Savage on gays "doing these despicable acts to each other" and Sen. Boxer, a "loud-mouthed, foul-tempered" woman "bossing men around"
On the March 22 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage asked his listeners to "put your mind into the mind-set of the enemy. ... I want you to put yourself into the mind-set of the Bedouin, who hates us." He then asked: "What would you think of a country that spends most of its time arguing over whether a man can marry a man and do to each other what is despised by 99.9 percent of humanity from the beginning of time until now." Savage added: "Because make no mistake about it: 99.9 percent of humanity despises that behavior because they do not want to go down that road, and they know it's the road of death." Savage also said: "[T]he lion of the desert says, 'I'd rather die, I'd rather blow myself up than ever see my son Ahmed marrying the other guy's son, Mahmoud, and doing these despicable acts to each other.' " Savage further stated: "And then he sees loud-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around; foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around," in reference to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
He added: "If we don't wake up in this country ... the Muslim extremists who are marching in the streets of Europe will be marching in the streets of America," and then claimed that "they will massacre you as sure as I'm standing here, unless you understand what's at stake. They will massacre you unless you understand how they see the world, and what's at stake. They will never assimilate in America. Never in a million years will they assimilate and permit their son Ahmed to marry another man. ... Never in a million years will they subjugate themselves to permit a shrike like Barbara Boxer to use a fishwife mouth on them. Never in a million years."
Later, Savage asked: "Don't you understand how [Muslim extremists] see the world? I do, which is why most of them listen to the show and love me." He then began to speak from the point of view of a Muslim extremist. Savage said, "The enemy himself probably listens to this show and says, 'My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me.' " Savage added: "And yet the liberal sees me as the enemy. The liberal, who wants to further homosexualize, further feminize, further prostitute, further pornographic [sic] the nation, hates Michael Savage. Don't you understand what's at stake? Well, I think I've laid out pretty clearly what I'm trying to say today, and what's going on in my mind. And I hope you understand what I'm saying to you."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), Savage has a history of hateful attacks on gays and lesbians. He has repeatedly referred to "the homosexual mafia," claimed that "the homosexual dance of death" is the "seminal issue of our time," and compared gays to "drug addicts." As Media Matters has also noted, Savage was signed by Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency (CAA) for "representation in all areas" -- including television and film -- but was reportedly dropped after Media Matters documented his comments attacking singer and CAA client Melissa Etheridge for thanking her wife during her Academy Awards acceptance speech. This is, however, the first time he has claimed he is admired by America's "enemy."
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 March 22 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: But now I want to switch angles for you on The Savage Nation. I want you to put your mind into the mind-set of the enemy. You're now a lion of the desert. Don't underestimate these people. Never underestimate the Bedouins. Others have done so, and they made a huge mistake. I want you to put yourself in the mind-set of the Bedouin, who hates us.
Now, they look over at America and England and France, and what do they see? They see a country concerned about men marrying men. A man wants to marry a man. Now, what would you think if you were a lion of the desert, living in an ancient mindset? Where a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and you procreate as the Bible says, and have children.
What would you think of a country that spends most of its time arguing over whether a man can marry a man and do to each other what is despised by 99.9 percent of humanity from the beginning of time until now? Because make no mistake about it: 99.9 percent of humanity despises this behavior because they do not want to go down that road, and they know it's the road of death.
And so, you're looking at it from the point of view of the enemy. He sees a country obsessed with a man marrying a man? That's what they're arguing over?
And then he sees loud-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around. Foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around.
Now, I want you to pull up the Barbara Boxer clip from yesterday where she says, "You're not in power anymore. That was OK when you were -- you're not in power anymore. I'm in power."
Do you have that little clip ready, to show you what I mean by a foul-mouthed, foul-tempered woman in power? Let me know when you have that, I know I pulled it out of the hat. I'm giving you one example. Foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women.
So the lion of the desert says, "I'd rather die, I'd rather blow myself up than ever see my son Ahmed marrying the other guy's son, Mahmoud, and doing these despicable acts to each other. I'd rather blow myself up than subjugate myself to a foul-mouthed little degenerate in Congress or in the Senate, who shoots her mouth off like this, humiliating men on a regular basis."
[...]
SAVAGE: If we don't wake up in this country, to summarize, the Muslim extremists who are marching in the streets of Europe will be marching in the streets of America. And they will massacre you as sure as I'm standing here, unless you understand what's at stake. They will massacre you unless you understand how they see the world, and what's at stake.
They will never assimilate in America. Never, in a million years, will they assimilate and permit their son Ahmed to marry another man. Never in a million years will they permit their daughters to become prostitutes like the vermin on Sunset Boulevard who puke on themselves and are held up as role models by the media.
Never in a million years will they subjugate themselves to permit a shrike like Barbara Boxer to use a fishwife mouth on them. Never in a million years. Don't you understand how they see the world? I do, which is why most of them listen to the show and love me.
Yeah, you don't know that. The enemy himself probably listens to this show and says, "My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me."
And yet the liberal sees me as the enemy. The liberal, who wants to further homosexualize, further feminize, further prostitute, further pornographic [sic] the nation, hates Michael Savage. Don't you understand what's at stake?
Well, I think I've laid out pretty clearly what I'm trying to say today, and what's going on in my mind. And I hope you understand what I'm saying to you.
Hummmm? He sounds as though he's on the terrorist's side.
TREASON ! ! !
Wow, gay-bashing AND misogyny in the same commentary.
Could there BE more proof that Savage is a closeted homosexual?
I mean, honestly...
I'm pretty much convinced. Anyone else? Show of hands...?
It's settled.
Well, if he is, he's the most out of luck f*cker there is. Damn he is nasty looking.
This seems to be an increasingly common phenomena on the right: from Dinesh D'Souza to Mark Steyn, conservative authors, activists, and broadcasters seem to be coming to an unconscious realization that their moral allies are the people who attacked us on 9/11, and that they ought to unite with them against the "evil liberals."
That's right. The logical conclusion for them is to eliminate liberals. There really is a malingering mental disorder in the psychological orientation of the hard right.
This guy is working out the most elaborate piece of performance art since Andy Kaufman wrestled girls on TV. He's a hippie who gave money to Jerry Brown's campaign last year. The over-the-top rhetoric should have been a dead giveaway.
Even the Freepers are tripping to the put-on already.
I'm inclined to believe you. I've often thought that there was no way an intelligent human could possibly believe the crap these guys spew over the airwaves. Is it possible that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter and Savage are working from a script?
I always kind of liked the fantasy that the Bushites are really 60s radicals in disguise, bent on taking down the Republican party...
Thanks for the link, Val.
The comic strip actually makes more sense than the last 6 years have.
I love that strip - Dan can be kind of erratic, but when he's good he's good.
Savage isn't a Bushite. Try again.
I wasn't, in that specific comment, talking about Savage, but since you appear to take him seriously my guess is that you are imprevious to subtlety.
Love Tom Tomorrow. I have all his books. Sparky for President. I think Opus could even be VP.
I don't think the country's ready for a penguin as vice-prez. Of course, given the options of that, a woman, or a magic negro, well...
Neon, how do you think penguins tendencies toward homosexuality would play out in the sticks?
Foul mouthed? Because she had to remind an rude Senator he was no longer in charge of the committee when he was being a jerk to the former Vice President? And when in her exchange (because he DID play the clip) did she use the big seven swear words?
Nah, Wiener, liberals don't see you as an enemy... we see you as an idiot.
It's almost like he's saying, "Boy those Taliban were cool because they don't tolerate no uppity women tellin' them what to do or that they don't kill 'homos' in the streets."
Well Weiner, why don't you go join em since you seem to want to emulate them so much?
The former Vice President is a fat jerk who is lying about global warming and has paid his carbon offsets to a corporation which he owns. He doesn't deserve to be treated with respect.
Wienerdog is an insane psychopath without a shred of decency and anyone who repeats or supports his insane rantings needs our sympathy along with therapy and megadoses of an antipsychotic
Why all the psychobabble? If you're just going to badmouth Savage/Weiner, why not show some intelligence?
He may be a little crazy, but insane? C'mon.
Charles Manson, may be a little crazy, but insane?
C'mon.
So you're comparing Savage with Manson? Now I know you're being silly.
Everyone deserves to be criticised but this is a little over the top.
I was being a smart-ass but thought I made a valid point.
You don't know much about Charlie, do you?
There was very little violence attributed to Manson personally. His crimes consisted mostly of convincing impressionable people that their shortcomings were the fault of society.
Sort of like Dr. Weiner blaming everything on liberals, gays, women who boss men around, muslims, illegals, etc.
What psychobabble. Did you not understand the words insane? Therapy? Antipsychotic? None of those are psychiatric jargon. Wienerdog is INSANE, I dont know how much simpler I could say it, and simple IS the key when talking to a rightwinger
That is what you choose as you're first post to me? I wouldn't call it very insightful. It was downright rude more than anything.
I will decide how I post, there isnt anything you have to say in the matter. Not to mention YOUR first post to me wasnt exactly kindly. Do you KNOW what the word psychobabble MEANS. I didnt use any. YOUR inability to make a cogent point or really any sense at all isnt MY problem.
Man! You guys really do work from the same script, huh? When do we get to hear about the zinc mine?
Well, you've brilliantly refuted all the objections I had to Weiner's inflammatory remarks.
Now somebody hand me a towel, the sarcasm is dripping all over...
The best way to make fools like you go away is to ignore you. Hear the room emptying? Bye, loser.
250-plus posts is an empty room?
Savageforpresident -
Isn't it funny how nobody had anything in response to your statement besides calling savage names...over the course of a whole weekend? The guy who "used to be the next president of the United States" is so corrupt and wrong on the whole global warming thing, even the people here can't make something up to defend him.
You guys have really swallowed the script, haven't you?
To take your punishment on the topic of global warming, why don't you toddle over to the global warming thread.
So we were suposed to make a logical refutation to the statement that Gore is a fat jerk who doesnt deserve respect? Are you KIDDING ME? You rightwingers listen to these screechmonkeys like Weinerdog, and his insanity rubs off on you. You THINK YOU ought to be able to just insult people and have it taken as if it were actually cool, logical, debate, it isnt, THAT is why it isnt treated as if it were. Anyone can see this unless they are mentally challenged OR completely brainwashed.
So, Mr. Savage... you're saying we should appease the Muslim extremists by changing America's diverse cultures, lifestyles and our concepts of civil rights?
Actually, no, Savage is not saying that. In fact, Savage just criticized a LIBERAL GERMAN JUDGE who ruled that it was okay for a man to beat his wife because, according to the man's Muslim beliefs, she deserved to be beaten. It's actually the liberals who bend over backwards to appease the desert scum. WHEN A MUSLIM MOVES TO A WESTERN NATION, HE IS TO LIVE BY OUR RULES. THE CULTURAL DEFENSE IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. MUSLIMS ALSO BELIEVE IN EXECUTING GAYS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF A MUSLIM MURDERS A GAY PERSON IN GERMANY, IT SHOULD ALSO BE LEGAL?
SAVAGE: If we don't wake up in this country, to summarize, the Muslim extremists who are marching in the streets of Europe will be marching in the streets of America. And they will massacre you as sure as I'm standing here, unless you understand what's at stake. They will massacre you unless you understand how they see the world, and what's at stake.
Sorry, you're wrong... Savage was exhorting America to mend what he and Muslims consider America's evil ways or else the Muslims will massacre non-conformists on the streets of America. Sounds like appeasement to me...
Savage once said to nuke Iran. That's hardly appeasement.
Yes. It is appeasement. To satiate the bloodlust you have in common with violent conservative radical fundamentalists is appeasement. If they truly hate our freedoms, then to stifle our liberties is to appease the enemy.
To embrace diversity and equality is to oppose radical fundamentalism.
So, not only is Weiner a homophobe, he's also a hypocrite for wanting to appease Muslims on gay rights but not women's rights? Heck, it's not like Weiner is a fan of women to begin with...
Savage is not for appeasing the Muslims on homosexuality; he just happens to agree with the Muslim religion on the evils of the gay lifestyle. However, Savage does not agree with criminally punishing gays.
Well, by that logic, if a conservative Muslim moved to America and Savage was in charge, the immigrant wouldn't even notice a difference between America and whatever Stoneage from which he sprang. He could beat his wife, divorce her, get a few more wives, kill his daughter if she offended his sense of "honor," and gut his son if he turned out gay. Gee, sounds terrific...
When is the telethon to raise money to get Savage some lips airing?
No, President Savage would not let a Muslim beat his wife in America. Have you been paying attention? Savage attacked a German judge who said that it was okay for a Muslim man to beat his wife.
Wow. Letting women boss men around?How did we let this happen?Wrong wrong wrong
"Letting women boss men around?"
Yep... and it all started when we gave them the vote. ;>)
...and when we bought them that leather teddy and the buggy whip last valentine's day.
But I digress. I deserve a spanking... Flag me.
wanna bet Savage's wife is a domineering bi@tch? Explains why he hates women who speak their mind, it does!
That is a real nice thing to say about a lady you do not know. What kind of Liberal are you?
One who learned how to respond in kind to right wing hacks!
You do not even know his wife. What a terrible thing to say.
She's married to this schmuck. That's all we need to know.
yeah, and I see you jumping all over his statements expressing your indignation when he slings mud.
BTW, welcome, troll!
Probably learned it from a conservative...
Yeah because the real problem here is what an anonymous poster posts on a website not what an insane hatemonger spews to a national audience.
Irony--
Was letting them vote the problem, or was it COUNTING it that became the problem?
So let me get this straight. Savage went and spoke with a representative sample of the Bedouin, and as the result of his random, scientific survey he determined that they hate us. He also determined that they are homophobic misogynists. Therefore we must become homophobic misogynists so that they won't attack us. Isn't that giving in to the terrorists? If Savage hates this homosexualized, feminized, pornographized nation of ours, I'll be the first to suggest he move somewhere he'll fit in. I can think of a few countries where women can't even vote, let alone offend Savage's delicate sensibilities by expressing an opinion.
Savage is in full meltdown.
Calling a transgender a 'freak," lying about Barbara Boxer, just ranting and raving.
Why? Because the more outrageous crap he spouts, the more ratings he gets from his "core audience," the ones who still drrag their knuckles while walking.
But I don't know if any of you know this, but credible psychologists say those who are the loudest gay-bashers, are usually self-hating closet gays themselves.
Any bets that in 5 years or less, Savage gets caught picking up a gay hooker?
Oh, say one Jeff Gannon, perhaps? (I know he's not a hooker)
Ouch - sorry, couldn't resist
"Any bets that in 5 years or less, Savage gets caught picking up a gay hooker?"
Given his violence fetishism, it'll be more likely that he'll get caught with a murdered gay hooker wearing a Michael Savage mask.
"My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me." -- Savage imagining a potential terrorist
Would any of the usual Savage supporters care to parse Savage's ideological comparisons between a terrorist and himself?
This latest rant of his, that Islamist terrorists hate America because it is liberal, is hardly new and has been forwarded by other conservatives (it has been forwarded in other forms by Dinesh D'Souza, Pat Robertson, etc.).
Personally I wish the dems in congress were more like Sen. Boxer! You go Barbara!
Agreed, Boxer is one of the nest Senators today.
I know it was a typo, but I rather like "a nest of Senators!" Kind of like a covey of quail or an exaltation of skylarks...
Or a murder of crows?
And you favorite Senator took back a award she presented to a Member or CAIR. Why you ask? Ties to terrorism. At least she gets it.
Everybody, say hi to the new troll!!
Troll, what the hell are you talking about?
Ignorance is Bliss my freind.
I know what you are saying. "No, not my favorite liberal wench that can do no wrong" Well, you are right. She got it right this time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384987/site/newsweek/
No, I mean, I literally don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you are trying to say Boxer did something wrong, but then you say that she didn't.
As well, please define a troll.
Look in the mirror.
If you're in the choir, it's OK to be off-topic, whimsical, ramdomly humorous, outright vicious, ****ing crazy, blatantly hateful.
You're a troll if you sing off-tune, or even a little flat. There will be an avalanche of invective in a collective effort to silence you.
Boxer is an evil old hag who wants to take away everybody's guns, and she support partial birth abortion (infanticide).
supports
And YOU are a moronic troll who isnt worth the electrons it takes to respond to your ignorance
I'm beginning to see a pattern of rudeness from you that is most enlightening.
It matches the pattern of ignorance we see coming from the other side.
By the way, there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion."
Terminating Inconvenient Tissue As It Has The Gall To Present Itself?
Stick around and you will see that pattern repeated till the cows come home. That is IF I am responding to a sensable, reasoned post. I do so with reason, logic, facts and I hope insight. WHEN I see flamethrowing insults and personal attacks I respond by returning serve. I dont care the least little bit what YOU think about it. I know conservatives tend to think that personal attacks are the exclusive franchise of theirs but those days are gone. I will be glad to get into the mud if thats what is thrown.
No, not my guns and babies!
Wait... I don't own any guns and I believe a woman has a right to choose. Nevermind.
A woman should have the right to kill a baby in the ninth month of pregnancy? And here I thought that liberals were compassionate, loving people. Bwahahahahahahahahaha. My statement about Mrs. Boxer stands. She is a repugnant hag.
And mine about you stands you are an ignorant troll
It sounds as if you're under the impression a woman can simply walk into any abortion clinic right up to the last minute and get an abortion at will. Please tell me where that is happening besides in your delusional right-wing talking point soaked head. I defy you to provide the name of ONE state where this is happening.
Let's make it even easier. Name one hospital where this is happening.
I'd like to see a link to asource confirming her plan to steal guns.I won't hold my breath.
Fishwife mouth?
Meatloaf thrower?
Empty mind-sluut?
Where does he get his material?
We don't see you as the enemy, we see you as a seriously deranged person who doesn't believe a word that he says, but says it anyway because it sells.
I would say that Dr. Weiner is a whore, but that's not being fair to the honorable people who ply that trade.
The insane bigots ranting handbook
"And yet the liberal sees me as the enemy."
No, you're just a pathetic little 'man.'
I just wonder how he escaped from the asylum?
I would assume he just slid under the door on his belly.
I just can't believe he went this far. Gays cause terrorism. "99.9 percent of humanity from the beginning of time until now" despises something that was embraced by the ancient Greeks, of all cultures.
This is pure insanity. It goes beyond hyperbole, it goes beyond an over-the-top style. It goes beyond bigotry. He might as well be talking about the tracking device the Martians implanted in his teeth.
"mind-set of the Bedouin" , yeah, like savage has alot of face time with bedouin cheifs, spends a few hours every week around the hooka discussing world affairs in goat skin tent out in the desert.
I see what MMFA is doing, because it would be impossible to post all the drivel from his program, only when he dips to a new low is that particular bit of trash talk posted.
I heard he likes camels, maybe that qualifies him...
If yer thinking what I think yer thinking, you need to get your mind out of the gutter. I'm talkin' about cigarettes.
So, does SavageRocks also see the affinity between himself and radical muslims?
I must admit I was confused...here I thought Radical Islam was America's enemy when it really is homosexuals and Barb Boxer. Glad I got that straight now. Thank you Mr Weener.
I know, I know.......
Mediamatters job is to correct the wrongs of the right-wing corporate niose machine......
I get it....... However, who, beyond those that can't help but be led by their noses and that follow Weiner-Savage and those of his ilk, really would believe anything this guy says is in any way news?
Obviously this kind of crap needs to be exposed, but is it not obvious by now that these hatemongers say this only to a specific audience and that the rest of us (which is likely 99.7% of the rest of us) know already that Mr Weiner flaps his gums for nothing more than getting another 15 minutes of fame......
Ann Coultergeist is the same way, its as if these people need to have us, in here and elsewhere talking, writting, speaking their names or they somehow feel lonely!
I guess my question then to MediaMatters and to those in here is this:
Is this thread about the supposed news these clowns try to propagate or is it to add to the extensive list that exposes their collective idiocy in general? Or a little of both?
good question. I'd guess a little of both, but also suggest there is misrepresentation in Savage's rantings. 99.9%? Where does he get that "fact" from? Presenting opinion as fact is something we need to do away with, cause opinions are like @ssholes, everyone's got one!
Capt, I think a lot of stuff gets posted to MMFA just to add to the database. That, and to piss Tommy off, too...
Because weiner on this site is like andy rooney on 60 minutes. He's like the dancing popcorn between movies. He's like the found puppy story on your 11:00 news (10:00 central).
He's like the 19th hole on the golf course. He's like the mini-tramp ball-dunkers at an NBA game. He's like Huggy Bear on Starsky and Hutch.
Weiner is like the dollop of whipped cream atop your steak. He's like the wet bar in your church. He's like the mohawk I gave my dog.
He's just for fun, a little stress relief. And when we study him, he makes us all feel better about ourselves.
That was some beautiful Friday commenting. If it's not Happy Hour wherever you are, it should be!
I have another two hours to go before my weekend starts.
Does it show?
He's like a pimple that needs to be popped.
He's also number 3 in the country so what's your point.
He'goes off the deep end once in a while but at least he's entertaining and a loon at the same time, isn't he?
Charles Manson:
He goes off the deep end once in a while but at least he's entertaining and a loon at the same time, isn't he?
What more of a point is necessary than pointing out Weiner is an insane, bigoted hatemonger? There is a guy that comes to the park here who is sometimes fairly entertaining, when he stops taking his Haldol. I wouldnt give him a radio show but thats me
SOLON & WORRIERKING:
<> What is your problem? You both demonstrate a total lack of decency at every turn. If this is the norm in here I don't think I'll be hanging around long.Where have I shown a lack of decency?
Because I won't roll over and let people like Dr. Weiner spew his hateful doctrine.
I'm accused of indecency, yet Weiner is always calling someone a hag, fishwife, a shrew, a traitor, a coward, an appeaser a freak or a psychopath.
I'm sorry, civility goes out the window when I'm responding to people like Weiner and his minions.
If you're not satisfied with the level of discourse, I'd suggest Free Republic. You can go over there an wallow in your own filth!
Stay, leave, dress up like Ann Coulter and do the Hokey Pokey, I couldnt care less.
Over 1 billion served.
Well, I say we just thumb our noses at these "bedouins" and really piss them off so they will want no part of our degrading culture. Let's all become whores, walk Sunset Blvd. and puke up on ourselves......and then engage in one despicable act after another on each other until we become pornographic fishwives!
Now THAT'S the Tommy I don't know! =0
I am workin' the Sunset strip-o-rama tonight..........give me a wink.
;)
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe.
You jsut described the younger, "Liberal" me. Now I have grown up.
Where does this misguided notion that age and conservative beliefs are directly proportional? (as you get older, you get more conservative for the non-scientists out there.)
As I age, my views get more liberal, as do most of the people I know. As I learn about the world, and look at what those before me have done, I realize that progress is the key.
Conservatives don't really understand history, they don't understand the constitution (living document? Anyone?) and they somehow seem to believe that they have earned their place in life, while those bellow them just haven't worked hard enough.
Middle, who do you want looking after you when you get old? Halliburton?
Liberalism isn't progress.
And your brand of conservatism isnt QUITE ignorance but its close definition of liberal notice the close connection with progress
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal
lib·er·al(lbr-l, lbrl)
adj. 1. a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.Solon, in many cases, tradition is good. American liberalism in 2007 is a complete joke. It is 100% wrong.
YOU are a complete joke. Liberalism is right just perhaps not about everything but overall just like they were about Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam war, the 40 hr work week, child labor, pollution, rural electrification, Social Security and well just about everything.
So Lyndon Johnson was a conservative? The John Birch Society, which opposed the Vietnam War, is liberal? Conservatives are against electricity? Jim Crow was bad, but I don't see what it has to do with today. Social security is garbage. Liberalism is garbage today.
Ok we already get that you are a moron. So you can enlist the help of a six year old to maintain a semblance of coherence in your posts. If I follow your logic bereft progression here, nothing I said could possibly be construed as saying Johnson was a liberal. Just because a rightwing tinfoil hat organization like JB agreed doesnt change the FACT liberals were right about the Vietnam war, Jim Crow and all the other things I said. Before SS half of all seniors died in POVERTY today less than ten percent do. The fact you are WRONG about it doesnt change the FACT liberals were right about it.
People should save up for their retirement.
We tried that, how did it work out again? Thats right half of all seniors died in poverty. You have a pin up poster of Ebeneezer Scrooge in your bedroom dont you? I think we are all in this together, I think that is the difference between a society and a large group of people living in a specific geographic area. I CARE if my nieghbor has to eat dogfood or choose between eating and getting his medicine. If you dont, I dont see how you can even call yourself a human being.
First "...So Lyndon Johnson was a conservative? The John Birch Society, which opposed the Vietnam War, is liberal?... "
Then " Jim Crow was bad, but I don't see what it has to do with today."
At least put your contradictory statements in two separate posts. The hypocrisy is a little less obvious that way.
I'll summarize. Liberalism accomplished good things in the past, but it's doing nothing good now. Also, not everything that liberals did in the past was great. That's the essence of what I've said.
Conservatives have screwed this country royally, that is the essence of what I am saying. WITH every bit as much to back it up as YOUR worthless and baseless assertion.
It's not a living document. That's a blatant lie with no basis in truth. If you want to change the Constitution, pass an amendment. Don't decide that the Constitution now means something that it clearly didn't mean back in 1787.
WOW, what I was taught in school was that the Constitution was seen as a living document BECAUSE it could be amended. Then again I didnt take the shortbus to school
I agree that it can be amended. However, when the Constitution was written, porn wasn't speech. Therefore, it's still not speech, unless an amendment is passed declaring it to be speech. When the Constitution was written, executing a retarded murderer wasn't cruel and unusual. Therefore, it's still not cruel and unusual until an amendment is passed declaring it so. It's that simple. Judicial activism is WRONG and has no basis in what the founding fathers believed.
I disagree, the Constitution was purposely written along broad terms of philosophy based on enlightenment principles specifically so that evolving societal understanding could be taken into account. By YOUR logic since miscegenation laws were ok according to the Constitution they should still be ok, a black man should still be counted as 3/5ths of a person. The constitution left room for such adjustments and made the Supreme Court the arbiter not YOU. Original intent is ludicrous it would put us all in the position of being mind readers. If you dont like pornography feel free to lobby congress to write laws outlawing it, I wont stand in your way, its no skin off my nose. Convince enough people and more power to you as far as I am concerned. Good luck with that. The constitution however SPECIFICALLY denies the right to cruel and unusual punishment and I agree with the Supreme Court that would apply to executing the mentally retarded. You disagree fine but its hardly a constitutional issue. IF the Constitution were all we needed then why even HAVE a Supreme Court? YOU cant read the founding fathers mind anymore than I can so lets just stick with the principles behind the Constitution and not pretend societies dont change and that we KNOW what they would say about things they didnt specifically address
Because of the 14th amendment, blacks are no longer 3/5 of a person. Once again, when the Constitution is AMENDED, then the prevailing thought in 1787 doesn't matter anymore. I find nothing cruel or unusual about executing a retarded murderer. Being mentally retarded (legally) is not an excuse for murder. Murderers need to be sent to God for judgment ASAP.
I didn't need "then" in the second sentence there.
The Supreme Court is needed to make sure that nobody violates the Constitution. However, judges rewriting the Constitution is wrong.
Judges DONT rewrite the constitution. they interpret the broad principles into specific applications and our understanding of those principles evolves.
That part of the Constitution has to do with the census so the 14th amendment applies to the census HOW? It may be a reasonable disagreement but I think its cruel, and apparantly the SC agrees with ME because there isnt the culpability to understand the consequences of their actions therefore the responsibility is less. I didnt say or imply it was an EXCUSE rather a mitigating factor. Murder is always wrong, however if you dont understand what murder even IS, then its cruel to kill you for the action. Did you know that one executed criminal saved his desert from his last meal for when he got back? Not understanding what death even IS has got to taken into account when we mete out punishment. We still have the right to protect society from them but taking their lives is just crue. Thats how I see it, you see it different fine
Slaves weren't considered to be citizens. However, southerners (wanting to have as much congressional representation as possible) wanted slaves counted in the census. A compromise was made; five slaves would be counted as three people. According to the fourteenth amendment, everybody born in the U.S.A. is a citizen. That, combined with the thirteenth amendment that banned slavery, recognizes each black person as a whole.
OK, that was a good point and exceedingly well argued I cede the point unreservedly. So then lets go back to the miscegenation laws. It was ok according when the constitution was written as was burning and hanging witches so by your logic it should STILL be ok?
Miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutionl because of the fourteenth amendment, which was ratified in the 1860s. It's actually a good question as to what the authors of that amendment meant. Would they have meant for "separate but equal" to be okay, as well? I actually don't know the answer to that. The arguments against miscegenation laws and separate but equal are very strong, and I'd need to know for sure that the original intent was for those two things before I'd ever say that sbe & laws against interracial marriage are okay.
I would think that witches have been protected by the first amendment throughout our history. The Salem witch trials were before the founding.
I would have thought so too, but while the most FAMOUS witch trials in Salem were in 1692 they continued into the 1800s
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5884873
THE WONDERS OF THEINVISIBLE WORLD.BEING AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRYALS OF SEVERAL WITCHES LATELY EXECUTED IN NEW-ENGLAND.
BY COTTON MATHER, D.D.
TO WHICH IS ADDED
A FARTHER ACCOUNT OF THE TRYALS OF THE NEW-ENGLAND WITCHES.
BY INCREASE MATHER, D.D. PRESIDENT OF HARVARD COLLEGE.
LONDON:JOHN RUSSELL SMITH, SOHO SQUARE.1862.
Jim Crow laws MAYBE were supposed to be taken care of by the 14th amendment but it was people making arguments just like yours that kept them, AND miscegenation laws continuing into the 1960s when they were still on the books in several Southern States.
Hey, ravaged, read this:
"The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.
Unlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles. There is no provision for expunging from the text obsolete or rescinded provisions.
Some people feel that demographic changes in the U.S.—specifically the great disparity in population between states—have made the Constitution too difficult to amend, with states representing as little as 4% of the population theoretically able to block an amendment desired by over 90% of Americans; others feel that it is unlikely that such an extreme result would occur. However, any proposals to change this would necessarily involve amending the Constitution itself, something of a Catch-22.
Aside from the direct process of amending the Constitution, the practical effect of its provisions may be altered by judicial decision. The United States is a common law country, and courts follow the precedents established in prior cases. However, when a Supreme Court decision clarifies the application of a part of the Constitution to existing law, the effect is to establish the meaning of that part for all practical purposes. Not long after adoption of the Constitution, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Since such cases will reflect changing legal, political, economic, and social conditions, this provides a mechanism, in practice, for adjusting the Constitution without needing to amend its text."
Once again, you were too busy getting ravaged to notice the truth. Hope it didn't hurt goin' in...
You said nothing in all of that. Nowhere did you mention where any of the founding fathers said that it was proper to change the meaning of the Constitution without passing an amendment. BTW, judicial review is based on a clause in the Constitution which gives the courts the right to review cases. However, the founding fathers meant for the courts to decide cases based on the original intent of the Constitution. Thanks for playing.
The DID? And it says that WHERE in the Constitution? I didnt see it in MINE. Original intent is a chimera that would involve mindreading or seances neither of which are really all that rational
I grew up too. And I'm at least as liberal and anti-war now as I was in 1969.
Progress in society has always come from the progressive side, whether it was fighting for equal rights, equal pay or stopping fascism. It's an ongoing fight that will never be finished.
I havent changed one iota politically since I was 14 years old and I am on the left end of the political spectrum. When I want to see Jane Fonda or Russ Fiengold on the spectrum I have to look to my right.
I was a Communist in my teens... I've moved left since then.
I love it. Most of this countries liberals would be center right to the rest of the world.
Oh my goddess yes. Our lie-beral islamofascist commie Congress just passed an anti-war bill... funding the war for another year and a half.
My Italian friends think we are insane.
They probably read too much Gramski
The socialist Italians are insane. It's funny how socialist Europeans are "anti-war" yet supported NATO's war crimes in Serbia. I was a peacenik hippie during that war. So was Michael Savage. Honestly, I hate hypocrisy. European socialists are hypocritical scum. They booed Bush for going to war yet cheered Clitler, who committed war crimes, at the Pope's funeral. It seems to me that Pope John Paul II had a bigger beef with Clitler than with Bush. The Catholic Church opposed Clitler's war crimes in Serbia just as it opposed the war in Iraq. The Catholic Church is 100% against bombing. Clitler bombed Serbia. The Pope also disagreed with Clitler on abortion.
Socialist Europeans need to shut up and take a shower.
Now I see your attraction to Weiners insanity. You really are a moron. So Clinton committed warcrimes at the Popes funeral, wow how did I miss that? You really need to increase your medication. You are insane. Please seek the help of a mental health professional immediatly
Solon, I put a comma there. Can you read? He didn't commit war crimes at the funeral.
Then you haven't grown up. A person can be an adult chronologically but not mentally or psychologically. When people truly grow up, they become conservative. Conservatism is common sense.
That last response was meant for Solon. I guess that hitting the reply button put me behind a bunch of other people who replied to what Solon said.
YOUR kind of conservatism is conformity fetishims and abject stupidity.
You have the debating skills of a fourteen year old.
Actually I have fine debating skills I just dont USE them to respond to trollish insults of liberals. I have the INSULTING skills of a 14 year old and they will do for this venue
I was wondering if anyone ever revisits their posts from a few days ago. Sorry for a such a blunt comment, but it should be pretty easy to rebut an argument from a Savage fan without having to resort to unprovoked insults (like calling everyone morons). Doing so brings the debate down to Savage levels.
BTW - I consider myself a pro-choice/pro-gay rights/anti-death penalty/athiest/conservative who thinks both very amazing and very sad that so many people take Savage as seriously as they do.
It's not easy to refute the great Dr. Michael Savage or his disciples.
Actually that is true. There is no refuting insanity and bigoted insults. Its just an insane form of opinion. As the ancient Romans said in matters of opinion debate is useless.
Actually, I could spend all day showing you how Savage,
1) Is nothing more than an entertainer who doesn't believe what he says. Do you really think that if he hated liberalism that much, he would a) live in the most liberal city in the nation, when he's rich enough to live any where he wants to, and b) Donate money to Jerry Brown's campaign, who is so liberal he got the nickname of "Moonbeam".
2) Does not respect his audience (see how many times per show he says to his audience "you probably don't understand" or "you wouldn't see it if I didn't tell you about it").
3) Has little interest in facts. He had an interesteing little rant on global warming recently, where he informed us all that the sun has explosions that are "like volcanoes", which heat up the earth. Any elementry school student could refute that one.
Savage is a clown. He's not a conservative, just a caracature of one. I find it amazing that people out there actually think he's real.
Well he is either doing an elaborate performance art routine or he is clinically insane. I dont care which it is neither deserves being taken seriously
UNPROVOKED???? Are you kidding me? Have you been reading the guys posts? He has called liberalism garbage, a complete joke, and called Barbara Boxer an evil old HAG, exactly what do YOU call an insult?
I guess I see calling liberalism a joke (and similar comments) as different from calling the posters a moron. A lot of people on this site are quick to attack the messenger, without attacking the message.
My belief is that you can never win a debate calling someone a moron, because you'll never be able to convince someone that they're a moron.
Winston Churchill stopped Fascism. He was a conservative.
What about stopping Communism?
Today, liberalism supports nothing good. Liberalism is for immoral behavior, stripping away constitutional rights such as the sacred right to bear arms, and a welfare state where the government steals money from people who work hard and redistributes it to lazy bums. Liberalism is pure garbage. I don't care what liberalism accomplished a century ago.
The great Sir Winston Churchill said that if you're not a conservative by age forty, you have no brain.
Your brand of conservatism is ignorance and conformity worship, a need to be brainwashed, ignorant, and lied to. A desire to get as many Americans killed as you possibly can. Starving hungry children, and destroying personal freedom. While that may be a bunch of baseless assertions and fairly divorced from reality it is based on as much as YOUR mindless and baseless post
Not at all, Solon. You're projecting, as usual.
I'm still waiting for you to say something that actually clarifies, defends, justifies or supports something Weiner says. But all you do is cheerlead, like a broken record.
Methinks you are projecting your projection. Thats ok, people as dumb as you have a hard time understanding the written word. Take your time and hire a five year old to explain it to you. It wont however be explained on the radio.
Winston Churchill would have been defeated if FDR hadn't entered the war. And the British and Americans could very well have lost if not for the load that the Russians carried.
You can't accept some parts of history and ignore the parts that don't agree with your political philosophy.
They have no other possible way of making arguments that support their philosophy
I never said that FDR didn't do anything. However, Churchill was a conservative. He was also a voice crying out in the wilderness about the evils of Adolf Hitler when everybody else in Europe said to appease Germany. Churchill was called a "warmonger," etc. That sounds familiar. Well, Churchill was right. He was a truly great man, as Michael Savage will attest.
Well, when Zombie Hitler comes back from the grave, we'll all take a lesson from Churchill. Until then, nobody wants to appease the terrorists (except in your deluded mind) and everyone recognizes them as a threat (except, again, in your deluded mind).
Winston also set the "Black and Tans" upon Ireland, a quite fascistic thing to do. He stopped fascism? Perhaps, but not when he indulged in it.
To paraphrase another Churchill classic: I may be liberal, but you are stupid. And I could always change parties.
"sacred right to bear arms"- Troll
So I missed that part of the Bible, where God (Jesus) says, guns are our birthright given to us by God.
Or is that the another holy book your reading?
Why did you have to bring up Jesus? I wasn't even making a religious argument there. However, if you must know, Jesus told his disciples to carry swords. That certainly implies a right to self defense. Guns provide self defense. Next?
I wasn't even making a religious argument there. - Then you don't know the meaning of the word "sacred".
However, if you must know, Jesus told his disciples to carry swords. - He also said rich dudes ain't gettin' into heaven. What do you think of that?
So, nothing could be sacred to an atheist?
He instructed people to don metaphorical swords and armor too. Jesus does not want us to do violence.
Jesus was not against self defense though, although he didn't defend himself because he was sent to die. Jesus told his apostles to carry swords for protection.
"Jesus was not against self defense though"
-----
So that "turn the other cheek" routine was just filler?
Did Jesus turn the other cheek when he threw over tables in the temple? I hardly think that "turn the other cheek" is universal or that it means that one can't defend himself if attacked. So you're saying that if someone attacks me, I should just let him beat me up? Once again, Jesus instructed his apostles to carry swords.
"So you're saying that if someone attacks me, I should just let him beat me up?"
Worked for Ghandi. But I understand your point.
Adifferentmccain:
Of course the right to bear arms is in the Bible. Its the second commandment, isn't it?
Oh, wait a minute... never mind.
If you define "progress" as creeping socialism you would be correct sir.
The weekend.
The 40 hour work week.
Child labor laws.
The minimum wage.
Civil Rights.
Ending one immoral war and working to end another.
Yes, creeping socialism.
Worrier is once again bringing up stuff from eons ago to justify today's liberalism. Secondly, I don't even agree with Worrier that all of those things were good. I'll give it to him on child labor laws. As far as civil rights, it depends on what issue. Affirmative action is unconstitutional garbage. Liberals get no medal for putting America through that. The minimum wage, forty hour work week, and the weekend break should be determined by the market (bargaining between unions and employers), not by government. I don't give the libs a medal for that either. As far as ending one immoral war goes, liberals actually got us into most wars. World War 1 was Wilson's war. Vietnam was Johnson's war. Korea was Truman's war. Serbia was Clitler's war. I honestly don't know what Worrier is referring to on that. As far as the war in Iraq goes, I don't think that it's immoral. It's just been fought very poorly by Bush the Idiot. I think that America needs to get into a moral war with Iran if the Iranians don't budge on nuclear weapons. President Michael Savage nuking Tehran would please me very greatly.
Wow besides being intellectually and morally challenged you are also historically challenged. The Geneva accord ended Vietnams colonial status in 1954 and we began sending troops over there right away that would be EISENHOWER. Though Johnson and Kennedy deserve some of the criticism Eisenhower started us down that road. You are certainly brainwashed and repeat the propaganda like a demented parrot but knowing what you are talking about? Not so much.
The war escalated under the Dems. Your reply doesn't change much of what I said. The Dems have actually been the war party over the last century. Next?
I dont have too much problem with that. Dems have been pretty willing to use state violence. However Vietnam WAS Eisenhowers war, NOT Johnsons. You of course left out Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War and so on. Sometimes war is justified sometimes like Iraq or Vietnam, which I am willing to admit dems have some culpability for DONT. However its just DUMB to pretend EITHER party is the war party the GOP has been just as bad as the Dems if not worse. NEXT.
So, the right and proper deeds of liberals from the last century are out of bounds here, but not the unfavorable blights? More selective historical citations to fit your agenda. Big suprise.
Next?
Looks like I have my work cut out for me...
Worrier is once again bringing up stuff from eons ago to justify today's liberalism. Says the poster who invoked the names of Churchill and Hitler elsewhere in this thread. Isn't it rather arbitrary to say that, of all the points in our great nation's history, NOW is the time where we have struck the perfect balance between liberal and conservative, or that it's time to backpedal?
The minimum wage, forty hour work week, and the weekend break should be determined by the market (bargaining between unions and employers), not by government. In other words, the invisible hand. Can you think of any successful nations that follow such laissez-faire market policies?
As far as ending one immoral war goes, liberals actually got us into most wars. World War 1 was Wilson's war. Vietnam was Johnson's war. Korea was Truman's war. Serbia was Clitler's war. Wilson actually DIDN'T want to go to war and tried to avoid it via diplomacy. Don't forget WWII, fought under FDR, the man who's social programs brought us out of the Great Depression.
I'll see if I can't tackle the rest of your delusions later. But for now...
President Michael Savage nuking Tehran would please me very greatly. I'm sure the thought of all those women and children dying slowly and painfully of leukemia would just give you wet dreams, wouldn't it?
My point is that you can't justify today's liberalism by touting yesterday's liberalism.
Secondly, I don't care what President Wilson wanted. What he did is far more important.
Thirdly, FDR's socialist programs didn't get America out of the depression. The war did.
Finally, President Michael Savage. I love the sound of it; and if Iran gets nuked, it's Iran's Nazi President who's at fault.
Todays liberalism shares the same ideals as the liberalism of the past that brought us those advances in the human condition. Conservatives can point to WHAT comensurate achievements? Your take on the depression is amusing certainly disputed
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/01/did_world_war_i.html
We examine whether local economies that were the centers of federal spending on military mobilization experienced more rapid growth in consumer economic activity than other areas. We have combined information from a wide variety of sources into a data set that allows us to estimate a reduced-form relationship between retail sales per capita growth (1939-1948, 1939-1954, 1939-1958) and federal war spending per capita from 1940 through 1945. The results show that the World War II spending had virtually no effect on the growth rates in consumption that we examined.
Micheal Weiner is insane he will become president shortly after I become King of Prussia and it no loger exists
if Iran gets nuked, it's Iran's Nazi President who's at fault.
I dream of the day someone puts a .45 in your thigh and tries to blame your mother for giving birth to you. And did Ahmadinejad become blonde haired and blue eyed, and I just missed the memo?
"My point is that you can't justify today's liberalism by touting yesterday's liberalism." - Michaelwienerforpresident
And when you cite Winston Churchill (dead lo these last 45 years) as a good example of a conservative, your point is... what, exactly?
Most conservatives accept past accomplishments of liberalism. Even Michael Savage does. Also, most people who were considered "liberal" in the past would be considered "conservative" today. If FDR were alive today and had the same exact views as he did in the 1930s, he'd be called a "right winger." That's why you can't justify today's liberalism by bringing up past liberalism.
However, the past accomplishments of conservatives are different. Churchill was considered a conservative back in his day, and he'd certainly be considered a conservative today. He wouldn't be called a liberal today. That's how I can mention Sir Winston Churchill. I also mentioned him because another poster seemed to be under the impression that only liberals were against fascism.
Brave of you to talk about what a dead man would believe if he were alive now. After all, it isn't like he's around to disagree with you. Rather than speculate about what he would believe in were he alive today, why don't we look at what he actually said?
1936, speech before the Democratic National Convention
"For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man."
"...The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody’s business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.
Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power."
Siding with the people against the privileged? Calling for the overthrow of the "economic royalists"? You're right, Savage President. Clearly FDR was a hard-right neocon before his time, and all those liberals who invoke his legacy are just tweaked-out hippies who know nothing about history.
No, I said that if FDR were alive today and expressed the same exact views as he did in the 1930s, he'd be considered a conservative. I mean, under FDR there was no Medicare. There was no Medicaid. There were no Food Stamps. (In other words, our "conservative" President Bush accepts socialist programs that FDR didn't support.) I doubt that FDR was for gay marriage or even abortion rights either back in the 1930s. Now, it's quite possible that if FDR were alive today, he would have adjusted his views to fit with the present. However, I'm just saying that his platform in the 1930s wouldn't be considered all that liberal today.
Your claim that FDR would seem conservative today is, in a word, dumb. No sh*t, someone from the past will seem old-fashioned and conservative when compared to the present. That doesn't mean he wasn't an innovator in his day.
What is liberal today becomes the conventional wisdom of tomorrow, and thus, is accepted unquestioningly by the conservatives of tomorrow. (You'll note that neither Reagan nor Bush II called openly for an end to Social Security, though they both clearly wanted to dismantle it).
But that doesn't change the fact that it took a visionary mind to do what FDR did. In those days, any role of the government in the economy was unthinkable. The idea that it was the government's responsibility to provide some safety for the poorest and least fortunate among us was equally unthinkable. FDR shattered this paradigm and showed how the government could intervene to better the lives of the people.
In prehistoric times, fire and the wheel were liberal innovations. If the the conservatives of prehistory had had their way, we'd be eating our food raw and carrying everything around on our backs. Fortunately the liberals of that time won out, as the liberals of every era eventually do.
Conservatives believed that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. They believed that women were intellectually inferior to men and that slavery was just. Every time they were challenged by the liberals of their time, and every time the conservatives were eventually forced to give up their beliefs. The conservatives of the next generation took up the new conventional wisdom and in turn were forced to give up their beliefs. It just seems to be the way the universe works.
First, a little history. The government (Republicans and Democrats), was responsible for murdering working people to keep them in line for the corporate interests during the late 19th and early twentieth century. The American labor movement grew out of the left leaning groups who fought for better working conditions and the right to bargain with the owner society.
It is organized labor, grown from the leftists, which is responsible for the end of child labor, reduced working hours, and the five day work week. They succeeded by standing up to industry, their own government and the hired thugs hired by the owners and the government to squelch collective bargaining. Today, each and every working American owes a debt of gratitude to these people who fought and sometimes died for their standard of living.
You bring up one of the great conservatives of the twentieth century and give him credit as THE single person to defeat fascism. Yet he had a great deal of help from the liberal, progressive FRD and had the commie bastard Joseph Stalin. The three of them, with the help of the rest of the free world, defeated Hitler.
And as Solon said, Vietnam was not just Johnson's war. The first American troops were sent by Eisenhower in 1954. The roots of the war go back long before that. Every president after LBJ made it their war.
More than one third of the deaths in the War in Vietnam were while the Republican, Richard Nixon was president. Why not mention him?
And to answer your ignorant rant in which you asked "What about communism?" and "I honestly don't know what Worrier is referring to on that."
I was referring to the man who sent me, and most of the liberals in my platoon, to Vietnam to fight those communists, Richard M. Nixon. I don't remember bumping into the eminent Dr. Weiner or any of your Paleoconservatives in my jaunt around South East Asia.
I know you MEANT to say in your DELUSIONS that would make the DICTIONARY correct.
"If you define "progress" as creeping socialism you would be correct sir."
-----
And if you define "idiocy" as the noise that emanates from Dr Weiner, you would also be correct.
Or maybe you have just lost a couple of dozen IQ points.
Nice headline. I'd like to see some Savage on gay action.
Nice catch - but producing a lousy mental image...blechhhh
It's gonna take some heavy rum consumption to rid my mind of that...
...and that image is getting worse.
I just (mentally) removed the quote marks from the headline, and barbara boxer joined the orgy, standing there in her high-heeled latex boots and barking orders to savage and....oh, it's just too horrible to describe. I sure hope the bedouins aren't reading this, or they'll be invading tonight for sure.
Dang you, Pragmatic Liberal! Dang you to heck!
I'm doing my part too Tommy, My husband and I will have "relations" tonight to really piss them off.
will film be available at 10? =)
Good for you! Just make sure they are despicable enough to warrant their ire against you........nothing vanilla now.
Well I'll send you the video Tommy so you can judge for yourself.
whats wrong with sen boxer? my girl bosses me around all the time and gives it to me in the rear when i misbehave (seriously it's hot)
You know, Joystick Jockey, you may be politically misguided. But from time to time, you're funnier than he11. Nice post.
We all have our fun with you Colonel, but you're OK. You give it as well as you get it.
Wipe off that grin, I didn't mean that kind of fun.
Uhhh...What happened to "Don't ask, don't tell"?
And as this site has shown Those sock puppet wolves are at full rant (wank?) over Al Gore these days. Supposedly There are now fewer Republicans in congress that believe in global warming than there were a year ago.
It seems kind of cruel to wish Savage would move to the middle east. Cruel to who though? thats the mind boggling question. On the other hand don't like him or---. He is ours, much as this is unpleasant, and would you want to be responsible for unleasing him upon this already stressed world?
Because make no mistake about it: 99.9 percent of humanity despises this behavior.
Not only a bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe but also, bad at math. With most studies placing the % of gays in society at around 10%, he's only off by two orders of magnitude.
Keep talking Wienie, you're helping the cause.
America is not 10% gay. That's a blatant lie. It's actually 2%. Secondly, Savage said "worldwide," not just America.
2% is a lot more than .1%, and many cultures have embraced (or at least tolerated) homosexuality, now and in the past.
Actually if you really want to know the true percentages (much higher then you think)
HRC
There's more but since you probably will not look at that one,if you want more just ask.
Also BTW the 1-2% in from our friend James Dobson, who btw is being attacked by a number of scientists for mis-use of their research. Check out RespectMyResearch.org
Lots of nice letters attacking conservatives for mis-quoting research, cherry picking facts, or just outright lying.
Savage Man spends more time thinking about gay sex than gays do!!! How Freudian!!!
Oh, Mikey! You present the perfect argument to start the Savage Talaban in America! Then you can keep the women quiet under their burkas, the gays murdered and Men as MANLY KINGS! Why don't you move to Iran??? They would love you there!
So Sewage's audience is mostly loser guys who fear women and are repressing homosexual urges. Almost a bottom-feeder version of Limbaugh's audience. Got it.
The neo-cons are setting up a country for themselves over in the UAE - Dubai. Michael Wiener and Rush Limbaugh will be the national news anchors and Ann Coulter will be the weather bim. They'll have a bible-based constitution, complete with bans on abortion and gay marriage, and everyone will be required to drive an SUV. If you don't believe me, check it out: All these people are taking little trips over there to scope out their new digs. Haliburton just moved there too. I say, Let them go! They can go pick fights with their fundy islam counterparts and nuke each other to kingdom come.
Savage is not a neo-con. Secondly, he is against giving control of our ports to Dubai. Stop lumping him in with the Bushbots.
1) How is Weiner different from a neo-con?
2) If Dubai is looking so friendly to the right-wing, why wouldn't he move there?
3) What's wrong with comparing him to his fellow racists, homophobes, and jingoists in the right wing?
1. Savage is a paleo-con. Neo-cons are against borders, for free trade, against English only, and for big government. Bush the Idiot is a neo-con. Paleo-cons (Pat Buchanan is another paleo-con) are for borders, language, and culture. They are for reducing the size of government, and they are for protecting American industry and jobs through tariffs. Paleo-cons are capable of winning elections in 2008; neo-cons are not.
2. Savage has no interest in moving to a Muslim state. Contrary to what left wing radicals think, Savage opposes the kind of autocracy found in the desert. Savage is dead set against forcing women to wear burqas. In fact, he has stated that it should be ILLEGAL for a woman to wear a burqa. His pro-woman views are totally incompatible with Muslim nations.
3. Savage is not a racist, sexist, or homophobe.
Not only is Weiner racist, sexist, AND a homophobe he is insane.
1) That kind of political agenda (against borders, lol) seems to exist only in your own deluded mind. And again you spout the BLC nonsense. It just sounds more and more like disguised racism, xenophobia, and jingoism to me, especially since your spokesmen are Weiner and Buchanan (I remember the latter getting his undies all in a bunch about how white people weren't having enough babies).
2) Why wouldn't he like autocracy? He seems to hate our democracy, and orthodox Muslims seem to agree with him (by his own admission) on homosexuality, even more so compared to his fellow San Franciscans. And he seems pretty anti-feminist if he thinks a woman doesn't have a right to hide her body if she wants to.
3) What Savage are you talking about? I'm talking about Michael "Savage" Weiner, not Dan Savage, openly gay sex advice columnist (though I highly recommend the latter as much as I despise the former).
Savage is probably for making burqas illegal for public safety reasons. He doesn't want someone with her (or his) face covered committing a crime without anybody being able to see who did it. I think that Savage has also said that the burqa is a sign of slavery, as well as hatred for American culture.
As far as Buchanan goes, I don't agree with all of his rhetoric. He's probably an anti-Semite (although I don't see what's wrong with him wanting white people to procreate more; it's not as if he said that minorities should not procreate or that they should be sterilized). However, he's right on many issues and is definitely a paleo-conservative.
Finally, why are you defending President Bush on the borders?
"Savage is probably for making burqas illegal for public safety reasons."
-----
Whenever you see the word "probably" coming from one of the wingnuts, its real meaning is "not." It's just like advertising. The word "virtually" also means "not." (Would you rather have "virtually" spot-free dishes, or "actually" spot-free dishes?)
It's hard to decifer the rantings of an egomaniac, but I think what this idiot is saying is that we should try to be more like the terrorists--anti-democratic, fundamentalist biggots--so they won't hurt us so much. Way to toss out all your ideals in the face of danger. (Jeez, talk about surrender monkeys.) Why don't you go live in Saudi Arabia, Michael (if they'll have you) and take your misguided idol, George, with you. Here's another statistic for you, you Vontz: 99.9% of homophobes are closet queers themselves. Make that 100%
Okay Savage, wrong again. Terrorists hate us because of US military presence in the Middle East and that whole Operation Ajax thing. Our "moral degredation" is one way of the terrorists justifying their actions and/or US government to downplay real problems terrorists have with us.
Wow
Some of you here actually think Savage and Limbaugh speak kindly of each other. How about a piece out of Savage's recent book, "The Politcal Zoo".
Limbaugh has often been trumpeted as an amphibian of towering intellect, and that is true, at least in comparison to Hannity and O'Reilly. But that is a mighty small intellectual pond to be big frog in. OK, we know that Southeast Missouri State University is the Harvard of Southeast Missouri, but one floundering undergraduate year there does not an Einstein make.
This bullfrog also champions family values. He just hasn't gotten around to practicing them. He's had more wives than original thoughts and no children, at least that anyone knows about-and we're sure the Enquirer is out looking.
In 1990, the still rotund Limbaugh pioneered computer dating-and probably photo shopping-as he met Marta Fitzgerald through compuserve. He and the aerobics instructor exchanged bytes and soon enough rings, and Rush was now a three-time winner. Soon enough, he proved a three-time loser when he and Marta split. In 2004, Rush was reported to be dating and even engaged to CNN television personality Daryn Kagan (CNN + EIB= BIM-SPIN).
I don't know about you, but when I buy the pair a wedding gift (how about a matching pair of golf ball suspenders?) on go-around number four, I'm saving the receipt. They'll be seperated, I suspect, before Larry King catches the bouquet.
Even more entertaining than the frog's mating habits is the ongoing story of his admitted drug abuse. Now I'm not one to kicka frog while he's down, but Rush fot years, flatly condemned drug users. Once he got busted, though, he was croaking a diferent tune, and his defense of his behavior seemed to me at least indefensible. Surgery or not, having people purchase narcotics for you is illegal. And if this had been Sidney Blumenthal or James Carville, Rush would have had them boiled. Instead, he was getting boiled himself, and in his own hot water.
Rush puts the hypo in hypocrisy.
There is much more that he wrote about him in his book but I don't feel like typing all of it in.
How about this one on Bill O'Reilly.
Bill O'Reilly: Lecherus Leprechaunus
Top mammal in the Fox News pundit cage, the american porcupine is a large terrestrial rodent well protected by its prickly exterior. When challenged, it erects its quills, swings its stout tail, and threatens to release the barbed tips into challengers' skin. Known for its grunting or groaning delivery, the porcupine is active mainly at night and is found occasionaly on televisions in the sagebrush plains of the west. Also, according to legal filings that were "settled", the American Porcupine will occasionally try to find cable staff willing to play games like "fetch the loofah" as part of its bizarre mating ritual.
I dont care what they think of each other it is irrelevant to Weiners obvious insanity
Yeah, instead of Weiner smearing everyone who disagrees with him, he once smeared people who do agree with him. Mr. World is Upside Down strikes again!
O'Reilly's tortured prose in "Those Who Trespass" doesn't sound nearly as terrible now that you've shared some of Dr. Weiner's latest missive.
Fishwife mouth?
Meatloaf thrower?
Where does he get his material?
He gets it from his childhood, living in a Jewish household saturated by Jewish culture.
What's wrong with that? Nothing at all but you would never hear it said from Savage that he is Jewish. He must be one of those self-hating Jews I hear about.
Yeah, and it is quite notable that he took off on a Boxer rant. He's "mullinggggg" a run for the Presidency, yet knows nothing about our very own rules of Congress.
Why doesn't he tell all of his feeble-minded listeners to " go into work tomorrow and the first bossy word out of your female boss's mouth tell her to 'go "F" herself and open a bra shop in the Bronx.'"
When hearing Savage spew vile comments at Albright, Boxer or Feinstein he he’s looking at a picture of the wife on the studio-bunker wall.
Yeah, and you know the Savage wife is a real "C", shrew, harridan, whiny, hiney Weiner. "Hey, shmendrik, sell more books! I want a new pool."
liberal= fear and guilt,savage is angry because he see values and freedoms being eroded daily and soldiers dying daily while partisan democrats who voted for the war grandstanding while the money to fight and win the war runs out
Another great post from the Conservative Bedwetters Brigade.
If you think we need to expend our service personnel, our treasury and our nation's soul in Iraq,
Be my guest. You and the rest of the droolers & foamers who support Savage should enlist.
None of that has anything to do with gays or Barbara Boxer. And while Democrats may have voted for the war based on the President's lies, they are also the ones who are supporting our nation's mainstream anti-war stance.
Savage has a simple solution to the war in Iraq. (I believe that this is his solution, although perhaps he would take some issue with what I've said. I apologize if I've said something wrong.)
1. Get the troops off the ground (even sooner than the Dems want), so that no more American troops die. That should please the people who don't want another American life lost.
2. Bomb the Sunni Triangle (after warnings). That way, America can claim victory as opposed to being seen as a cowardly loser. This is also pro-soldier. Simply leaving like cowards will make the troops look very bad.
With Savage's solution, both sides of this conflict win.
Just bomb it. Because the problem in Iraq is we just arent killing enough innocent people. Typical morally challenged solution from the rightwing
There are many terrorists in the Sunni Triangle (Al Qaeda members and "insurgents"). Like I said, Savage would also give the people notice.
Uh, if Weiner warns the people, wouldn't the terrorists also find out?
Bombing civilian areas kills innocent people BY DEFINITION. So what you are wanting to do is kill more innocent people. QED. In fact sense whatever terrorists are there have less connection to the nieghborhood it is MORE likely to kill innocent people than terrorists. Its one of those toughguy, sounds good inanities that are ludicrous.
Conservative=Ignorant and brainwashed. You fit right in.
u guys should all get a radio show,oh yeah al franken already tried that
You should try capitalization and punctuation.
You should try capitalism and punctiliousness.
You should try reading for comprehension.
You should try renting a brain cell. It would surely die of lonliness but at least you would know what it was like to have had one.
Al Franken did "try" that, and had a pretty good show.
He recently left his show to run for office.Weiner continues on his radio show (nighttime am out here) and has nutcases supporting him in an imaginary presidential race. He's showing Franken a thing or two.
Savage needs to move to Iraq since he hates America so much and The enemy of America loves him.
WeinerforPresident can I ask when your birthday is? month and day are fine.
I have some birthday presents for you, a copy of the Constitution, a Dictionary (believe me, you REALLY need it), and a fifth grade history text book (that might be the right level). I think they talk about the formation of our government in there.
In fact the Constitution is a living document. Look up that term, I don't think you get what that means. It means that it changes over time, both in language, terminology, and basic meaning.
"Because of the 14th amendment, blacks are no longer 3/5 of a person. Once again, when the Constitution is AMENDED, then the prevailing thought in 1787 doesn't matter anymore." -WeinerfP
Okay tell me what is wrong with that? To help you I underlined it. Why you maybe asking? 1787 (when was our country founded btw?)
Actually there are many factual errors with a wide number of your posts. It might due you some good to look this stuff up before you post it.
Due you some good? Bwahahahahahahaha
Ummmm, the Constitution was ratified in 1787, not 1776. Maybe you need to read some history books.
I didn't see anything underlined, so I guess that I wasn't wrong about anything. Thanks.
Savage's words on this topic are a no-brainer. What part don't you understand? Truth is not controversial, sorry....
It's not truth, it's plain stupidity.
How about the part where he says we should appease the terrorists by abdicating our right to freedom of sex between consenting adults? How is that common sense at all?
Actually Savage has said many times that he's a sexual libertarian.
He is? Then why is he so concerned about speaking out against gay people all of the time? He's no libertarian, he's a loon.. The guy is getting scarier and scarier all of the time with his rantings and ravings. If I didn't think it was a totally over the top act, I think he might try and kill someone soon. But then again, he is ALL talk and no action anyway. All talk. Lots of barking, no biting.
Savage is against the gay agenda, but he's not for criminalizing gay sex.
But apparantly insanity is thus the more than 200 posts on Weinerdogs insanity, approved of by the Weinerdog worshippers brigade. Things arent TRUE because in your delusions you SAY they are.
Michael Weiner seems to have a hard-on for bedouins, those proud, noble "lions of the desert." He should go join up with them. I'm sure they'd appreciate his heritage.
Savage Weiner reminds me of the old Donald Duck cartoons, where he's running around like a maniacal duck quacking a lot but saying nothing.
Poor Weiner is afraid of women. Breast fed too much, or too little would you guess? I would pity the guy if he weren't such a disgusting specimen of a human being. I don't believe picking on women is the remedy for masculine insecurity, but it makes spotting the lil Weiners easier. C'mon Mikey, put your big boy undies on, and get over yourself.