Savage on Media Matters: "a gay website that attacks me every day"
On the February 27 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters for America item that quoted him saying: "I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I think it's child abuse." In his response, Savage said, "I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in," and added, "I stick by every word I wrote." Savage, although reading directly from the Media Matters item, did not refer to Media Matters by name, calling it instead "a gay website that attacks me every day." On his January 30 show, Savage vowed, "I'm not even going to read [Media Matters'] name anymore."
As Media Matters has documented, Savage has repeatedly claimed that Media Matters has an "obsession" with him and has referred to Media Matters as "a group of swine."
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. The Creative Artists Agency, one of the world's leading talent and literary agencies, recently announced that it had signed Savage for "representation in all areas," including television and film.
From the February 27 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: So here are some of the stories that you have not responded to: "Savage on gay marriage, parenting says it makes me want to puke, I think it's child abuse." That's reported by a gay website that attacks me every day. I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in.
"On the February 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, after playing an audio clip of the beginning of singer Melissa Etheridge's acceptance speech at the AA [Academy Awards] in which she thanked her wife and four children, Michael Savage said: 'I don't like a woman married to a woman. It makes me want to puke. ... I want to vomit when I hear it. I think it's child abuse.' Savage later similarly stated, quote, 'I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission. What does a child know? Ask them when they're 16 whether they want to be raised by two lesbians or two men.' Savage added: 'What are the two men doing behind the other wall? You think the children don't hear it?' "
Well, it's exactly -- on the same broadcast, they write, in response to a caller who asked, "How do we answer our kids when we're forced to -- listen to this homosexuality being inflicted upon us?" And the man was calling, remember when he said he was listening to -- here it is [reading from Media Matters transcript]:
CALLER: My wife was sitting on the couch with our 7-year-old daughter when Etheridge got up and did her piece thanking her wife and four kids, and our daughter looked over at our -- at Mom and said: "Was that a man?" And how do we answer our kids, Michael, when we're forced to listen to this homosexuality, which is inflicted upon us?
SAVAGE said: I will tell you how you answer it: You say there are people who are sexually confused, who think that they're men when they're women. They're not normal. Normal people are not like that. Normal people are like Mommy and Daddy. Mommy and Daddy are normal. There are people who are not normal, who have a confusion in their head, and they think they're a man even though they look like a woman. That's what you have to say to them otherwise the child will grow up confused.
CALLER: Yeah, that caused confusion. Thanks for your input, Doctor.
SAVAGE: I guess they didn't like this. I guess they don't like what most people think about this subject.
[Again reading from Media Matters transcript] Then Savage added: Yeah, I mean, why be ashamed to tell your child what reality is? You can't tell a child what reality is? Maybe in a few years you won't be able to tell your child that. Maybe they could turn you in like in Nazi Germany -- "Mommy told me that two women are not normal." Maybe the police will come and take your child away in a few years if these scum-sucking vermin continue this brainwashing garbage.
Everywhere I turn I've never seen anything like it. From the high to the low, from the top to the bottom, from East to West, the vermin are brainwashing all of you all the time. I am one of a few, and there are some really good people out there, with the last bridge of reality.
SAVAGE: I'm Michael Savage. I stick by every word I wrote. I'll be right back.
Everybody show your Gay Membership Card - if it's expired, time to renew.
Weiner is longing to swipe his card for use.
Oh, puh-leeeeeze. This site is no where near fabulous enough to be gay. Ruhlly.
I am 100% onboard with gay marriage... just as long as both women are hot. ;-)
"I don't like a woman married to a woman."
Ye, but I'd bet he'd dig some girl on girl porn... ;>)
His obsession with "everything gay" makes me think he'd like the opposite.
Yeah maybe Savage and Tim Hardaway sould hook up.
Hardaway can do better. Waaaaaay better.
I think that much concentrated, self-hating homoeroticism would create a rip in the space-time continuum.
Oh my, I bet they would like that! Another black hole they can 'probe'!
Lynn -- Not sure if you happened to read this on the ESPN site...
Scoop Throws Tim a Life-preserver
I, ah, don't think it worked. Tim and Savage have a lot of 'fear' in common, I think ;-)
"I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in,..."
Doesn't Dr. Weiner attack people every day for what they believe in?
I think it would be much harder to explain the existence of someone like Dr. Weiner than it is to explain a loving couple next door, regardless of their sexual orientation.
That's just the opinion of this scum sucking vermin.
How did the Savage Whiner get his "Dr" degree?
From the "Close cover before striking" college?
Haven't you ever heard of Cracker Jacks? There's a surprise in every box!
from his days of selling fake vitamins and AIDS 'cures'
UC Berkley, Epidemiology (look it up) and Nutrition - that's a double Ph.D. from one of your favorite liberal institutions of higher learning.
Excellent point.
However, there is one good thing about Weiner--at least he's up front about his racist, homophobic, leaning towards fascistic views. This is in contradistinction to Ann Coulter, who not only denies her own racism and homophobia but reverses it, saying that liberals are the racists and homophobes. So that's one thing.
ProudAtheist!!
Finally, where's PC, you two could have a debate. :)
Careful. I said a similar thing once and it was used and reused by another poster to falsely say that I defended Savage.......now I am off to eat a bowl of "Clams Casino".
Actually, all I did was link back to your own damning words, which were, "Give him his props though, MMFA has their views and he has his. Both are upfront and honest about it, and that is admirable no matter which side you are on." And "[H]e has the cajones not to backpeddle or sugar coat it, and I have respect for that alone." I never falsely accused you of saying anything you didn't say, and I always provided the link to the entire thread for the whole context. [link to mediamatters.org]
And I am beginning to see some similarities between you and Savage. Let's play Guess Who Said That?
a. "I don't know why they're attacking me for what I believe in[...]I stick by every word I wrote."
b. "I stand by all my comments here[...]I am just a poor little poster on one website throwing my opinions out there."
c. "[T]hey're obsessed with me."
d. "He's obsessed with me."
thinking about the 'upfront' thing (outside of his gayside). He's a bit like pat robertson. very obvious. and, you can keep an eye on him. and these people are definitely predictable. you almost know what they will say before they say it-no matter how unhinged or hatefull. i mean, as opposed to like Rev. Ted and his bag of speed and his boy massage. I think it's the slippery ones (yuck) that you have to watch out for. Weiner is a bit like the Cowardly Lion.
However, there is one good thing about Weiner...
That's like saying that there one good thing about the ebola virus: it can't be spread by toilet seats.
I get your point though. It's good to know where you stand with someone. But at the same time, he does sort of act the lightning rod for those with those hates, and lets them know not only that they're not alone, but that maybe they're right.
Give him a soap box on the corner, not a syndicated radio program.
Whoops...
Sorry Proud Atheist, I've been signing off some rebuttals to ProudChristian with your handle... totally accidentally, I'm so sorry, I didn't know that name was taken.
Oh, don't worry. Michael Savage, like Ann Coulter, also projects his hatred and bigotry onto liberals.
Why do liberals refuse to engage in actual debate about actual issues, but rather insist on attacking your political foes personally and without any factual basis for your attacks?
It's turnabout and it's called fairplay when talkin' about Savage.
We are dog tired of these false assertions by conservatives so we counter with harsh reality. If you don't like it go somewhere else or bring a fact based debate because we are not going to let falacies and lies just hang in the air like some noxious flatulence.
You defend your refusal to bring a fact-based debate with an insistence that I bring a fact-based debate. That's not turnabout, it's just circular.
Yeah. I was provoking a mud war. It's turnabout. You come in here making broad provocative generalizations and expect someone to play nice, nice. Screw that and screw your attitude
Neither one of us have presented any supportable facts.
"a loving couple next door"
What I don't get about people like Michael Savage is the seemingly total lack of appreciation of the concept of two people loving each other. Okay, you find homosexuality repugnant? Then don't be gay. But humans are hard-wired to have someone to love... makes life better that way. It's the people who aren't wired for love that worry me... And although it takes more than just a loving heart to be a good parent it's not a bad place to start.
considering gay people (like everyone else) do their business indoors and out of sight, exactly what is grossing him out? Holding hands, or the occasional kiss?
What grosses him out is the fact he just can't quit thinking about it, obsessing really. I know that says something about Weiner but I just dont care to speculate about what that is.
no doubt dude. i am really grossed out by avacados. i just am. never liked them. they even made me sick once! but, i see avacados in the store all the time. some of my very best friends enjoy avacados. Hell, I have even see avacados from outside the country sitting ON OUR SHELVES. But as long as i don't eat the avacados...they just don't seem to bother me so much.
i don't get it with the gay thing. maybe it would help them if they stopped thinking about it.
considering gay people (like everyone else) do their business indoors and out of sight, exactly what is grossing him out? Holding hands, or the occasional kiss?
His problem is that he lives in San Francisco where it's ok to have gay pride parades where some homosexuals choose to dress in S&M garb, whip each other on the streets, etc. Unfortunately THIS portion of the homosexual community makes it difficult for the majority of gays that lead non-eccentric lifestyles. The hypocricy is that some liberals promote and welcome open displays of gay sexual behavior and decry open display of religious behavior.
An incisive observation. Maybe "religious" displays should be allowed only under the protection of parade permits.
Most major cities have annual Pride parades. Savage would have the same issues if he lived in Minneapolis or Chicago or Omaha.
The leather contingent (which doesn't necessarily correlate with S&M, by the way) is always well-represented in these parades, but so are other groups within the gay community. None of these groups/people are permitted to actually whip each other or engage in open sexual acts on the street.
(Although, apparently, all of any of that would be fine with you if the gays in question were "hot women", right?)
"The hypocricy is that some liberals promote and welcome open displays of gay sexual behavior and decry open display of religious behavior." --cann0nba11
Firstly, this is a strawman. Who "decr[ies] open display of religious behaviour?" Give a specific example that does not involve the government. Let's keep this apples and apples, shall we?
Secondly, if you insist on making a comparison to the government's restrictions, I will have to remind you that the government is not prohibited from endorsing sexual behavior in the Bill of Rights. However the First Amendment puts specific limits on the interaction of government with regards to religion.
To answer your first question, the ACLU vehemently fights any public display of religion that doesn't occur on private property. The list of examples would be nearly endless.
Second, if you had read the first amendment you would know that Congress is estopped from interfering with the "free exercise" of religion, not from allowing it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .."
Many commentators put forth the idea that Thomas Jefferson, as a framer, intended the controversial doctrine of "separation of church and state" to control the application of this clause. There are two problems with this point of view, however: 1) The phrase, "separation of church and state," didn't appear in the lexicon of public debate until the 1950's, and 2) Thomas Jefferson was not a framer of the Constitution and did not attend the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was drafted by Congress and submitted to the states in 1789 (there were twelve proposed amendments, two of which were not ratified).
While it is probably true that the First Amendment was based on Jeffersonian thinking, what the left often ignores is that it was and is a two-sided coin. Liberals often advocate the elimination of any semblance of religion in public life, rather than acknowledging that the drafters of the Bill of Rights intended a balance between freedom from mandatory expressions of allegiance to a religion and the right to freely express genuine faith. Contrast this with their experience with the Church of England, which required compliance (not unlike what we see today in Muslim countries).
So this is the latest from the horse's hinnie who told his listeners the sun was millions of light years away from earth and then refused to admit his error? If the Silly Savage is our last bridge to reality we really are in deep horse pucky.
Pehaps "Doctor" Savage should remember - "You don't have to be happy to be gay."
And why does it take such a short space of time to bring up the odous Nazi Germany comparison. WTF? Where did that one come from?
Finally, of course, he didn't "write" anything...
Did he really say the sun was that far away? That's a riot...also, his mentioning of nazis at the drop of a hat is right up there with Cal 'Dobson is my soul mate' Thomas always comparing democrats to some form of nazism...
Actually, it appears that the Sun is about 16 millionths (sp?) of a light year away. Surely, someone just misheard Savage Michael.
What a blanking, blanking, idiot
"say to them otherwise the child will grow up confused" -Weiner
Maybe try to teach your childern acceptance, understanding, love of all people, etc. (you know those "Christian" values.) I hardly every wish people real harm, I usually hope they are able to grow and better thenselves, but Mr. Weiner is making me hope something really nasty happens to him
There's nothing "Christian" about condoning destructive behavior.
Exactly.
It is anathema to despise another human being.
Especially those that are trying to raise decent American families.
CLSN, why do you hate American families?
CLSN, not approving is hating, dontchaknow?
Well CLSN,
If you don't like it so much or feel its bad. My best advice is that you not engage in homosexual behavior.
And what do you mean by "destructive"? Wanna use some of James (I wouldn't know science if it bite me on the a$$) Dobson's "research." Or how about NARTH? I think there may be one scientist working there that has not been sued or rejected by the scientific community for thier missuses of other's research or outright lies. (gee its a group founded by a guy who made wild claims, not backed up by research or statistics or math. Than complains the American Psyc Assoc kicked him out because of his views. No its because instead of backing up your claims with research, you instead lauch a media campaign. Than after that he got kicked out of the American Association of Socialogy (sp? brain fried today). Because he published papers (non-peer reviewed) that were cut and paste jobs of other scientist's papers.) Sounds credible.
(don't get me started on Dobson, just check out some of the letters sent recently to him by scientists, who are really POed because he cherry picked thier work and even changed the conclusions that they came too.)
So what you want to tell me that being gay has reduced my life expectency by 10 years (Dobson's, based on obituaries of AIDS victims, no live gay men used in his little study, also hetrosexuals were included, because they died of AIDS.)
Maybe tell me I'll suffer a lifetime of depression and sadness? Never really been sad or depressed that much. Happily "married" to my husband. I've been angery when dealing with people like you, but never sad (okay, when my dog was really hurt, I was a little sad, because he's a really good/smart/friendly dog. But he got better and life went on.)
What else? Maybe I'll get AIDS? See comment above, I'm married (BTW did you realize that one of the easist ways to reduce new AIDS infections would be to allow gay marriage? Think about it.) Also before marriage I always practiced safe sex.
Maybe tell me I'm going to hell? Well that's your theory. I believe the bible says differently, and I'm Jewish so take your boogymen and keep them to yourself. (BTW you know in many Native American cultures (and other ancient cultures) I would have been seen as a special spiritual being containing both sides of the human spirit. So.........I'm special and your not (channeling the third grade there.)
This is actually pretty cool...
In the past couple of weeks we've had Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage both admit on the air that they read Media Matters. The best part is that it p*sses them off.
Geee, I hope they like my material.... ;>)
I'm sure they are writing you love letters as we speak Irony.
(Just don't open them, the white powder inside is probably not sugar, left over from the cookies they are baking for you and will be sending later.)
Why do they get so worked up over having their words transcribed and their audio posted? For the most part, that's all this 'gay website' is doing.
apparently, just repeating them ad nauseum isn't sufficient. We are supposed to believe that he and his listeners have some deeper connection that automatically transcends the surface to reveal the true intent of his words, something that just repeating ad nauseum is incapable of doing. Who ever thought they were that advanced?
maybe they don't have a problem with the site...per say...but maybe they have a problem with the posters? he he he
I like your material, irony. It's a very pretty plum sateen with the sweetest print of tiny poodles on it that, honestly, I've ever seen! It's just fabulous. meeeeowwww!
I laughed out loud when I saw this headline.
So he actually comes here and reads this stuff every day? I can't believe that. Maybe someone relays him the message.
Where are the trolls who live under Dr. Weiner's "Last Bridge of Reality"?
Maybe they're afraid of coming to a "gay website"
Not afraid of coming to a "gay" website. You might be shocked to know that sometimes I don't believe everything Dr. Savage says. For example I don't think this is a "gay" website. However, to allow homosexuals to adopt needs to be explored. Notice I said EXPLORED not prohibited. It is unknown what long term effects are being done to a child's psyche. Chilhood/adolescence is hard enough, don't you think that having 2 parents who are the same sex might cause some harm?
Of course I do. I also understand that having NO parents, growing up in an orphanage causes LOTS of harm. The latter needs no further study. If you want to do the former, then by all means, "git 'er done!". Talking about it is just a waste of time...
Way to keep it current with "git'er done". Yes it is good that the children are being adopted but to put a child into an environment that will immediately ostrasize them from other children their age COULD be worse in the long run. School life is hard enough on many children, especially if they're viewed as "different". Why give the child one strike already by having gay parents. Again not saying to illegalize it just to EXAMINE the consequences.
"but to put a child into an environment that will immediately ostrasize them from other children their age COULD be worse in the long run."
So you must be against adopting kids out to parents of a different race?
I can't believe someone pulled out the old "but you don't want kids to feel different" canard. I've heard this one pulled out so many times to defend views against interracial marriage. It's nice to see the right has moved on and is now applying their faulty logic to gays now.
That argument is faulty for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven that being homosexual is not a choice. The race v. homosexuality angle is baseless.
I was assailing YOUR argument that we should prevent gay adoption because the kids my get teased. This is a specious argument that you cannot defend.
By the way, being black may not be a choice, but marrying someone of another color is. So it is apples to apples.
Not teased, almost completely ostrasized. It's basically sending a child out in public with a giant bullseye on their chest. I also posted this link
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html
The way to fix that is to adjust the attitude of the losers who tease and "ostracize". Starting with you.
Nice assumption. It might suprise you that I FOR gay marriage. Shocked no? Cons aren't all the same. I think gay people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. However, since it has yet to be proven that this lifestyle is not a choice, and therefore it may be THEIR OWN FAULT they cannot reproduce, and because there are studies that conclude that having gay parents is less than ideal for the child involved we should investigate the LONG TERM effects on the childs DEVELOPMENTAL stages and pschological make up
It might suprise you that I FOR gay marriage. Shocked no?
Please stop playing the "Ha, despite my liberal-bashing, I actually agree with them on one issue! Try not to have a heart-attack from the sheer mind-bending confusion this will undoubtedly cause." When and if someone makes an assumption about you, feel free to correct them, don't get all high and mighty because you agree with liberals on one issue. It impresses nobody.
However, since it has yet to be proven that this lifestyle is not a choice, and therefore it may be THEIR OWN FAULT they cannot reproduce, and because there are studies that conclude that having gay parents is less than ideal for the child involved we should investigate the LONG TERM effects on the childs DEVELOPMENTAL stages and pschological make up
Would you mind citing these studies? 'Cuz the American Psychiatric Association, as well as all other major organizations of the same nature, reject the idea that homosexuality can be "cured".
Check it out.
I'd have to say that, if it's not supposed to be "cured", then how is it even a choice?
And I understand that you said you don't always agree with Weiner Savage, but would you please either a) explain how it's not completely sick of him to compare gays to Nazis, or b) join the rest of us in the "Savage is a Nutcase" club.
Ain't joinin' NO clubs, but thanks for having an open door here.
Yur kinda hard on people that won't march in perfect unison with ya. I have yet to find another place that demands such conformity, including Fundamentalist Christians, the other end of the spectrum, in your minds.
Dennis Miller says something similar, having begun on the Left and journeying rightward over the years.
You mean like passing laws against people who don't wanna live the way you say? Amending the constitution to TAKE AWAY rights instead of ensure them, all to prevent people from living the way you say?
Sorry, but Liberals have no monopoly on hard lines.
However, since it has yet to be proven that this lifestyle is not a choice,
- savagerocks / Wednesday February 28, 2007 08:29:21 PM EST
How do you know their lifestyle is a choice?How do you know their lifestyle is a choice?
Savage, the person who wakes up in the morning and decides to be gay has many more issues than being gay.
Can you image ANYONE with ONE BRAIN CELL waking up and deciding to deal each minute of each day with the S*** that society gives to those who are different?
Gay is NOT A CHOICE!!!. Rev. Haggard has tried to use therapy and denial to not be gay. Has it helped him?
Well said, Pearlene!
Why indeed would someone "choose" a "lifestyle" that exposes them to the slings and arrows of the likes of Savage and his acolytes?
Maybe since some research purports to show that homosexuals have a higher median income than their heterosexual counterparts, for example? There are any number of rational and irrational reasons that people choose to do what they do everyday. Just because you wouldn't choose it doesn't mean someone else wouldn't.
...OMG, I sound like a liberal.
"since it has yet to be proven that this lifestyle is not a choice, and therefore it may be THEIR OWN FAULT"
That is perhaps one of the... uhhh, least intelligent things I've read here. Why would a person choose a sexual orientation that precludes reproduction and subjects him to didicule, condescension and abuse? Ask any normal, rational gay person who lives his life honestly, by not hiding or denying his sexual orientation, if he thinks he was born with a homosexual orientation. The problems occur when you have men like Ted Haggard who attemoted to both deny and hide his homosexuality. A gay man may finally choose to come out of the closet and be honest about who he is... but he din't choose that predisposition for men. God gave him that...
That argument is faulty for the simple fact that it has yet to be proven that being homosexual is not a choice. - savagerocks
I've said it before, but I've got to think that anybody who thinks that sexual orientation is a choice has got to be "choosing" their own.I know that my heterosexuality was not up to me at all, it is about the most powerful instinct I have(OK, aside from eating)
I'd recommend to anyone who gives any credence to the "sexuality as a choice" BS that they try to deal with whatever they're wrestling with before trying to "fix" anybody else.
Yes, I'm talking to you.
think about the avacados. i don't choose to dislike avacados.
You just hate GREEN. Why the hate?
Wonder why children of gay parents might be ostrcized? Could be due to hetero parents telling their kids that there is something wrong homosexuals. Dunno, just a guess.
Not entirely true. You can't blame the children's actions ENTIRELY on the teachings of the parents. Kids will be kids. Even if the parent never teaches bigotry many children will still be hateful just because the other child is different
That's cool. But why then do conservatives blame teachers for the problems of the public education system?
There's PLENTY of blame to go around there, the kids, the teachers, the parents and the politicians all have some part of it. Idon't pretend to know how to fix that problem.
Ahh, come on. Where is the personal responsibility? If your kid is bullying other kids or failing 5th grade why blame anyone but yourself?
I didn't say it wasn't some of the parents fault but are they at school with their kid? The problem at the schools is multi-faceted.
I don't think that you have children. Maybe you do.
If my kid brings home bad grades I take it personally, it's my fault for not facilitating her success or hearing her when she talks about her difficulties. Similarly, if she is being cruel to classmates, it IS my responsibilty to correct the inappropriate behavior.
So where is the personal accountability, Savage? Again, I must insist that parents take the blame for their kids when they bully other kids for being different.
Sorry if you disagree. Maybe we just view personal accountability differently.
Are you suggesting that you know what your kids are doing AT ALL TIMES? Children have personalites and minds of their own. The parent cannot BE at school and even if you teach your children not to look down at someone for being different it still might happen. Are you suggesting that kids NEVER disobey their parents or act in ways their parents would not approve of?
Like I said I'm sorry we have different views of personal responsibility.
When my kid screws up, I take action to correct it. I will hold myself accountable for her actions until she is no longer living in our home. After that I can only hope I did right by her.
You don't think the kids have to take responsibility for their actions?
I'm just teaching by example, Savage.
I'm not being a jerk, I'm just trying to understand how it is completely the parents' fault if a child acts up. Kids are going to do boneheaded things, that's what makes them kids, and you can't be around 100% of the time to correct them. I think you're being too hard on yourself. When your child is at scholl and you cannot be there, if she does something you specifically TOLD her not to do, how is that you're fault? Shouldn't the teachers and faculty, not to mention the child also take SOME responsibilty?
I know. I didn't think you were being a jerk.
I'm simply saying that I take full responsibility for that which is in my control. I don't worry about the things I cannot affect, they are out of my control. I don't worry about the things I can affect because I know I will do my best to change them.
Hm, agree to disagree then
Very Buddhist attitude. Nice post.
I think a good parent should also teach tolerance. And yes, kids will be kids. The fat kid, the ethnic kid, the kid who's not good in sports, the ugly kid, and the kid with two moms will all get teased. Why are you attacking the two moms in this picture?
"just because the other child is different"
Why are you automatically assuming the child of gay parents will be "different"? You think gay parents look specifically for a gay kid to adopt? Or that the gay parents are going to teach him how to be gay? The kid is going to be gay or straight regardless what his parents are. And if he is gay then A-HOLES will give him shiet regardless what his parents are.
Pardon me for saying this but reading your posts make me feel like I'm in a time warp. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this isn't 1957. Open your eyes and enlighten your mind...
Savage,Children can recognize differences without making judgments about them. When they assess negative judgment based on differences it’s because they have usually learned to do so either indirectly or directly from the adults that are rearing them. They are told or shown that certain differences are bad things. Many studies have shown this. A perfect example was illustrated by an earlier Savage thread. Savage had a caller who told his 4 yr old daughter asked why did that lady (Melissa Etheridge) say she had a wife. Savage said the parents should have told the child that Melissa Etheridge is not normal and that she is engaging in bad behavior, thus he said she should have been told that Melissa Etheridge is a bad person because she is different. Now I would have handled that much differently. Most 4 year olds aren't sophisticated enough to understand sexuality, so actually I probably would have at that age deflected the question since 4 year olds are very easily redirected. When I felt the child was old enough to understand I would tell them the truth that homosexuality is a naturally occurring deviation in human sexuality and that Gay people are like any of the rest of us. Some are nice, some are smart, some are dumb, some are a-holes....You know the normal human continuum.
"School life is hard enough on many children, especially if they're viewed as 'different'. Why give the child one strike already by having gay parents. Again not saying to illegalize it just to EXAMINE the consequences." - Savagerocks
That's so caring and sensitive of you to look out for children who are socially marked. By this logic, we should "examine the consequences" of black people having children, not to mention Jews, Muslims, southerners (who are tragically marked with an accent other than broadcast standard American English), the poor, the rich...
Savagerocks, can you tell me who else should we examine in the event that they want to marry and have children?
maybe we could set up different schools for kids that are different! what a stellar idea! yea...the Gay School. The Negro school. The Hyperactive Kid School! UGLY SCHOOL!!! yaaay!
oh rats...they tried this already. guess it didn't work out so well. maybe we have to take the next step.
"...to put a child into an environment that will immediately ostrasize them from other children their age COULD be worse in the long run."
Check your calendar... this is 2007, not 1957. Kids are hipper, smarter and exposed to a lot more than in the past. Yea, there are going to be bullies and mean kids in any school, and they'll surely find someone weaker to pick on. But that says more about the parents than the kids, and your comment seems to subtly suggest that the children of gay parents may be weak, or even gay. Kids are friends (or not friends) because of who they are, not because of who their parents are. But ignorant and bigoted parents can surely potentially screw kids up by instilling their same narrow mindedness to them at home. Look at George W. Bush who once told his college professor that people were poor because they were lazy. Where do you think a young rich guy would get a narrow minded notion like that? (And whatever happened to that compassionate conservatism that he bulsh*tted us about in 2000?)
I fail to see why a well-adjusted, stable, reasonably intelligent gay couple with good values could not raise a child. There are a lot of kids suffering from being raised by dysfunctional heterosexual parents. But now we're talking about character, values and suitability to raise children... not the parents' natural sexual orientation. (And it is indeed natural... ask a gay person.)
I just keep getting the same impression over and over again that many people who make negative comments here about gays have really never known any regular, go to work everyday, come home and watch the news, gay people. They're just regular people whose sexual orientation happens to be wired differently than ours. Lighten up... they aren't trying to gayify America or convert your children... most just want to live like any other normal people.
It HAS been explored....there is NO negative effects of having gay parents....the single biggest predictor of a child having bad chilhood experiences is low socio-economic status followed by an abusive family environment. The single biggest indicator of having happy childhood experiences is 2 committed parents, regardless of gender, followed by high socio-economic status....
Really,
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html
Really....check out [link to www.apa.org] Your source is from a Christain website that is NOT interested in true scienc....but thanks for trying...
whoops...add /pi/parent.html
And you're source is a gay and lesbian website, what's your point? My point is that there are still questions to be answered on this issue. I've never said that gay adoption is wrong or should be illegal. I've simply said the long term effects are still not entirely known
My source is the American Psychological Association!!! Learn to read...and, also, check out [link to www.aclu.org]
jesus...add /lgbt/parenting/11824res19990406.html.
OK, my bad, got in a rush while producing my radio show and failed to read the websites origin. It's not a gay and lesbian site....but the site I posted is not JUST a "christian" site it's a woman's forum site and the actual article DID have scientists and doctors who contributed to it but I guess it doesn't count because it's Canadian. Are you a Racist? Do you hate canadians?
It's a political website. From the looks of it, I'd have to say you've linked us to the Canadian answer to the anti-feminist Concerned Women of America.
The APA is non-political. Therein lies the rub.
Hey Savage Rock Guy: I always pay more regard to the studies done by experts in HUMAN PSYCHOLOGYY and see what the consensus is, but that's just me. Some of the far righties like those who admire Savage prefer that political operatives inform them about complicated scientific stuff, after all those professional research papers can be a difficult read.
What a ridiculous argument. When it is pointed out that your website is a Christian, political website, you try to deflect that by noting that is is a Canadian website, and conclude that iflurry must be racist.
Are you even serious?
I hate Canadians. Stoopid maple syrup chugging hockey playing skidoo riding health care having serviette using canuck bastards. oops.
This is a-boat as far offtopic as...
...the long term effects are still not entirely known
...So we should be afraid, very afraid.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sthavageweiner professing to know the long term effects? So you disagree with the weiner, point out he's fibbing, but still give him two snaps up?
Not professing to know longterm effects, just pointing out that we don't know them
Okay, I'll try again.
The weiner is professing - meaning he's saying, that he's asserting, putting forth the concept - that he DOES know the long term effects.
You, on the other hand, partial namesake and fruit of his intellectual loins, claim that the long term effects aren't yet known.
Ergo (that means "so therefore") you disagree with the weiner. In essence, you admitted that weiner was fibbing to his audience. And yet you remain his biggest fan, with his posters up all over your room and a lock of his hair pressed between the pages of your diary, his name written all over the inside of your peechee...
I'm just surprised at the devotion, that's all.
I've already said that I disagree with Savage on MANY topics. I've already posted that he DOES get carried away. I'm not going to allow myself to be pulled down to your level of sophmoronic insults. I've already posted I'm FOR gay marrige. The reason I listen to Savage is the message of "borders, language, culture" is a vastly important message. I'm just here to debate, not neccessarily to defend the Dr.
So what makes you think that on topics like the border, culture, and language, he's not a crazy loon spouting misinformation like he does with everything else? I find it hard to believe that his intellect comes and goes, according to the topic.
And, by the way, the gay issue IS a cultural one. Get your rhetoric ironed out.
On th issues of Borders, Language amd Culture he is almost completely right on the most important patrs of these issues. Homosexuals adoptiing is these LEAST of our worries
Homosexuals adoptiing is these LEAST of our worries
Then isn't it a BAD thing that he's getting all hot and bothered about it at all?
I find it hard to believe that his intellect comes and goes, according to the topic.
Quoted for truth. And wit.
You said you disagree with Savage on many issues, but how do you feel about him lying to his audience?
Hey Savage,
This is off topic so feel free to flag, but did you know the KKK says that the immigration issue has been a great recruiting tool for them. Their membership is growing rapidly because some Americans have been encouraged and told it's just dandy to hate Mexicans, I'm pretty sure the Klan still won't like Michael Savage join though. You know that Jewish thing is still an issue with the Kluxers. Lewis Black said Mexican is indeed the new Black.
Let him join is what I meant of course.
Yes but if you are going to deny someone a right others have, already a sticky 14th amendment issue, the burden of proof is on YOU to show there is justification for it not the other way around
Exactly right, Solon. Savagerocks' proposal is as disingenuous as they come. "Okay, we'll allow you gays to adopt kids IF you can prove that it won't be bad for them. But until then you can't adopt them."
This stance allows people like Savagerocks to appear concerned and reasonable, while hiding their bigotry.
Another part of this argument that is amusing to me is that that it’s assuming all gay people are exactly the same and not individuals like their straight counter parts. Is it that just by the virtue of being straight you’re atomically a fit parent or is it that they should just be given the benefit of doubt?
Fascinating site. And I quote:
Thanks for the reference.
Savagerocks,
The only thing that "shocks" me is that you would spend any of your precious time on earth listening to this imbecile.
Why not listen to all kinds of viewpoints and then decide what you believe? Savage DOES have his faults. I'd say that I DO disagree with him often. But the message of "borders, language, culture" is one of the most important out there at the present time
He doesn't have his faults. He simply ROCKS!
I never said he didn't have his faults....but he does rock. I guess that's why more people listen to the first hour of his show than probably listened to 5 minutes of Air America this year
The highest concentration of flies is always around the piles of poo.
That's deep. Anyways, I'll repeat this again...ir regards to The Savage Nation and Air America (just pick a host)....SCOREBOARD! There's a reason conservative radio beats liberal talk in the ratings. It's the only place to get a con slant unlike the MANY lib slanted media entities (read: not FoxNews)
It's really very simple.
Conservatives don't like to think. They just want to be fed opinions which reinforce their own prejudices and fears. And because most of their opinions crumble when exposed to the light of facts, they prefer to live in the shadow of the limbaughs, hannitys, and savages. Liberals don't have to do that. Mainly because their opinions are based on facts, not speculation. Air america doesn't have a large segment of the population listening because its audience doesn't have that need to be validated, as opposed to the conservatives who absolutely MUST hide behind the skirt of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savageweiner.
OR the fact that people want to hear a differing view from the maistream media which has been outed as slanted to the left. If people wanted to hear the same liberal view Air America would flourish. The fact that it hasn't PROVES that people crave to hear the other side of the issue which is not given the same air time on most major tv news staions or print media
Nope. No "or". I'm right, you're wrong.
Deal with it.
Wow, so your right just because you said so....that's a BRILLIANT argument! I'll have to remeber that one! Look, I'm sorry that the liberal message is not a good money making tool for the radio industry (which I work in so I'd say I know a little more about it than you) because there just not a big enough audience but don't try to spin it to sound like this is not the case. Don't worry though, the fairness doctrine is on the way to un-level the playing field so, unfortunately for radio stations who like making money, congress is going to try to force lib talk on a public audience that has proven it doesn't want it. I guess that's the liberal talk show creed, "If you can't beat 'em in ratings, beat 'em through legislation!"
Remember it YOU started it. The media is NOT slanted left just because YOU said it is nor because you and the rightwing armada of the brainwashed just keep saying it is over and over.
By the way, I assume that when you write "the other side of the issue" you mean the falsehoods and spin. Because those are the only "other side" of facts.
OR the fact that people want to hear a differing view from the maistream media which has been outed as slanted to the left.
I almost literally roflmao'ed at this. The whole purpose of this website is to demonstrate the mainstream media's CONSERVATIVE bias. Savage (and his popularity, as you so proudly stated earlier) is proof of that.
This website does not prove that the media has a conservative bias. It merely points out examples of conservative misinformation or "outrageous" comments made by conservative talk show hosts.
I agree. Determinations of bias are entirely subjective. Trying to "prove" bias is a pretty worthless enterprise IMO. Neither side will convince the other as the evidence from both sides is purely anecdotal.
That is not to say that the job of Media Watchdogs like MMFA aren't important. It is very important to correct misinformation and counter some of the spin out there in a factual way the way MMFA does. I have learned a lot over the years from reading the articles and discussing issues with other posters. MMFA is invaluable.
"I agree. Determinations of bias are entirely subjective. Trying to "prove" bias is a pretty worthless enterprise IMO. Neither side will convince the other as the evidence from both sides is purely anecdotal."
Not trying to be argumentative, but do you really think so? Hasn't MMFA adduced enough individual or "anecdotal" evidence of conservative bias over time to establish a trend? (And, MMFA has often reproduced or dealt with statistical studies.) Is there really a comparable body of anecdotes that establishes a liberal bias? If there is, the ad hominem-driven shabbiness of MMFA's conservative analogues--WorldNet, etc.--never quite manages to do the job. Much like conservative posters here, conservative websites tend to assert this liberal bias rather than prove it.
Is the argument invalid simply because the other side will never concede?
"That is not to say that the job of Media Watchdogs like MMFA aren't important. It is very important to correct misinformation and counter some of the spin out there in a factual way the way MMFA does. I have learned a lot over the years from reading the articles and discussing issues with other posters. MMFA is invaluable."
Indeed. But again, are there truly comparable effective counterings of liberal misinformation on comparable media-watching websites? An honest question. Whenever a conservative poster here provides a link, I try to check it out, but it's almost always polemical garbage, without transcripts or clips to let us see the "liberal bias" for ourselves.
Kudos for the open-mindedness, but...are you honestly just gonna "agree to disagree" about the total subjectivity of any and all perceptions of bias?
Look more closely and I think you will see a more complicated dynamic. Not that bias is just subjective rather look at the subjects and what is being shown as bias. You will see outright economic bias, pro war bias. Then you will see backlash outrageous statements from neandrathals on the social issues. I dont think you will see a concerted anti gay media bias, mostly you see bigotted morons like Savage spewing his hatred all over like a deranged baboon marking his territory. What the TENDENCY is, of course you can find examples of all kinds of bias here and there the media not being monolithic, the tendency is to mirror elite opinion. I doubt the head of GM or Disney cares if gay people marry or if the head of Exxon or Bechtal care about where the 10 commandments are displayed. They care about tax cuts and procuring a good investment climate in Guatemala. They care about whether labor or management is more sympathetically portrayed in the run up to a labor dispute. So THAT is the bias you see in the media
I see your point, Solon. And I agree that the MSM is largely silent on social issues one way or the other.
Still, it's a funny thing about those elite power media-controlling (or at least -influencing) interests: they tend to be...conservative! Pro-business, pro-war, Bush-coddling, etc. In short, there is definitely some nuance with respect to specific issues--the bias is not, in fact, wholly "monolithic"--but the bulk of the bias is distinctly rightward. Which is mostly borne out by the specifics in your post.
No, it doesnt prove a conservative bias. In fact as I have said before I dont think the media bias can be broken down so easily into left/right or conservative/liberal dichotomies. Its more that the media serves power and elite opinion. That tends to break down to socially liberal and economically/foriegn policy conservative. So both sides can put up their examples to show a bias. There is conservative bias in the press and at times on some issues I see a liberal bias. Institutional analysis of the media I have read tends to show this quite convincingly. I dont usually say the media is conservative I do bristle however when I hear the canard it has a liberal bias. Having been a liberal and NEVER seeing my bias pushed as an agenda it just looks ludicrous on the face of it to me.
IFLUR...
anybody can see the what the media is up to. Its objective is to stir the pot, get everybody, every side completely honked off at it and at each other--that assures that people will tune in--good for ratings.
They are consistently off-the-wall, irresponsible, ignorant, stupid, childish, superficial, etc. but there is no grand scheme. Just a determination to float in and out with the tide--to BE there.
Not saying they're never used or manipulated. It's only logical that they would be--again, by both "sides".
To say one side benefits more than the other (in any grand scheme) is ridiculous, and you'll have more success, for example, explaining the Universe.
I agree with you entirely.
No, it is more than that. The media's lapdog attitude in the runup to the war showed that. The difference in the way they played up the Clinton scandals compared to ignoring more serious Bush scandals shows that. Why did we hear so much about a Whitewater nonissue yet so little about Halliburtons mismanagement of funds and no bid contracts. I mean they were covered but it was all Clinton all the time for 2 years on much less egregious stories. It took two months to even hear about the downing street memo. No I dont think that hypothesis can be supported
Bunk you are talking nonsense. Your baseless assertion about mainstream media being biased left is garbage. YOUR opinion doesnt constitute factual reality, nor does it become true just because you rightwingers keep repeating it like demented Myna birds
"a differing view from the maistream media"
I've found that phrase to mean "We leave things out; we twist the facts; sometimes we even make shiet up" But I love it when they say "You won't hear this on the mainstream media!" Yea, thank God... let's keep it that way!
It may not be perfect but I'll take "mainstream" over "nutscream" any day.
Just out of curiosity, why do you hate reality so much...?
I think everyone would agree with your comment on different points of perspective and no one would take issue with that. What you haven't answered is the need for many of the individuals that speak for "your perspective" to lie, misrepresent facts, smear, and ultimately drag the national discourse into the gutter.
I think that unless you’re willing to answer those questions, hiding behind your different points of perspective argument is weak at best.
I don't really care what point of view someone is trying to get across if they cannot do so without lying or making unfounded generalizing about groups of people.
I just wish that liberally biased media would kick Fox, Rush, Savage, O'Reilly, Beck, Coulter, that other blonde right winger, Dr. Bill (a local), KSFO, all the "right talk" stations, and Paul Harvey off the airwaves.
It's the party for the comfortably lazy who simply want their beliefs reinforced everyday (just for reassurance), gas in the car, a deer rifle in the gun cabinet, and the channel changer next to the recliner... "don't challenge me with all sorts of liberal logic and scientific bullsh*t... I know what I know." ;>)
Your post may be misplaced, but anyway---when're you throwing that party? Is it BYOB?
Bunk. There is no liberal media and never has been. I am a liberal, have been my entire adult life. The media has NEVER pushed or even pushed my point of view. Its balderdash. There are probably many reasons talk radio tends conservative. The ADVERTISERS tending to be business doesnt seem receptive so the liberals tended to crummy stations, liberals are different from conservatives and tuning into a rah rah session maybe doesnt appeal to them, there are probably a whole plethora of reasons conservative talk radio isnt threatened by liberal talk radio but none of them have anything to do with the QUALITY of Weiners insane rantings. Hitlers speeches were wildly popular. American Idol will ALWAYS get higher ratings than Shakespear or Proust. Just because a lot of people listen doesnt mean it has any substance.
"Just because a lot of people listen doesnt mean it has any substance".
As I always say... AMERICAN IDOL.
I call your American Idol and raise you a "DEAL OR NO DEAL!"
No rah-rah session here.
Instead of taking "Air America" as a whole, it's much more accurate to speak of specific shows as one has very little similarity to another. I've heard Springer and Franken and while both gave it a good shot and politically did some good work while there, they just weren't radio people. Shultz has a lot of potential but seems resolutely intellectually lazy---he doesn't do his homework. But on the other hand Randi Rhodes is a long time radio person who does alot of reading and has a feel for the job---the timing of a radio show is so important---and a sense of humor to take the edge off of the heavy subject matter. Given time a large audience will find her show and other good shows with a liberal bent..
McDonalds rocks! they sold WAY more burgers than the place down the street from me that makes really great burgers.
OK, I laughed out loud at that one. Also liked the 'Hitlers speeches' analogy, but it didn't crack me up like the Mickey D reference.
Oh, and read the Bibliography of that link...SOME doctors and scientists were involved but I guess they don't count
Nice try, but one of those "doctors" is Paul Cameron, who was stripped of his professional credentials some time ago, and who has been caught numerous times inflating and creating numbers to further an unambiguously homophobic agenda.
Speaking of gay....
What's up with the broke back mtn. get up....you silly savage..
PDRUM...CA
I'll slap you.
Chilhood/adolescence is hard enough, don't you think that having 2 parents who are the same sex might cause some harm?
Only because bigoted people would make problems for such a family.
Just on a side note, isn't "I stand by every word I wrote." incorrect? Why doesn't he stand by every word he writes? Where is the dividing line?
Well, I'm glad this site has finally been outed. Relieved, even. This is a momentous occasion, thanks to Sthavage Weiner. Worthy of a celebration.
Hugs all around! Hugs, anybody? Hugs? Tommy? Hug me? Anybody?
Well, You're the most unfriendly bunch of queens ever...
*hug*
Now bend over, it's my turn to drive.
I never got the memo. No wonder I've been dressing so much more stylishly lately.
That blue really brings out your cheekbones, honey :)
I know you’re just trying to be funny, but I'm gay and I don't run around thinking about how stylish my shirt is or how it compares to my cheek bones.
If your going to get outraged when people make stereotype jokes about Blacks, women, Hispanics, etc, don’t you realize that you're being hypocritical and helping perpetuate stupid stereotypes by making remarks that generalize all gays?
There are comments at the start of this thread discussing why children are cruel and mock other children. I don't know, but maybe little Billy saw you make a limp wrist or talk with a lisp trying to be funny about some "silly queer". People are people and should be judged on their individual merits.You've got a good point, MHK. I think the thing that we're doing here is not mocking gay people ad hominem, but mocking some of the stereotypical traits that we expect that bigots like weiner project onto the group as a whole.
I belong to a very liberal church, one of very, very few who accept the glbt community as equals, and have made many friends there. One of the things I appreciate about those who I am friends with is their ability to joke about the stereotypes. However, I realize that there is still a large hateful segment of the population out there that doesn't view the stereotypes as merely parody, but as inescapable traits. Knowing that these bigots exist, I can understand where some folks could be offended by portraying the stereotypes. To those folks, I can only assure them that I never meant to mock homosexuals, only to mock the bigots. And I'm sorry for the ambiguity.
In the proper context /company you make a valid point.In the wrong group of people that already believe that stereotype or in front of kids that don't have the ability or life experience to understand this nuance, don't you think you’re giving the wrong impression?
To be honest it doesn’t sound much different then some of the jokes (on face value) made by people like Glen Beck.
Comparing me to Beck? That's just nasty.
Point made. I'll watch my tongue in the future.
Just saying that some people might see the types of jokes he makes in the same manner.
Other then that your nothing like GB... I don't want to stab out my eyes after reading most of your posts.
Sorry, MHK, I can see how these came off. Trying to be ridiculous with the stereotypes doesn't translate well. Besides, I've known gay guys who dressed worse than I do.
"Everybody show your Gay Membership Card - if it's expired, time to renew."
- tommy
I hope they redesign the new "Gay Membership Cards" because the old ones clash with my outfits.
"Now bend over, it's my turn to drive."
- snoopy
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... what are you guys doing for your second date....looking for an apartment?
If you enjoyed this comment by fluid 09, it's writing for the fox 1/2 hour news hour. And yes. we're getting an apartment, but we're calling it a loft, and it's fierce.
Nice - How are you any better then Micheal Savage?
Because your just kidding right? Isn't that the same excuse Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh use?
FYI - I've lived with my partner for 4 years and that was only after we knew one another for 3.
MHK, Was that for me or fluid? I was responding to fluid's post, your point is taken now, I won't be that flip with the jokes.
So, I don't understand the point of this item. We all know that a guy like Savage is a hateful, bigoted, small-minded individual who is dangerous for a free society (entitled, but dangerous). But isn't the point of MediaMatters to expose falsehoods, not opinions that we don't like or share.
I think its critical that we study a guy like this carefully for errors that he makes, but I am at a loss to figure out the point of an item like this on this website.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
"...reported by a gay website that attacks me every day."
Patently untrue.
There have been days when this gay website did not attack him.
No you have it wrong. From the first outrageous comments were part of what MMFA does. I think rightfully so. It is part of the media distortion. By pushing the envelope of acceptable discourse so far to the right, with such outrageous bigotry, that should be dismissed with contempt in a decent society, they are distorting the very fabric of public debate. So this is and has been part of what they do from at the very least the first day I came here
Well, that's all for me! Shift's over time to go home! Feel free to talk bad about me while I'm gone! I won't check it anyway.
CTT2 (SW) Timothy M. Mathis
Won't check it? Does that mean you can no longer refute our arguments? Or do you just troll until you get bored and leave?
Does everything have to be absolutely, rigorously vetted as true and logical before of it you speak?
Methinks you would not meet that standard.
I occasionally listen to Savage. I cringe at some things he says, but he is entertaining, and he offers a viewpoint (pride in country and culture) that is rarely voiced on the big media outlets.
"he offers a viewpoint (pride in country and culture) that is rarely voiced on the big media outlets."
Yeah. Bigotry became uncouth in media long ago. Now here comes Savage saying it's ok to hate again. Refreshing.
Pride in country and culture does not have to mean bigotry.
Maybe Savage is not the perfect spokesman, but he says alot of sensible things.
Pride in country and culture does not have to mean bigotry.
Maybe Savage is not the perfect spokesman, but he says alot of sensible things.
Defend calling Melissa Etheridge and her partner "scum-sucking vermin." Not bigotry? Sensible? Do you agree that they are scum-sucking vermin?
Those are not particular statements I can defend. Partly they are hyperbole for entertainment, and to blow off steam. Similar rants are done on this site. They detract from the message, but it doesn't invalidate the useful items.
No it doesnt. Why dont you email Weiner and tell him that. As for the constant point that he makes reasonable points so what? THAT is what he is supposed to do. We dont give extra credit because he does what he is supposed to do that he can cash in to excuse his insanity and bigotry
Does everything have to be absolutely, rigorously vetted as true and logical before of it you speak?
Methinks you would not meet that standard.
Okay, maybe WeinerRocks really does have a life and had to stop paying attention to this thread. But his rude goodbye warranted a rebuttal, methought.
By the way, you really shouldn't be talking about standards. You are aware what your handle means, right?
http://www.powerengineering.net/c291255.2.html
Looks like a double-entendre.
"offers a viewpoint (pride in country and culture) that is rarely voiced on the big media outlets. "
You might try tuning into any NFL, MLB or NASCAR broadcast. Sheesh, "rarely voiced", I am wondering if I understand what you are refering too. Even PBS has a plethora of programming that celebrates our history and culture. Now if you mean white, christian males, US citizens are the best humans by far kind of messages then yes , luckily that is getting less and less air time.
Don't remember the importance of borders being discussed at any NASCAR events, sorry. Well, maybe Mason-Dixon.
Ok, did'nt realize we had "importance of borders" as a topic of songs, literature and other cultural outlets. But, never the less, I guess the 3.5 million hits on Google whilst searching for "importance of borders" is not enough for y'all.
Just said I hadn't seen it on a NASCAR hat.
Hey, Pit--yur name rocks, speaking of NASCAR.
If you're so limited in thinking that the issue of our southern border is your idea of "pride in country and culture" then I suggest you listen, watch, and read some other media for a while.
In what way are pride in country and culture not voiced all over our airwaves? You're kidding, right?
Actually I just had to leave work. Your point is noted and it can be proven that Homosexuality is NOT genetic. It has yet to be proven that it is not a choice.
Actually, I had to leave work. It has been proven that homosexuality is not gentic. However it has not been proven that it is NOT a choice
So something is not a choice only if it is genetically coded? Interesting. Have they isolated the gene for right-handedness?
Good point! Being left handed is an normal occuring deviation from the more common right handedness (is that a word?) and we don't ostrasize someone because they are left handed. At least not anymore.
Well, we used to. We used to force left handed kids to learn to write with their right hand. (Some think Reagan was originally left-handed, as I recall.)
But we smartened up and quit messing with little kids that way.
Savage, what's with you and AA giving people permission to disagree and talk bad about you? It's not necessary. Despite all your votes, we still have those rights.
YAWN.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Is this really a gay website?
Ugh... I feel outed!
And all this time, I thought we were just good friends.
Ugh!
Silly savage.
If nobody posts after this one, am I a "bottom"?
Yes.
Speaking of gay...what's up with the broke back mt. get up.....silly savage...
PDrum...CA
SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE POST....DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED
PDrum...CA
Mr. Savage,
If I am gay a get "cured" and become a LIBERAL, am I cured? Talk about confusion havings its doubts...
MMFA "GAYSTER"
Savage attack indeed... I take it Mikey was referring to the fact that David Brock is gay? does that make this site gay? (not that there's anything wrong with that)
why can't consternos ever focus on anything of substance, instead of revealing their backwardness with every word? perhaps because there is no substance to their views...
NOW you're attacking backwardness. Please STOP it!
Media Matters hasn't 'attacked' Michael Savage. All they do is document what he says.
You've got to admit the posters are pretty rough on him though. As we should be. Just imagine the tirade I would get if I was on air with him in person, filling the role of MMFA attacker.
I understand though why he is aware of this site and it's content. This is proof for him and his audience that "The US Culture" is under attack. Pretty much whatever he says is flagged here as hate speech or untrue or right wing propaganda. Rightly so I would add. However, in his world view, he is portraying himself as a defender of certain values and beliefs. So MMFA is proof that those values, beliefs are under attack. It's a common human trait to enjoy the feeling that you are being persecuted and are a good person for enduruing said persecution and being part of a group that is fighting back. Business psychologists use this all the time to pump up a group and motivate them.
I play World of Warcraft nightly. It's my official addiction, and the official addiction of my entire household of gamers. Invariably, when some child online has a problem with someone else or something that's happened, they chirp out, "That's so gay!" or "You're a f-g" or will go into descriptive detail about how said target user would like to treat another user of the same sex. It's tiring, it's immature, it's outlandish, and it happens every friggin' day.
Pardon me while I snicker quietly under the realization that Doktor Weiner has the debate skills and emotional maturity of a 12 year old boy gamer.
Bingo! Unfortunately, the expression “it’s so gay” or “that is gay” is now part of popular culture (see “The forty year old virgin” for example) . How many Mathew Shepards before we realize that words do harm and we should not say something just because we have the right to. I do tech support at an alternative high school, and there are several children there who have deep emotional handicaps now, totally from the abuse they have received from peers and teachers because they are either openly homosexual or effeminate. Interesting that the other children at the alternative high school stand up for them and accept them as they are.
I'm wondering where they got the impression that being gay was the worst possible insult to call another kid?
"Invariably, when some child online has a problem with someone else or something that's happened, they chirp out, 'That's so gay!' or 'You're a f-g' or will go into descriptive detail about how said target user would like to treat another user of the same sex."
-----
Just like GWBush said he would do to Osama bin Laden. Who says he doesn't have the mind of a child?
(And the child called, he wants his mind back. Bush is getting it all bent out of shape.)
The most amazing item about this is that Weiner has an audience of 8 million!? 7.99 million of them in red states, I bet.
I wouldn't necessarily say that most of his listeners are in red states. His show is number one in San Francisco. So what does that tell you. He is the only radio talk show host I will listen to. I have tried to listen to Limbaugh and Hannity but all they do is talk about how bad the Democrats are and that to me is quite boring. I rarely if ever hear those two criticize the president when criticism is due. Savage on the other hand does crticize him, alot. He thinks that McCain and Giuliani are phonies through and through. You think you will ever hear that from Hannity and Limbaugh, I dont think so. Even though he does do alot of shouting on his show that is not all he does. He even spits on Fox News which those two don't. Infact let me give you a Piece out of his new book, "The Political Zoo"
RUSH LIMBAUGH- HUSHUS BIMBOSIS
The Swell-Headed Bullfrog (one part frog, ten parts bull) was born and bred in America's heartland. When not hopping noisily from golf course to golf course, this stogle-chomping creature-a rare habit among frogs-spreads his largesse between two habitats, one in New York City and another in South Florida. Thought to be a frog of superior intelligence, this species transformed himself from a fat croaker in a little pond to a fat-headed croaker in a big one. In a strange freak of nature, the Swell-Headed Bullfrog feeds primarily on its own ego. Known to jump from mate to mate, an unusual trait among the subspecies conservatatus, this Bullfrog appears unable to keep the female of the species for any length of time. Happily, it has yet to reproduce, for it fears competition, even from tadpoles.
Now come on, you have to admit that is pretty genious and humorous at the same time
"Savage on the other hand does crticize him, alot."
-----
And what part of that makes it OK for him to call Melissa Etheridge and her partner "scum-sucking vermin?"
Re: Savage Weiner satire- I'd give it a C, if he was a Jr. High english student. Special ed.
Does that really sell books?
What ever happened to accepting the normal, proven-over-time family with a Mom and Dad? It took a male and a female to make the child that the gay couple now has, why can't that child have the right to be raised by a Mom and Dad? It's easy to use a liberal argument for civil rights in this case -- the child has the right to a mother and father, and by putting the child in a gay household, you are denying the child his or her right. Sure, the couple might love and care for the child, but the bottom line is that a developing child needs a Mom and Dad to grow up the way nature meant it to be.
So, you liberals, please tell me why it is wrong for any person to promote the raising children in the traditional way that has been around since the beginning of time?
There's a difference between promoting the Mother-Father parenting style, and denying any other form of it. There may be an ideal. Does that make other forms unacceptable? If so, then divorcing parents should give up their children for adoption, or be forced to remarry immediately.
But let's back up: prove that the Mother-Father relationship is The Best way to raise a kid in all circumstances. Take your time. We'll be here.
A child has a right to a heterosexual couple as parents, but not an entitlement. The mother who is a crack addict and the father who is a filandering alchoholic aren't the best parents a child could have. Surprise.
And just where do you think these children who are adopted by gay couples come from? From middle class suburbanites named Biff and Muffy? Sorry, but those folks can afford abortions and birth control.
And the bottom line is that a developing child also needs sight, hearing, two arms, two legs.... to grow up the way nature meant it to be. Some babies aren't provided these niceties from birth. A heterosexual couple who adore their baby also aren't a guarantee.
So, you please try to understand that it's not wrong to promote children being raised in the traditional way. What is wrong is wild baseless claims that being raised by the non-traditional couple is harmful.
What part of the "traditional" way to raise children is so ideal in your estimation? Nature requires both sexes to produce a child, but to state that nature requires both to raise them or it places a preferance on this type of family structure is just wrong.
Why don't you look at the rest of nature (non-human) and take a look at raising children outside of modern human society and give me all of your examples of offspring that are "raised" by both mother and father?
"Sure, the couple might love and care for the child,"
...but it's better for the child to be raised by an overworked foster parent system and perhaps even be raised in orphanages than to be raised in said loving, caring, gay home?
Let's be perfectly clear, here - Savage isn't even saying that homosexuals would take adopted kids away from child-desiring heterosexual couples. He's saying that homosexuals are abominations, should be ostracized by traditional families, and that kids who are living in group homes and have possibly never known stability or comfort don't deserve a chance at stability and happiness if it means that Savage's pet hate-on group gets a chance at parenting. That's not only severe cranial-rectal overload, but it's sacrificing the welfare of children just because a person can't get over an entirely illogical hatred of a segment of the population.
"...but the bottom line is that a developing child needs a Mom and Dad to grow up the way nature meant it to be."
Untrue. Children need families, not some stagnant notion of propriety handed down from religious lunatics.
Let's face the facts, here: Gay men and women will have, share, and bear children at whim of their own if they want to rear a child. What is being restricted is the right for gay couples to adopt children who otherwise would be left in a system that is already glut with otherwise unwanted souls who have a good chance of never knowing a stable household in their developing years.
This punishes children, and that's inhumane and unacceptable.
I would also like to give you a piece out of a book he is reprinting from 1982, "Healing Children Naturally"
PREFACE
Just as the undrawn sword is the mark of the best swordsman, so too is the best physician one who relies least on synthetic drugs to heal. As a nutritionist by training, I have not had to overcome an inherent bias in favor of prescription drugs; food has always seemed the best medicine to me, especially as a preventative practice. There is a tendency today for once-drug-oriented physicians to proselytize about "nutrition" while recommending highly questionable glandular extracts (particularly the adrenal) and drug-size doses of vitamins and minerals. These new converts seem to forget that "nutrition" also means FOOD! In my program of preventative dietetics, food is first, with MINOR vitamin and mineral supplementation as an adjunct. In cases of minor llness, we recommend modified diets, in conjunction with herbal teas. For this purpose special diets for states of illnes are included, such as the liquid diet, the soft diet, and the low-residue diet. These diets for disease states are designed for parents and pediatricians who are interested in overcoming the "flaw in medical education". Synthetic drugs, surgery, and the entire arsenal of space-age medicine DO have a place in medical care, but should be reserved for severe or stubborn cases. If your pediatrician agrees that the symptoms are not alarming, the more natural nutritional approach should be your first course of action. We do NOT believe in telling you what to eat or how to feed your children on a day-to-day , meal-to-meal basis. That just takes the spontineity and pleasure out of life. To introduce you to some healthful alternatives to the usual daily diet routine, however, we provide some meat-, sugar-, egg-, dairy-, and oil-free recipes in Book IV, "Recipes for Resisters". By using these dishes in conjunction with typical American protein foods such as meat, fish, and poultry, you and your family will be practicing the best preventive nutrition, without having to accept the imposition of a rigid diet regime-a "food fascism". The time has come for medical practitioners to listen to their patients who increasingly "talk" nutritional prevention and therapy. Parents who have read much on the subject are often ahead of established medical thinking. Nutritional science is still in its infancy and does not have ALL the answers to our many questions. What we DO have is a set of coordinates through which we can draw a line, but by no means does this line represent the ultimate path to nutritional wisdom. Present and future research, analyzed in the context of more ancient dietary laws, can eventually lead us to as near perfect states of health as we are genetically capable of achieving.
OK, what part of that makes it OK for him to call Melissa Etheridge and her partner "scum-sucking vermin?"
Bittermarv,
Proof? How about thousands of years of natural evolution? That seems to be a case in point that a family with a Mother and Father is the best way to raise a kid. But I'll provide you with more than that. Regardless of whether you think being gay is a choice or a sexual identity that someone is born with, gay people know that they cannot naturally procreate with their partner...this is a good thing, because humans were not made to procreate with someone else of the same sex. Keeping that in mind, it is common for heterosexual couples to be sterile, or incapable of having a child for whatever reason. Tell me why heterosexual couples like this (who would be able to have a baby the natural way, if there wasn't a problem) need to deal with gay couples (who KNOW they cant have a baby) taking kids out of the adoption pool, so to speak.
I'm sorry, but a gay lifestyle is one that denies procreation, and that is why it is definately NOT best for a child to be raised in a gay houshold. What will the gay parents say? "Johnny, we understand that all the other kids have a Mom and Dad that created them, but since we were selfish, we adopted you because we can't make a baby, you're just going to have to put up with not being able to experience life with a Mom and a Dad."
It's a civil rights matter for the child. But taken in this context, civil rights would not help the liberal movement, so they will never be discussed.
"Proof? How about thousands of years of natural evolution? That seems to be a case in point that a family with a Mother and Father is the best way to raise a kid."
-----
"That's the way it's always been done" is the last refuge of someone who can't back up what he says. Up until just a few years ago, people used the same argument to say that "races" shouldn't intermarry, or even socialize with one another.
Your argument is nothing more than the old chestnut "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." And it's no more true today than it was when the first person tried to win an argument with that ignorant phrase.
By the way, my brother's gay, and he says he's known it as long as he can remember.
Tell me when you chose to be heterosexual.
Not only is it the last refuge, but it's easily disprovable: Millions of years of evolution has led to gay relationships in the natural world. Why is then considered unnatural for the same relationships to develop in humanity?
Additionally, if not bearing children in a couple formation is selfishness, then I suppose we ought to be lining up with scolding sticks at the Vatican for their centuries of promoting the selfishness of non-conception among priests and nuns.
I said, "regardless of whether you think being gay is a choice or not." I never gave my opinion about my thoughts on that because it doesn't matter here. I'm talking about when someone is gay, they know they can't have children naturally with their "life partner." This causes them to drain the available supply of children up for adoption from from the heterosexual couples who are meant to have children.
Drain the supply? Are you serious?
Our adoption system is overrun with children who are not wanted by traditional heterosexual families. Maybe once we actually have a shortage of adoptable children will your argument hold anything resembling water.
"This causes them to drain the available supply of children up for adoption from from the heterosexual couples who are meant to have children."
By this logic wouldn't the heterosexual couples just have children on thier own and not adopt?
OR, the infertile heterosexual couple could just ask a fertile heterosexual couple to squirt a kid out for them. Heck, why don't all us breeders put up our spawn for adoption? There's a baby shortage going on here!
This causes them to drain the available supply of children up for adoption from from the heterosexual couples who are meant to have children
That's true. Just the other day, after one of my mexicans keeled over from the heat, I headed down to the adoption agency to pick up some new labor. (I'd breed them myself, but my wife is barren as a apple orchard in january). Anyhow, the lady at the desk says to me, she says "ain't got but some scrawny chinese girls, and they's only 2 year old". So I says to her, I says "Where'd all the others go?" and she says to me "Gays been roundin' 'em up like fallen almonds. They can't have 'em on their own, so they're stealin' them that come from the straight couples. We's down way below our normal supply fer this time a year." So I says to her, I says "But that's not right. The gays take all the available orphans, so my wife and I should have children just as nature intended? That just ain't right". But what could I do?
So, when ya can't find any cabbage for your salad this year, you'll know who to blame.
Oh Brother!!
"Tell me why heterosexual couples like this (who would be able to have a baby the natural way, if there wasn't a problem) need to deal with gay couples (who KNOW they cant have a baby) taking kids out of the adoption pool, so to speak."
Gay adoptive parents are snatching orphans away from straight adoptive parents? That's a new one on me. Any links or facts with that?
Huntingtonbeach,
Did it ever occur to you that not every conservative is a grouchy old man? I am less then a year out of high school...usually people want to finish high school before signing up for military service.
Anyway, go ahead and label the founding Founding Fathers however you want, because political labels had an entirely different meaning over 200 years ago. When these devout Christian men drafted the Constitution with Christian principles in mind, I can guarantee you they didnt have "gay rights" in their minds. Matter of fact, back in their time, the thought of homosexuality was an abomination and an act of the devil. I'm not saying that I am that extreme...but that was the mindset in the 1770's. So please don't try to tell everyone here that the Founding Fathers were liberal in the same way liberalism exists today.
Devout Deists.
The founding fathers were devout Deists. Some were Christians, many more were not. But they all saw the potential oppressive danger in a state sponsored religion.
Why else would they forego the mention of the name of Jesus or even God in the Constitution for the more general term of Creator?
Check up on things before you post.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
The sources for the information are cited on that page. Every man involed in the creation of our government was a Christian, "deist" or "agnostic" are labels that cannot be put on these people. Staying on the topic of the thread, the majority of Christians today still do not support homosexuality. Since the overwhelming Protestant Christian culture was a main motivating factor in breaking free from England, I think it follows to say that the vast majority of our contry has never supported gay rights and the outburst of gay culture.
Gays: Be thankful for how far your culture has been able to grow in this country. Everyone has to openly accept you, employ you, and celebrate you with your parades in major cities. I certainly don't receive that kind of recognition for my sexual preference.
Although I have been familiar with homophobia for a long time, it still strikes me that an expression of love for a spouse and children could be used as an excuse for such a hateful outburst.
I pity the children who will be/are being raised by such a bigot. Because children cannot choose not to be raised with hatred and prejudices. They simply are or aren't. Melissa and Tammy's children are not. Neither are Julie Cypher's. Bless all of them.
Well Savage ! Are you happy now? Are you going to continue mouthing off and telling the world that you are speaking the truth and don't care what society thinks of you? Apparently, as with NBC, you just got fired from your talent agency a mere two days after signing on with them. Yeah, mouth, keep doing what you're doing and all you will have left is your hard core fan base and nothing else outside your bunker.
You putz, I love it. You crack me up. Now, this is how you entertain me!
SUGGEST ALL MEMBERS FORWARD A COPY TO DICK CHENEY.