bill-O does to his), and the aggressive are shouted over, with the added bit that the aggressive dissenters are offered up as further proof of the sheer, vile Hatred that lies in the heart of Liberals everywhere.
He really is a disgusting entertainer, when you take it all into account.
" He does that constantly. He'll get clips that he's interested in, and play them in increments of a few seconds, being sure to get his $0.02 in (loudly, if the person speaking is a political opponent). "
Kind of like a certain web site you all are familiar with. Plays clips they are interested in, in increments of a few seconds. Then letting all their political allies rant and rave about how evil he is. Hmmm, is one equal to the other?
Sure PC that very same site that also provides the entire relevant portion of the conversation in transcript for you to read.
And, that's what Savage does....provides the 'pertinant' portion of the quotes. So, where's the complaint against Savage? Because he does what this site does you complain that he's doing it? That makes sense.
When does MMFA interupt quotes to insert their $.02 every few seconds and often cut off the quote before it finishes out of pure disgust? Never.
There is a pretty big difference. If you can't see the differece you have some real cognitive problems. Wiener is inserting his own words to distort the actual context of the quote and control the perception of the words being spoken. It is a propaganda tactic.
I was going to mirror the same statement. MMFA gives you thier 2 cents, but they also give you the entire text to decide for yourself. Weiner does nothing of the sort.
Dr. Savage has 8 million listeners to keep interested in his show for 3 hours a day, I think air time is expensive and he doesn't need to play an entire clip every time. He does give exact recordings of what the person is saying, so if you need to hear the entire thing, it is obviously out there for you to find. The other site has a bit more free time to devote to playing little snippets of sound bites than Savage does. I guess Savage expects the listener to have enough intelligence to locate specific quotes on their own dime, the other site knows how much intelligence is present.
Have you decided if MMFA is just like Savage yet?
You seemed to have changed your position half way through your argument.
"I guess Savage expects the listener to have enough intelligence to locate specific quotes on their own dime, the other site knows how much intelligence is present." --PC
As long as we are just speculating as to Wiener's motives, I would conclude that Wiener does not provide the entire quote precisely because he wants to control what his listeners think. I doubt many (if any at all) listeners question his veracity.
MMFA doesn't even compare in that respect as the full context is always here for us to decide for ourselves in a transparent way. Wiener is not anywhere near as transparent or honest. He is a pretty shallow and self-serving propagandist.
" I would conclude that Wiener does not provide the entire quote precisely "
You're wrong. Savage records the actual statements made by whatever person and plays the person actually saying what they say. How is that not "precise"? Like I said, you can find the entire quote if you want. His air time is restricted and mmfa's is not. If you cannot understand that part of the equation then I am not the one to teach you.
No. It is not precise, because Wiener interupts the comments.
" MMFA doesn't even compare in that respect as the full context is always here for us to decide for ourselves in a transparent way. "
Again, you're wrong. Here is how mmfa starts the entire quote that they provide:
" From the February 16 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Diane Sawyer took a trip to Iran where she kissed "
And from there the quote goes on. His talk about Saywer does NOT start there, so you are missing some of his quotes. And, when mmfa stops their coverage Savage continues talking about Saywer. Therefor mmfa is NOT providing the entire quote(s) (as you claim) for a decision to be made accurately. So, your proof of credibility is inacurate. The site creates "snip-its" that it wants to use for maximum effect, NOT the entire quotes. That is the SAME as what Savage does.
" He is a pretty shallow and self-serving propagandist. "
Name ONE radio host who isn't. No, I mean honestly, not just the ones you think aren't.
Please. Are you serious? Do you expect MMFA to post an entire show? They display the uninterupted relevant portions and provide the audio so you can here for yourself. What do you think is missing from the above that would possibly mitigate anything Wiener said?
Sorry. That should be "hear" for yourself.
Not only that, but Weiner himself has lauded MMFA for quoting him accurately.
Which website is that? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with a website that takes tiny little snippets of sound and shouts over it, shutting it off when it gets disgusted.
Please let me know what website that is, so I may avoid it.
This guy goes so far beyond the realm of conservative misinformation that El Rushbo looks like a paragon of objective journalism by comparison. What is the point in reporting this on MMFA, whose purpose is to correct misinformation? Anyone who listens to this guy (yes, "Colonel", I mean you) must be so thoroughly brainwashed that any inconvenient facts fail to register. They're like the soldiers in the original "Manchurian Candidate" film who truly believe they're at a talk on flowers, as their seargant is murdering one of his own men. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than correcting misinformation to break that spell.
Of course, by failing to confront him with my opinion, I am endorsing him.
Manchurian Candidate:
"Michael Savage is the kindest, bravest, warmest most wonderful human being I have ever known."
Give him a call.
No thanks. Talking to psychopaths only discourages them in their delusions.
Goobs,You're one of Savages disciples aren't you? The man is a corruptor of the human spirit. Please I implore you to come out of the darkness and into the light and repent before it's too late Goobs. Come on MMFA posters let’s all pray for Goobs, Rusty you have to pray too. (smile)
Not me. Just giving my 2 cents as a listener.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Goob - Just say no to the Weiner.
I'm listening to him as I write this. He's good at what he does. He's entertaining. But ok, maybe you're right, here goes,
---"My name is Goobs and I'm a Savageaholic."
I was going to say "Weinerholic", but hey I understand if you don't want to announce that in public... To each his own right?
Good for you, Goobs. The first step is admitting that you have a problem.
" The man is a corruptor of the human spirit. Please I implore you to come out of the darkness and into the light and repent before it's too late "
If that's true for Savage, then the same is true for liberalism. Please, I implore all of you to come out of the dark and into the light. Please repent, before it's too late. Well, if you believe in that sort of thing....odds are you don't. There's nothing more pleasing to the human spirit than killing an unborn child, or making love to your same sex partner or using the latest fad drug or...well, I could go on and on.
PC does being a good Christian include defending a person that lies and uses hurtful terms to describe another person? You haven't said a word about what Savage said about Diane Sawyer, but your obviously here to defend him from your posts. I'm just curious what your religion has to say about people that use hateful rhetoric and half-truths to turn a profit? What would Jesus he say about someone that attacks other people with hurtful language with the intent to cause them harm?
Can you actually form an argument without making generalizations? Instead stating your opinion on what Weiner said you've managed to make a sweeping generalization about all of liberalism instead.
Why should anyone take what you have to say in a serious manner? You sit here judging others based off your religion yet you demonstrate on a daily basis how very UN-Christ like you are in your thoughts and words.
" PC does being a good Christian include defending a person that lies and uses hurtful terms "
Prove that he is lieing! Hurtful in whose opinion? Yours? Mine? Someone elses?
" I'm just curious what your religion has to say about people that use hateful rhetoric and half-truths to turn a profit? "
MY religion does not approve of it. But, Savage is not my religion. Since you show so much concern on this particular subject answer how can mmfa get away with the same thing? Oh, that's right, they're non-profit...so they can do those things because they don't make a profit? Is that the criteria, profit making?
" Can you actually form an argument without making generalizations? "
I'm not being generalizing. I'm specifically using the word liberal.
" You sit here judging others based off your religion yet you demonstrate on a daily basis how very UN-Christ like you are in your thoughts and words. "
Who have I judged? Who are you to judge me, saying I'm being "UN-Christ like".
So, your complaints are 1) that I generalize. Then you group all 'good Christians' together...generalizing. 2) That Savage is lying, but cannot offer any evidence, 3) that Savage is profitizing from his "hateful rhetoric and half truths" while belonging to an organization that does the same (with out the profit part). And 4) that I'm being judgemental while YOU are judging that I'm un-Christian like. Got any more complaints that YOU aren't already doing??
Do you agree with Wiener that Sawyer is a "lying whore"?
What evidence do you have to support such an opinion?
Do you think it is Christian to judge people so severely without any apparent support for such an argument? Do you have any shame?
" Do you agree with Wiener that Sawyer is a "lying whore"? "
I do not know Diane Sawyer. How can I answer that? But he is entitled to his opinion just as much as the folk, here, who call him all the vial names they call him. Do THEY know Savage? What do they have as evidence, other than personal opinion? And, are they being Christian-like behaving like that? I've heard several left-sided posters say they are Christian, yet use the same language. Are they given a free pass because they hold an opinion you (may) agree with?
Someone once asked WWJD, did Jesus not use harsh words when describing the evil people in His time? Are there those who have earned the words used to describe them?
"I do not know Diane Sawyer. How can I answer that?" --ProudChristian
Pardon me if I am mistaken here. Aren't you backpedaling from one of your earlier posts on this thread:
"You may not like Savages terminology, but he is absolutely correct on his assessment of Smith and Sawyer. They are what they are, and no amount of liberal astonishment will prevent that from being true." --ProudChristian
I won't hold it against you because I don't think what Wiener said is at all defensible and your more recent post seems to acknowledge a higher degree of decency than your earlier post.
Thank you. But there is a difference between my "opinion", whether I agree with someones assessment of the situation and actual knowledge of a situation. For instance, someone says a bucket of water is cold, they tell me it has been outside all night. I agree that they are correct. It is my opinion that I agree with someone elses assessment. Do I know the bucket of water is cold? No.
How is that analogous to your agreement with Wiener? What is your basis for believing Wiener "is absolutely correct on his assessment of Smith and Sawyer."
You are trying to compare something that you can have an independently reasonable basis (water left out over a cold night becoming cold) and something which you have no apparent basis at all (Sawyer is a "lying whore").
Your logic is again insufficient. By saying Wiener is "absolutely correct", you imply that you indeed have a basis to believe it is true. Therefore, you are also indeed suggesting you know it is true as well.
I admire your efforts to spin what you said and then backpedal from your earlier remarks, but trying to defend them is getting you nowhere fast.
Prove that he is lying? Don't you think Weiner should prove that DS is a lying whore like he claims? He just accused Diane Sawyer of supporting Holocaust deniers and called her a lying whore. I need to show you how he is lying? Do you think DS thinks the holocaust didn't take place? Do you think she is a whore? What would Jesus think about this PC?Your correct, your religion isn't Savage, but you continue to defend someone that is exhibiting very un-Christ like behavior. One would have to assume that your support that behavior.
1) How did I generalize all Christian's?
2) Is DS a lying whore and a Nazi supporter?
3) You don't make any sense, MMFA lists full text of each story so you can decide for yourself, unlike Weiner Just because you choose not to read this information that is your problem not mine. FYI it's a non-profit so they aren't doing it to make money so your comparison fails yet again.
4) I'm not Christian so I'm not under the same restrain you are. You on the other hand profess to support (in a very public manner) a religion that states that you should not be judging other people yet you do so in most of your posts. I'm just going off what your own religion states... On how you should behave.
SO I'm curious if your behavior isn't Un-Christ like then your saying that Jesus would behave in the same manner? I'm confused PC, help me out here.
" Your correct, your religion isn't Savage, but you continue to defend someone that is exhibiting very un-Christ like behavior. One would have to assume that your support that behavior. "
I do not defend his words, I defend his right to say them. Much like many defend a woman's right to an abortion, not the abortion itself.
"1) How did I generalize all Christian's?" By saying "being a good Christian" implies all Christian's.
"2) Is DS a lying whore and a Nazi supporter?" I do not know her, I cannot say yes or no.
" FYI it's a non-profit so they aren't doing it to make money so your comparison fails yet again. "
Yes, I believe I mentioned that (didn't I?).
"4) I'm not Christian so I'm not under the same restrain you are."
Then I don't think you are in a position to pass judgement on me.
When did anyone say that Savage didn't have the right to free speech? Do you think that Savage doesn’t have to take responsibility for the things that he says on his radio program? I think we would all agree that in our own lives that our words and actions have consequences and this isn’t any different for a radio host. Calling Diane Sawyer a lying whore was totally out of line and appropriate in any sense of the word. Would you want your children calling people that they disagreed with lying whores?
I think any reasonable person would assume that you support Weiner’s message from your repeated attempts to defend him and if you don’t then why didn’t you just say so?
I have to say that I’m a little surprised and impressed about your comment on defending a person’s right to have an abortion and that your basically against the act itself (I had to read that twice just to make sure I was reading it correctly) I think you might be a little surprised by the number of mentally ill liberals (wink) that feel the same way you do. Most of the people I know wish abortion never had to take place, but realize that it’s a reality we have to face due to circumstance. Instead of fighting about abortion why can we just work on making it un-necessary?
If you don’t feel like I’m in the position to judge you then don’t you think you should be applying those same standard to yourself” I’ve seen you make a number of comments about “liberals” and “Muslims” that I find extremely offensive because you’ve made sweeping generalizations about people or groups that you don’t know personally. I’m not trying to attack your religion, but I have to question you when you make comments that appear inconsistent with what I do know about that religion. I think we would all be better off if we stopped being so quick to judge others (trust me all of us need to work on it including me) and tried to be more like Christ. Trying to have compassion and understanding for people that our different from ourselves isn’t a bad thing.If you don’t feel like I’m in the position to judge you then don’t you think you should be applying those same standard to yourself” I’ve seen you make a number of comments about “liberals” and “Muslims” that I find extremely offensive because you’ve made sweeping generalizations about people or groups that you don’t know personally. I’m not trying to attack your religion, but I have to question you when you make comments that appear inconsistent with what I do know about that religion. I think we would all be better off if we stopped being so quick to judge others (trust me all of us need to work on it including me) and tried to be more like Christ. Trying to have compassion and understanding for people that our different from ourselves isn’t a bad thing.
"I do not defend his words, I defend his right to say them." --ProudChristian
Actually that is not true. You have indeed defended his words as I mentioned above when you said:
"You may not like Savages terminology, but he is absolutely correct on his assessment of Smith and Sawyer. They are what they are, and no amount of liberal astonishment will prevent that from being true." --ProudChristian
You've become quite obsessed with me haven't you Christian? Or maybe it's the fact that I have the audacity to call myself a Liberal and a Christian. Thankfully you won't be the one handing out judgment on that final day. If I'm wrong about my beliefs God will let me know.
Lynn
I think he is upset because you actually try to display and emulate the teachings of Christ. Unlike a certain someone we all know.
Just my 2 cents!
Sorry, Lynn. I get a little confused (duhh ;) with the connection of liberal beliefs and Christian beliefs. Perhaps someday we can explain our positions better.
" The man is a corruptor of the human spirit. "
When you pass judgement on others doesn't that become un-Christian like, too? God will make the same judgements on me as He will you. I'm sure we both are confident we'll meet each other in Heaven. Others aren't as confident.
I don't have to explain anything to you. I only have to make an accounting of my actions and beliefs to God. You will have to do so as well, and one thing you will have to account for is being overly judgmental and self righteous. I've encountered Christians like you before. Somehow you people think that you have elevated to the level of little Gods yourself and that you are the arbiters of what constitutes a good and acceptable Christian. Thankfully I know that you guys aren't what you think you are. God is my judge. So you just go right on and continue to display your shining example of peaceful Christian love. What a living testament you are. I'm sure you believe that you're an excellent recruiter for the Christian faith.
PS
Do you really think that I believe Savage is the devil and has disciples? I believe I know who you are. You or someone just like you use to post here a long time ago. I'll tell you the same thing I told that person back then, please lighten up. It isn't a sin to have a sense of humor.Hey Lynn, I was at Ash Wednesday services last night. I prayed for all the Weiner fans to see how un-Christian they are and come into the light.
Your not going to start going door to door are ya? :0)
I'll leave ya a pamphlet.
I think Michael Savage is right on the money. It's about time we take on these America Haters who prostitute themselves for their profession. The Hollywood Elite are among them. Patriotic Americans should boycott any movies with these traitors, i.e., Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Alec Baldwin, et al.
Michael Savage is an outspoken supporter of our Military and Police Officers, Border Patrol, etc. Thank god we have someone to speak up for these heroes.
A Korean Veteran, Life Member of the VFW and member of the American Legion.
Alan Setherley
Tucson, Arizona
Dr. Weiner is a prat. But thank you for your input.
So now people who do interviews with foreign leaders are anti American? And hate America? WOW!
You sir are disillusioned as to what is really happening out there now aren't you? I do believe though, that you are in his demographic. Older, less informed folks who tend to just agree with what sounds like nice high minded rhetoric. Savage is a fool, and he's playing you for a fool. He's not right about just about anything that he talks about. He lies, he uses awful rhetoric to attack people he disagrees with, and essentially provides no substance to any of his arguments at all. He's a closeted self loather who uses the boogeyman (Iran, illegal immigrants, democrats, and so on) to try and scare people into believing him. He's a moron. And honestly, I do believe that anyone who listens to him, and takes in what he's saying hook, line, and sinker (like you have) are also in the very least in the ignorant category.
And I forgot to ask this question of you.
How does Savage "support" the troops? "Support" the police? "Support" the border patrol?
Let's see, for the troops, he encourages and or talks about how we need to send more people in to fight in Iraq, and that we need to invade Iran. WOW! Outstanding support. If I were a soldier, I'd not like his support, or his version of "supporting" the troops. Since when is supporting the troops sending them to their deaths unnecessarily? Oh, right, since the current administration has framed it in that way.
The border patrol support? Are you talking about how he has been shilling for the 2 agents who were convicted of shooting someone who was unarmed, and posed no threat? Great support there. He supports murderers.
Savage is an unhinged lunatic.
The border patrol support? Are you talking about how he has been shilling for the 2 agents who were convicted of shooting someone who was unarmed, and posed no threat? Great support there. He supports murderers.
You are worng and it is fair to say know nothing about the inncodent. So you should shut up before you find your head up your as$. I will be happy to enlighten you on this, and you will find and person in their right mind would not stand for the convictions. Firring them, yes indeed. Jailtime, no way. Your ignorance shows on this one.
Evil does your mom know that you’re playing on the computer again?
You should tell her to watch this special I saw with Diane Sawyer that talked about keeping the home computer in a centralized location so parents could monitor their kids internet usage. Very informative.
Then she should scrub your mouth and ears with a bar of soap. You've obviously gotten too much Weiner and forgotten how to play nice with others...
You wana challenge me on the posters version of the border patrol agents? I stand firm on what I said to the magnolialover. They where framed, and Bush and Co gave amnesty to a scum sucking mexiacan drug runner. A low-life belly crawling drug dealer...... Are ytou taking the side of scum like that?
Actually, it is pretty hard to find objective reporting on the incident. The right-wing media like frontpagemag.com have IMO distorted and omitted many of the details surrounding the case. I wouldn't trust anything I didn't read in either court documents or mainstream outlets as in any way reliable.
It is plain and simple. He was a drug runner who got shot in the ars br a border patrol agent. The agents covered it up. Should they have been Fired? Yes. Prison? No. It is not policy. Now, some scum bag DA goes down and gets this DRUG SMUGGLER AMNESTY to testify against the border patrol agentrs. AMNESTY TO A DRUG SMUGGLER? Is that not enough to say, FK THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY? Bush is appeasing the scum sucking president FOX.
A jury that was shown the facts of the case disagree with your opinion.
" Great support there. He supports murderers. "
Obviously, you know NOTHING of the case. The guy was shot in the butt, while running away after being caught transporting hundreds of pounds of pot into the country (maybe you were the intended recipient?). NO murder! It's called an ass-whoopin and the mexican whined to his friends in 'high' places to get a case going......reeks of liberalism. But, that's how the democrat(ic) process works, you stop the illegals and get sued for doing it.
Why didn't you mention how the agents lied about the shooting and tried to cover-up what happened? Hmmm....
The US Attorney, Johhny Sutton responds to the Right-Wing distortion campaign with the facts of the case:
“Agents Compean and Ramos were prosecuted by my office because they committed a number of serious crimes. They shot 15 times at an unarmed man who was running away from them and posed no threat. They lied about what happened, covered up the shooting, conspired to destroy evidence and then proceeded to write up and file a false report."
The US Attorney, Johhny Sutton responds to the Right-Wing distortion campaign with the facts of the case:
He was appointed by the scum bag in office, you aware of that? And he is a scum bag as well. He will go down for this. MARK MY WORDS. I would hold a Water Pistol to his head myself for the traitor he is.
You have not addressed Sutton's arguments.
Before you go off, I am not supporting what they did. But the coverup by government, anfd the sentance was way out of line. THAT is my argument. It is to appease that scum sucker FOX.
So you agree that these officers broke the law and should pay for it. You just disagree with the sentence. Is that your argument? Maybe you should lobby for appointment to the federal bench so you can hand out punishment willy-nilly.
" Why didn't you mention how the agents lied about the shooting and tried to cover-up what happened? Hmmm.... "
I read your link. It left out some information that may be of importance to you and I. First, how close was the Rio Grande? 10ft, 100yds, 1 mile? My guess it wasn't very far considering that the shot mexican still was able to run to the border. That could be a factor why they didn't pursue him. Since Mr Sutton didn't mention that in his 'fact filled report'. And, second, how did the agents know he didn't have a concealed weapon? It was noted his hands were empty, but what about his pockets? Does this mean that any criminal now only has to show empty hands before fleeing law officers and they have a right not to be shot at?
Yes, I think the sentence is too harsh. Is breaking departmental procedures enough to send them to prison? I'm sure there are departmental punishments that cover what they did, and prison shouldn't be one of them. Isn't putting them in prison a sort of double jeapordy? If they are murdered by the current crop of mexican felons while in prison then the judge essentially handed them the death penalty knowing they would be in that specific danger while in prison. Is the death sentence worthy for those who lie and cover up a shooting. BTW, if they hadn't covered it up it would have been considered a "good shooting", not illegal. So, it isn't the shooting that has been the focus of the attention, but the cover up of it.
You are welcome to your opinions, interpretations and speculation.
This is why we have juries in this country. They considered the relevant facts of the case and came to a different conclusion than you apparently did.
" You are welcome to your opinions, interpretations and speculation. "
And you are welcome to yours. You failed to answer the question about other criminals who raise their hands before fleeing. Is that going to be allowed now? Just what part of the action are you in disapproval of? The cover up or the shooting? You complained about someone else not answering to the actual link you provided. I did answer them and you brush it off with no regard. That came as a total surprise....not!
I don't know where this case establishes any particular rights for alleged criminals. However it appears the agents actions were a clear violation of border patrol policy. Maybe you should direct questioins to the border patrol.
I would think that if a suspect does not surrender and does not appear to have a weapon or present a danger in any way he/she should be physically persued and detained. It happens all of the time without law enforcement officers discharging their firearms.
Actually PC, Police (and Boarder Agents) are not allowed to shoot people because they may have a weapon in thier pockets. That would set a dangerous precident.
"Why did you shoot that driver. -Judge"
"Because after I pulled him over for speeding, I thought he may have a gun in his pockets. -Officer"
"Did it look like he had a weapon, or did you pat him down to see?"
"No, I just thought there might be a chance he did."
Although I am still working my way through the latest versions and interpitations of the Homeland Security info and the Patriot Act for my political science thesis, I have yet to find where they changed that language. No where does the assumption or unfounded belief that a suspect has a weapon justify police firing weapons even once.
Yes, I agree.
We should only watch movies starring Ronald Reagan, Charton Heston, Mel Gibson or Patricia Heaton.
That would be agony, although Charlton Heston was a damn fine actor in his day.
Diane, all I can say to you is you're probably the lowest creature in American journalistic history.
No, Michael, that would be you.
Diane Sawyer is married to a Jew. Mike Nichols.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Isn't this the same Michael Savage who is talking about "killing 100 million Muslims"? According to Wikipedia, both Jews and Muslims are part of the Semitic religions.
When Savage is talking about killing 100 million Muslims, that makes him a worse anti-Semite than Ahmadinejad! So Michael Savage, SHUT THE F--- UP!
It is estimated that 100 million muslims are fanatical, ie, they want US dead. By us I mean any non-muslim. Savage wants this nuber of muslims dead to prevent them from killing us first. Obviously this can't be done but the point is it's not RANDOM muslims, it's the fanatics that park planes in buildings
"It is estimated that 100 million muslims are fanatical" --savagerocks
Who estimates that number? What data are it based on? Calling that an "estimate" seems more than a bit generous. Engineers would call that more of a W.A.G.
" Who estimates that number? "
Not you liberals!! You only think there are 20 fanatics out there. And 19 were killed attacking the US.
that sure made sense PC! Instead of defending the number put out (which you can't) you make yet another smear against all liberals and support bigotry against Muslims.
Did you learn that in bible class? WWJD!
Ok, you got me on that one. I was being a little sarcastic against liberals. But, it's a well earned sarcasm.
You ask WWJD...why don't you look it up and tell me. Then we both can pray together that we each learn to stop bickering like little children.
The question remains: Where did that 100 million number come from?
There are over a billion muslims. Some estimate 30% are moderate to radical. I heard it straight out of the mouth of a X-Terrorist gone peace activist. I have heard so many say, 1%. PROVE IT!
"Some estimate 30% are moderate to radical." --EL
More illogical mumbo-jumbo. What method was used to garner that "estimate"? Who are "[s]ome" for that matter? "Some" monkeys? "Some" village idiots? Who?
"I heard it straight out of the mouth of a X-Terrorist gone peace activist. I have heard so many say, 1%. PROVE IT!" --EL
Again. So many silly and baseless statements. I simply asked the basis for the "estimate" and you assign an estimate to me and ask me to prove it. Ridiculously shallow logic. I haven't made an estimate. It would seem foolish to me to base a meaningless estimate on nothing, but what I may pull from my nether regions. You and your ideological twins, however, seem to be under no such restraint.
I suppose by not answering the question in any adequate way, we can reasonably and safely infer that the "estimate" isn't based on any reasonable information at all.
YOUR estimate as well as mine holds no bare without links? You agree?
Again. I made no estimate.
You failed to support the basis of Wiener's estimate as well.
It is pretty pitiful to see you try to re-frame the debate so transparently.
Sheesh, are you never happy? Go here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3580.htm read about Syria (a terrorist sponsoring state) and here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9516/ read about Lebanon (another terrorist state) Within both of these countries are over 18 million people. Half will be men and half will be women. Since one country is a terrorist sponsoring state and the other is a terrorist state, you can safely say there are more than 100,000 terrorists. Should we take a census? But, that's only 2 countries out of the (how many in the world)? I think you live in a liberal land of denial. I think you don't want to put a number on how many terrorists there are, because that would justify our fight against them. I think you feel there are only 20 terrorists and we already killed 19 of them. I think you don't beleive there are any terrorists out there in the world. I think you believe there are only individual crazed wackos who keep planting road side bombs and use clorine to kill innocent civilians. I think that is what liberalism is teaching you to say and being a good student you will repeat it over and over and over again. But, that's just my opinion.
"Since one country is a terrorist sponsoring state and the other is a terrorist state, you can safely say there are more than 100,000 terrorists."--ProudChristian
First of all, Wiener's original "estimate" wasn't 100 thousand as you misstate above. It was 100 million -- more than the entire populations of Syria and Lebanon combined using your own figures.
Secondly, no you can't use that kind of logic to make your case either. The US has sponsored terrorism in the past. Does that make the people of America terrorists? Are you a terrorist? I'm not. People do not always agree with their country's leadership.
"I think you don't want to put a number on how many terrorists there are, because that would justify our fight against them."--ProudChristian
No. I honestly don't know how many there are. I think conservatives like to pretend they know things that they really don't (as I have pointed out). Most rightwing arguments are at their very essence founded on absolutely nothing at all just like your current argument appears to be.
Did Jesus judge the whores, lying or otherwise?
Or did He forgive them, and urge them to do better?
Are liberals really that much different than the whores and lepers to whom Jesus ministered?
" Did Jesus judge the whores, lying or otherwise? "
He certainly judged the priests and scribes. What's your point? Judgements are made every day and, as a Christian, I am expected to be able to judge evil from good. There is nothing wrong with making those judgements.
You weren't give persmission to pass judgement on others... Isn't that suppose to be God's job?
Aren't you suppose to treat all people with compassion regarless of thier circumstances and choices in life?
" Aren't you suppose to treat all people with compassion regarless of thier circumstances and choices in life? "
I most certainly am given the right to pass judgement on people. I have been given a duty to judge whether evil is or isn't. Would you welcome Charly Manson into your home and let him feed breakfast to your children while you go to work?? I am most certainly able (and allowed) to judge evil. God may forgive Manson for what he's done, does that mean I will let him into my home? I don't think so. Why not? Because I think he is evil. That is a judgement I have to make, do you like me making that judgement? I don't care one way or the other. You can make your own judgements.
I always find that interesting, "He certainly judged the priests and scribes. " -PC
especially in a modern context. On one side we have liberals (both Christian and non-Christian). On the other we have "Christians" (such as yourself) who in public profess thier faith and judge others who do not fit with thier ideals of being Christian.
Didn't Jesus attack the priest and scribes, because while these people were considered holy and moral, they passed judgement on others? Were they not denounced because they used thier religion to attack those they saw as un-fit and immoral?
Just a thought PC, maybe take a second and think about it, before you respond.
Lemme help you with that, Rocks --
"It is estimated [by right wing nutjobs who have little idea of how the world works] that 100 million muslims [give or take 90 million] are fanatical, ie, they want US dead [or maybe they are just fighting back against western empirialism, but we'll just say they hate our freedoms and use selective reasoning to say they're out to get everybody]."
That should clear some stuff up.
Savage's perfect world!!!
See, in my world, Diane Sawyer would have had her passport seized upon coming back to America. And the smirk would have been driven off her face as she was booked, the handcuffs on the back of her hands, for aiding and abetting the enemy, the Hitler of our time. She would have been fingerprinted and booked for sedition. Then we would have seen if she was still smirking giving her little speech. OK?
Let’s see, I'm sure those doing the booking and wielding the handcuffs are wearing black leather trench coats. The Savageite world of think like me or else. How “American” of him.
May I ask a question: Is Mr. Savage the father of Andrew Dice Clay? Or was Andrew Dice Clay really Mr Savage in his younger years?
The real question is: What "money whores" hire guys like the Weiner Whore? And what "hate-whores" believe what this Weiner CystJockey have to say? OOPS, sorry DrEvillib.
me a hate whore? Show me some examples please.
"hate whore" is a little extreme...
I think it would be more accurate to say that your a Weiner fanatic... or do you prefer Weiner junkie? Weiner addict? Fixated with the Weiner?
It's interesting you libs are calling people "hate whores" since Kevino just potsed he wanted to kill Savage. I'd call that pretty hateful
You are absolutely right. Kevino stepped over the line with his post above. I flagged it for its violent content. We will see what MMFA does about it.
You libs? How does one stupid post by one person = you libs, as in all of you. Whomever posted that message was way over the top and I'm glad it was removed.
I'm curious what you think about the big W and his comments about Diane Sawyer as you still haven't commented on that Savagerocks?
I admit I have never heard this Savage character, so I don't know much about him. But it is easy to see who the whore is...Diane Sawyer is a respected, accomplished journalist, whose career is well-established and whose integrity is of the highest order. In order to bring attention to himself, Savage (is that a label or name?) is using her name and reputation as a punching bag. He is "pursuing a faithless, unworthy or idolatrous desire" for notoriety, at the expense of a woman with more class in her little pinky than this oaf will ever have.
Why is it that these right-wing mediots have any audience in a civilized nation? Most Americans will understand his views have no credence, but the vehement hatred he spews betray his inadequacies.
Basically if Iran and Ackmawhatereverhisnameis are not stopped from getting the bomb which he's already made clear he wants to use on Israel, then we DO have the next Hitler on our hands. Savage was pointing out that Sawyer and other members of the media like Mike Wallace fail to call him on such statements.
" 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, "
8 MILLION! 3rd in the NATION! If he is lying and pulling things out of his 'you-know-what' then he wouldn't have 8 million listeners per week. Maybe he says those things to get ratings, if so, then apparantly 8 million agree with his thinking. How many liberals have shows that reach 8 million a week? Perhaps when there is one that speaks enough truth to garner 8 million listeners a week, then the liberals may have some validity to their constant complaints. But, until then.... this is all you have.
Hey wait a minute....the lib host on Air America pull in DOZENS of listeners at a time. They're VERY successful.....at least they're getting reinforcements through the fairness doctrine
"[A]pparantly 8 million agree with his thinking. How many liberals have shows that reach 8 million a week? Perhaps when there is one that speaks enough truth to garner 8 million listeners a week, then the liberals may have some validity to their constant complaints." --ProudChristian
The Argumentum ad Populum logical fallacy rears its illogical head once again:
"[I]n logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so."
"
"[I]n logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." "
Yes, and that's why so many liberals believe in murdering millions of lives for the sake of birth control. Oh, wait, that's not what you're trying to say, is it?
PC - I'm curious when is it ok to take life? I'm just trying to sort all this out because I'm confused by all of your posts because they seem to be inconsistent.
You've advocated for killing terrorists and collateral casualties don't seem to bother you very much, yet I know that your deeply troubled by the termination of a pregnancy.
Please explain when it is ok in your estimation?
Good show! Whenever you're proven incorrect, pull out the abortion BS and throw the word "liberal" around. That'll prove your point.
Yeah, well it works so well. Many liberals complain about losing 3 thousand troops fighting an evil worse than nazi's, yet fight for the right to kill millions of innocent babies. I'm sorry I just can't let that kind of hypocrosy go unmentioned. When the many liberals stop their staunch support of abortion for birth control then I'll stop using it to argue against the many liberals "too many deaths" anti war stance.
Shouldn't you be out killing "abortionists," PC? Think of all the babies you'll save from being murdered.
I suspect that you, like most abortion trolls, don't really care about all the "murdered babies." You just enjoy using abortion as a club to bash liberals with. Maybe that's part of the reason Republicans just can't quite seem to outlaw it. Too useful as a club.
How did we get from pointing out PC's silly logical flaw to abortion? PC is all over the place...again. At least he isn't asking for Chinese-Americans to pay slavery reparations this time. Or maybe I wrote too soon.
Like most of his/her ilk, PC drops the a-bomb whenever he/she's out of arguments. They think that just by saying "abortion - booga booga!" they automatically invalidate anything a liberal has to say about anything. That's why they're secretly happy that abortion remains legal.
Inresting, but you still haven't answered my questions from above. Please re-read and answer the question sir. When do you think its ok to take life PC?
" but you still haven't answered my questions from above. Please re-read and answer the question sir. When do you think its ok to take life PC? "
I re-read, and you never actually asked me that. But I'll answer. During a war (as long as the specific order to kill isn't immoral. ie My Lai). When punishment for particular crimes permit.
re-read 7 posts up from yours.
Ok but those are laws created by men and I thought that the only person that could pass judgement was the big G?
It is pretty funny how you blatantly deflect from your obvious logical error by trying to change the subject.
Pitiful.
"8 MILLION! 3rd in the NATION! If he is lying and pulling things out of his 'you-know-what' then he wouldn't have 8 million listeners per week."
There have been times in the past where most people believed the world was flat. It doesn't make it so.
And now people belive in Global Warming caused by humans.... LOLOLOL
30 years ago we where told the world was heading to a freeze. Remember that ever happening?
Good thing we created all of those horrible earth-destroying emissions to reverse that freeze, eh? We can stop now.
Not me. I am no sheep. I want PROOF. Got any? DOHHHHHH. nope, no PROOF. Lots of, possible this, and possible that. Go back to grazing you sheep.
Proof is an unreasonable standard in this case. Your expectation is irrational. You can never have absolute proof because you cannot eliminate every possible competing variable.
However, it appears you will have to engage your cerebral cortex at some point and do some deductive reasoning. I hear that can be quite painful for some people. Heads have been known to spontaneously explode from the experience.
BTW, need a smog hook up? $300.00 bones, ill get ya passed.
:0)
You must be living in not so sunny CA.
No, you are not able to cheat with the smog machines in Calif. They are directly linked to the State headquarters and you have to be directly hooked up to the vehicle.
I don't know what EL is talking about then because I believe he does live in California.
EL drives old RX-7s so I bet he knows how to circumvent the smog rules.
8 million, 80 million , who cares? He and his multi-national corporate employers are using a federally regulated medium to make profits with what many would consider to be inappropriate language. Pretty simple, flood the FCC with complaints, lawsuits etc. , let the courts decide if screaming vile hate is allowed on public radio.
Damn straight. If Weiner can say all this mess, why can't I see a nipple on broadcast television?
A segment of our population must necessarily fall below the established IQ for functionality. Perhaps 30% would be marginal or lower.
Coincidence that Bungle's approval ratings float around 30%? I think not!
And Savage can garner only 8 million, perhaps 9% of Bungle's 30%? That clearly clinches the case!
So why doesn't lib radio shows work? BTW, 168 IQ, just in case you wanted to know
My bad, why don't lib shows work?
SavageRocks
IQ = 168
Common Sense = 0
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You guys in the lower half of the top 2% are sooooo sad!
Savage - Don't you have anything to say about what the big W said about Diane Sawyer?
Just curious of what you think about this topic..
You're right, Rocks. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are hanging on by a shred, it's so sad.
He's a militant Neo-Con, and a professional agitator..... too bad so many people think what he says is "commentary"....
Militant neo-con?
<><> He's a militant talk radio host. Get over it.This guy sounds like a drunk with Tourette's Syndrome.
And that opinion would be from....personal experience?
a low life f&^$@!ing you know what.
diane sawyer does suck pretty hard.
but every time savage opens his mouth he embarrasses the whole damn country.
I always find it ironic that Savage uses the anti-semitism card when he's a self-hating jew not to mention a racist.
I also love how conservatives act as if network news is some sort of liberal stronghold.
He is right that this wasn't a "tough" interview. But that's typical of the corporate news media. Look at how Katie Couric threw softballs to Dubbya.
As for the "whore" and "witch" comments, it's typical Savage. I actually like when the right-wingers do that. It exposes how ugly and desperate they truly are.
And if anyone's a "whore", it's Savage for rolling with a crowd that would gas his people if they ultimately had their way.
"There's nothing more pleasing to the human spirit than killing an unborn child, or making love to your same sex partner or using the latest fad drug or...well, I could go on and on."
LOL! I love it.
I'm liberal. I'm also VERY heterosexual. VERY anti-drug. And I wish no other woman would ever have to have an abortion.
I'm also white and blue-collar. I don't wear the hat of "liberal" because I'm gay, do drugs, or think abortion's totally awesome.
I wear the hat because people on the Right have been screwing over people like me, working men, for decades and decades by trying to make us afraid of gays, jews, blacks, etc.
People on your side of the fence do absolutely NOTHING for the majority in this country, which includes people like me. We're all dumb, working-stiff, white-trash to you.