Savage accused Rep. Hinchey of being "in cahoots with Al Qaeda"
On the May 9 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while reading from a May 9 National Review article on the six Muslim men arrested for plotting an attack on the Fort Dix military base, Michael Savage called Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) a "rotten, stinking, verminous congressman." Then, purporting to address Hinchey, Savage said: "By the time I get through with you, if you should call me to Congress, I'll have you in prison, because you're in cahoots with Al Qaeda. You are enabling Al Qaeda," adding, "You are a threat to our national security, as are all the other left-wingers who have signed that edict against -- that fatwa against Michael Savage, and [conservative radio host] Rush Limbaugh, and the others who want to disseminate the truth."
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the May 2 broadcast of his show, Savage attacked Hinchey and other sponsors of the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) for seeking "the final solution for conservatives on talk radio." He also asserted that MORA "would declare Michael Savage, [Fox News host] Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and [Fox News host] Bill O'Reilly 'Threats to National Security,' and remove us from the radio," adding that this "is the exact rhetoric that Hitler used in his march to take over Germany." During the May 2 show, Savage also referred to Hinchey as "the chief National Socialist, or Nazi," and called co-sponsors of the act "the Nazis of today."
In fact, MORA would merely require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to once again enforce its "fairness doctrine," which the commission stopped enforcing in 1987. As paraphrased by the Supreme Court when it upheld the doctrine in 1969, it "require[d] that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage." The 2005 version of Hinchey's MORA -- H.R. 3302 (109th Congress) -- would mandate that the FCC reinstate that rule as it existed before its 1987 demise.
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 May 9 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: You know, there was an interesting article today in the National Review by Andrew McCarthy -- and I'm not going to read you the whole story -- but he goes into the ideology that was disseminated by Osama bin Laden. And here's what he said: "There's a ruling to kill the Americans and their allies."
And listen to this now: Osama bin Laden said it is an individual duty for every Muslim, who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. I'm quoting him now. "This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God." And I'm quoting what Osama bin Laden told every Muslim on the earth, quote: "And fight the pagans altogether as they fight you altogether. And fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression. The direction is to every Muslim." But he says that it's not him saying it. Bin Laden is not saying it. He says he's only the medium transmitting the message of Allah. You see what I'm saying to you?
So, he gives out a command, and here's what the Blind Sheikh Rahman -- Sheikh Abdel Rahman -- a Quranic scholar, who does have the required status to put out such edicts, he said the following -- this is from a sheikh, quoting their own scriptures, from the National Review -- I'm very clear on what I'm giving you. Get it right. And if you're going to attack me, you're attacking the National Review and you're attacking the truth. But you better listen to what the blind sheikh wrote to every Muslim.
And I want, especially to that rotten, stinking, verminous congressman in Woodstock, New York, who wants to bring Michael Savage to Congress, to pay attention. You're calling me a threat to national security, Sir? By the time I get through with you, if you should call me to Congress, I'll have you in prison, because you're in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
You are enabling Al Qaeda. You are a threat to our national security, as are all the other left-wingers who have signed that edict against -- that fatwa against Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh, and the others who want to disseminate the truth. You are the threat to national security! You should be in an orange jumpsuit -- trying to take away my right to free speech.
Here's what the blind sheikh in 1996 said: "Muslims everywhere should dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations." Did you hear that? "Provoke their corporations" -- that's with a little help from their friends from the ACLU.
"Destroy their embassies, attacks their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, and kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them." I didn't write that. That's what the blind sheikh said in 1996 of Americans. "Provoke their corporations" -- so that would be lawsuits against airlines by the flying sheikhs, wouldn't it? The flying imams? Ahh! And the footbath thing could be from Osama bin Laden. But don't tell that to the leprechaun.com. He had one of these phony, holier-than-thou headscarf wearers who turned him into putty last night.
the truth is what these guys like savage, limbaugh, o'reilly, are afraid of. hence, their almost hysterical reaction to mmfa.
Actually, Savage only speaks the truth. He's not afraid of it.
Sad when Michael Savage has to appear on liberal boards to defend his ridiculous statements.
Savage the self-hating Jew and self-hating homosexual is so full of hate for himself that he hates everyone else, too.
Savage is not a self-hating Jew, and he's not a homosexual. Those are utterly baseless assertions.
Maybe not, how would I know, but he is definitly insane.
Welcome back, Solon.
He is not insane. Nobody who is insane could come up with the saying that liberalism is a mental disorder and be able to back up that truth. Because if liberalism is a mental disorder and if he is insane...then Savage is a liberal.
You know, Autopsychic, you can't actually "flip the dial" to being right by being extremely wrong. It's not like twisting a single faucet. You actually have to just be accurate and correct.
Thanks, redrighthand. I'm not sure what you said, but it sounded good.
I don't think Savage worries about being right or wrong. He states his opinion and the many on the left think that opinion should be banned. He complains about it and the left yells even louder. How very liberal of you lefties to let him voice his opinion. Oh, wait, you want to restrict the voicing of his opinion. I should say how hypocritical of you lefties for denying him his free speach rights with your overblown complaints of whatever you keep complaining about. (if it isn't one thing, it's another)
Savage doesn't hate everyone else either. In fact, Savage loves conservative upstanding citizens.
What ridiculous statements? Savage is totally right about Hinchey.
Savage's remarks were inane and insane. Something is wrong with him.
did hinchey call savage "a threat to national security"? i wish you would provide the quote.
Do you have evidence that Hinchley is in cahoots with al Queda or are you just joining in Weinerdogs smearing of a Congressman he doesnt like or is his insanity somehow contagious through the radio waves?
Weiner ONLY speaks the truth? This must be in some alternate universe. In THIS one he spews a lot of garbage along with any random truth that might escape unintentionally.
The Fairness Doctrine is an unnecessary piece of legislation that would restrict, much like smoking bans, our freedoms as Americans to decide for ourselves.
While Savage may be prone to hyperbole he is not wrong entirely. Our actions in this country are watched closely. Information we give out is then used by our enemy to attempt to discredit our foreign policy. And Liberals give them plenty of material to work with.
how would getting both sides of the story restrict your right to decide?
Because the truth has a decidedly liberal bias.
It restricts our freedom by removing our free choice. No more can we individually decide what is or is not on the air we will set up a bloated bureaucratic control mechanism to monitor and force their will on broadcasters.
“It restricts our freedom by removing our free choice.”
What does this mean?
“No more can we individually decide what is or is not on the air we will set up a bloated bureaucratic control mechanism to monitor and force their will on broadcasters.
- insaneloki20024664 / Saturday May 12, 2007 10:03:40 AM EST”
The FCC can monitor it.
You can choose to listen to whatever you want to listen too. You do not need to watch those shows or listen to the radio programs. You have the power to change the content, we all do without government interferance.
"You have the power to change the content, we all do without government interferance."
You can't really change the content because of all the media consolidation that has gone on since Reagan became president. I think we should start breaking up some of these large media conglomerates and open up the public airwaves to ordinary citizens.
First off that is a ridiculous idea. There are many people who depend on those jobs and those companies. Unemployment would almost certainly go up.
Second, you do have a say. When enough people get together anything is possible. If there is enough support for change then change will happen absent of government interference.
“First off that is a ridiculous idea. There are many people who depend on those jobs and those companies. Unemployment would almost certainly go up.”
I think these people will be able to find another job or they can try to land a job with some of the smaller companies that will be created from the breaking up of these large conglomerates.
“Second, you do have a say. When enough people get together anything is possible. If there is enough support for change then change will happen absent of government interference.”
No, I don’t think so. These large conglomerates can effectively block smaller companies from competing. These conglomerates lockup the public airwaves and all the high frequency channels and if small companies want to complete they have to pick from low frequency channels which gets so much static and interference it’s not even worth it.
"complete" should be "compete".
You can get the conglomerates to change what what they air. IF the Imus situation taught us anything it taught that the people have very strong pull. We control their revenue so we control their content.
To think people will find another job is pompous. They have one now and to expect them to go through unemployment just to satisfy what is obviously a minority in this country is selfish.
“You can get the conglomerates to change what what they air. IF the Imus situation taught us anything it taught that the people have very strong pull. We control their revenue so we control their content.”
I don't see what that situation has to do with anything. Imus made a racist comment and his advertisers didn't want to be a part of that and he was subsequently pulled from the air.
“To think people will find another job is pompous. They have one now and to expect them to go through unemployment just to satisfy what is obviously a minority in this country is selfish.”
A lot of people lost their jobs when the consolidation occurred and I'm sure all of them found other jobs. Likewise, if these conglomerates are broken up and jobs are lost, these people will be able to find another job. And I don't think we're a minority; I think you're in the minority.
The only reason Imus was fired was because his advertisers pulled out over the public outcry over what was assumed to be racist comments. The advertisers would never have pulled out had they no tbeen threatened with financial hardship by the people.
Your taking a big gamble with people's lives. Who is to say these smaller companies would be successful? They have jobs now let them keep them.
Your argument is specious. No one is saying that less radio programs should be on the air. Whether they are controlled by a large conglomerate or smaller companies they would still employ the same amount of people, in fact if ANYTHING it would increase radio employments as there would be less canning of programing. Like the same national news on every station OWNED by the conglomerate. Smaller companies would do their own more local reporting and the areas would be better served.
Not every new smaller company would be successful.They would go out of business and you would have unemployment. I thought liberals were supposed to care.
hasn't unemplyment in the industry gone up because of consolidation?
I am talking the national unemployment numbers. There are still hundreds of thousands employed by this industry. If the conglomerates were forced to break up into smaller companies many would lose their jobs altogether.
how so? aren't we always reading about companies merging and then laying off thousands? and don't those smaller companies need employees?
"Uhhh, er......duuuhh...Free Market, free market freemarket...." InsaneLoki
Smaller companies=less companies
How on earth does smaller companies equal less companies? Less corporate conglomerates means more diversity and competition in the marketplace. A handful of corporations having virtual monopoly, in my opinion, is not good for a diversified and competitive market.
so 5 big companies get split into 10 smaller companies, and that's "less companies"? well, at least you admit you're insane.
Excuse I mistyped:
Smaller Companies=Less Employees
NO, small companies means more companies. The same amount of radio shows mean the same amount of workers.
you're exactly wrong. when you have a company owning seven or eight radio stations in the same market, they tend to use a lot of the top employees to cover all those stations.
But as I have stated above not all the smaller would be successful, some would go out of business making competitions for the reaming ones high and people would not get work.
Or you might see another small company recognize the niche and fill it.
Did it do that before when it was in effect? Why no it didnt. Conservatives are just afraid of both sides being heard since propaganda is so much more effective when only the propaganda is heard and not the other side.
If the public wanted to hear both sideswhen listending to the radio then it would be provided.
We've already decided that we don't want to listen to liberals on talk radio. We don't want Savage to have to sit next to a liberal on his show. That's how the Fairness Doctrine takes away our freedom. Liberals need to learn how to succeed in a free market.
The truth does not have a liberal bias. Once again, Savage only speaks the truth, and he has no liberal bias.
Savageworshipper:
You seem to be arguing that the right wing has a 'right' to exclusively control the public airwaves... that your 'rights' are being infringed upon if any leftwing ideas are given public exposure. It doesn't say much for your faith in the intrinsic value of right wing philosophy if you honestly believe that the Fairness Doctrine would place an undue burden on right wing talkers.
You also seem to believe that right wingers have a 'right' to slander those on the left, & that it would also infringe upon your 'rights' if leftists were allowed the recourse of defending themselves in the same venue in which they have been defamed. This suggests that you have grave doubts about whether right wing thought & right wing assertions are capable of withstanding open & fair criticism. It suggests that such right wing philosophical precepts are little more than a house of cards that would wholly collapse if challenged by the slightest progressive breeze.
Face it... you NEED EXCLUSIVITY OF EXPRESSION. For all of your talk about the market, you are committed to ideas THAT CANNOT STAND UP IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. They CANNOT STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. They can ONLY SUCCEED IN AN INTELLECTUAL VACUUM. They can only succeed when SPOKEN BY UNCHALLENGED LIARS. They can only succeed when right wing talkers are able to DEHUMANIZE THEIR OPPONENTS BY PERSISTANTLY ACCUSING THEM OF TREASON, & of unfavorably COMPARING THOSE OPPONENTS TO VERMIN.
In an open & free intellectual battleground such as this forum, so many of the shock troops of the right consistently end up vacating the field of battle, hemorrhaging badly from the factual & logical maulings that they suffered, & whining about how they thought that liberals were supposed to be so tolerant. We see these zealots arrive by the trainloads... exotic names trailed by 4 or 5 numbers... confident to the point of arrogance, smirking, & haphazardly flinging around right wing talking points about 'what's wrong with all you liberal hypocrites'. How many of them last the week? Hell, how many of them last a single encounter with SOLON or TEX?
The point is that right wing ideology ONLY succeeds when it is unchallenged. This is the root of your near panic at the very idea of the Fairness Doctrine being reinstated. The right fears any TRUE marketplace of ideas like it fears the plague.
This is your tell.
I have no problem with liberals being on talk radio. If a liberal has a show and millions of people listen to him, that's awesome.
The airwaves belong to us. We have every right to say how they are used. I have a right to my input, you have a right to yours. The original deal struck with commercial operaters of the airwaves was that THEY got to use OUR resource to make themselves obscene buttloads of money an in return they had to perform a public service function. It is certainly within the pervue of each of us as Americans to have an input into whether that deal is being kept or the details of how the airwaves are used so that WE can be satisfied that deal is being kept. Personally I have no dog in this fight. I dont care one way or another about the fairness doctrince. I have confidence in Americans I am certain the lies, distortions and insanity spewed by the likes of Hannity, Limbuagh and Savage must have a shelflife that will play out. The point is we definitly have a right to put this into the democratic process. The airwaves are OURS. I am fine with letting the democratic process play out and whichever way it turns out is fine by me. For Savage to insanely characterize a congressman as an al Queda cohort because he is supporting and even pushing a bill that would bring back the fairness doctrine is an argument FOR the fairness doctrine. It used to have a clause saying that someone who was attacked had a right to answer back. To demogogue this as some kind of Nazi policy when it is pure democratic process is irresponsible which should be Savage's middle name anyway.
Hinchey called Savage a national security risk.
Did Hinchey say why he thinks Savage is a risk to our national security?
OK, did he accuse him of treason or abetting terrorism? The one charge may be overblown, I dont really agree but they are NOT the same thing. Being in cahoots with al Queda is a crime. A vague assertion about a national security threat isnt accusing him of a crime.
mescal, well said, and on exhibit at this very site every day.
You did forget to mention another standard of the hit & run ditto-head posters here. After taking a decisive logical beating, the declaring of victory, followed by the "I'm done with you morons" storming off in a huff, one of my personal faves.
Was it the TRUTH that MORA would declare Weinerdog a national security risk? No, it was an outright lie in keeping with the paranoia of Weiners basic insanity. Here is a clue its not the 'truth' just because it conforms to your delusional fantasies.
The Fairness Doctrine is an unnecessary piece of legislation that would restrict, much like smoking bans, our freedoms as Americans to decide for ourselves.
Well, that makes sense. Allowing the richest media conglomerates to decide for us what information we see is the only way to preserve our freedom of choice.
While Savage may be prone to hyperbole he is not wrong entirely. Our actions in this country are watched closely. Information we give out is then used by our enemy to attempt to discredit our foreign policy. And Liberals give them plenty of material to work with.
It's our duty as citizens to hide the truth when somebody could use it to say something bad about us or our country.
First, Conglomerate media organizations do not decide what we listen to, we do. BY giving our ratings to certain shows we tell them what we want to see and hear. We can our change our minds and they would change their content because they are in it for money.
Second, we should not hide the truth. But we should be more aware of what we say and how we say it. No matter how much you disagree with the current administration you cannot want to give a boost to our enemies.
"Second, we should not hide the truth."
Hide what truth?
Read the post I was responding I was merely using their terminology.
"Second, we should not hide the truth. But we should be more aware of what we say and how we say it. No matter how much you disagree with the current administration you cannot want to give a boost to our enemies."
What we say doesn't give them a boost; it's Bush's foreign policy that gives these people credibility. When these people accuse us of being imperialistic and anti-Islam and then Bush goes and invades a Muslim country without provocation it gives their argument more credence in the eyes of some Muslims. This is a dangerous position Bush is putting us in.
We did not "invade" a foreign country without provocation. We liberated millions from a tyrannical dictator who did not hesitate to kill his own people. Let's not forget the assassination attempt on our President. Like him or hate him that is an act of war in itself.
Here read the full reason we are there in Congress's own words:
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
"We did not "invade" a foreign country without provocation. We liberated millions from a tyrannical dictator who did not hesitate to kill his own people. Let's not forget the assassination attempt on our President. Like him or hate him that is an act of war in itself."
Bush invaded a country without provocation and in my opinion, he did it for oil. It had nothing to do with the well being of the Iraqis.
And Clinton retaliated against Iraq for the alleged assassination attempt against Bush 1.
No Clinton got a BJ while bombing small military targets. He put a band-aid on a gaping wound.
Did you even the Congressional Authorization? There was plenty of provocation. And since when is a natural resource not a good reason to go to war? That is the reason man has gone to war since the begining of time.
"No Clinton got a BJ while bombing small military targets. He put a band-aid on a gaping wound."
Clinton bombed Iraq in June of 1993 and his affair w/ Lewinsky started in November of 1995 so I don't know what your point is.
“Did you even the Congressional Authorization? There was plenty of provocation.”
There was no provocation. Bush attacked a country which posed no threat to us [for oil] and he lied and said they did pose a threat.
“And since when is a natural resource not a good reason to go to war? That is the reason man has gone to war since the begining of time”
It's never a good reason. It leads to racism, imperialism and the domination of other cultures because a country is militarily superior to the country that is being invaded and it always has unintended consequences. And why are you putting us on par with barbarians of the past?
Thanks for staying on-point and civil in your rebuttal - no, refutation - of those sad talking points! I don't even know your gender, but you are surely a better man than *I*!
Clitler and his NATO buddies attacked Serbia with no provocation, lied about the number of graves, and targeted civilians, all for an oil pipeline.
Well, if he did it for an oil pipeline, maybe we can have some sort of a retro-impeachment for him and we can also have an impeachment for this current president over his imperialistic endeavor.
Since when is Imperialism a bad thing. That is how this country got started.
Lewinsky was just the one we found out about.
Did you even read the Declaration there was plentyt of other reason than your supposed lie.
It is not barbaric to go to war over a natural resource it just means we are human.
"Lewinsky was just the one we found out about."
And this means...?
"Did you even read the Declaration there was plentyt of other reason than your supposed lie."
The only reason anyone voted for the resolution was that the Bush administration lied and said that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. Take away that supposed threat and no resolution would have made it to the House or Senate floor.
"It is not barbaric to go to war over a natural resource it just means we are human."
It is barbaric in this day and age.
The resolution talks about the 18 different UN resolution Saddam ignored. It talks about the humanitarian needs and the need to properly retaliate against Saddam for the assasination attempt. Congress didn't vote because of what you call lies they voted on everything in that document. And if they by some chance passed the Declaration without reading it and based solely on Bush's statements your beef is with them. Heck your beef is with Congress anyway, BECAUSE NO PRESIDENT CAN GO TO WAR UNLESS CONGRESS AUTHORIZES IT. They are just if not more culpable, Republicans and Democrats alike.
We found out about the faulty intelligence what about 3 weeks into the war. That means if congress would have taken some extra time to look into it they could have discovered the irregularities and not voted on the Declaration.
18 UN resolutions less than half as many as Israel has violated so when do we invade Israel?
None of which threatened force. If you are going to threaten force you need to be prepared to carry it out.
Iraq is NOT liberated it is occupied, that is like the opposite of liberation. That attempt was in 1993 so you are saying that justified an invastion A DECADE LATER? Are you kidding me? Try to make sense. We absolutly invaded a country with no justification.
If the Prime Minister asked us to leave tomorrow we would have to, and I believe we would. We are not occupiers, we are liberators trying to help a new country develop.
There's alot of evidence that your 1st paragraph is based on a fair amount of ignorence.
WRONG. Money comes from ADVERTISERS. That is the business community which is conservative by nature. IF ratings were what ruled then why did Donahue get cancelled when he had the highest rating on his entire network? They were worried about the ADVERTISERS not liking his anti war message. They told him he could have a conservative on by himself but every liberal had to have two conservatives as a counter and STILL took him off the air. So you are repeating the mantra but the facts just dont support the allegation.
If what you say is true about Donahue's ratings then he would still be on the air. He must have done something else that they kept quiet.
We control the advertisers by buying or not buying their products. The real power is ours.
Information we give out is then used by our enemy to attempt to discredit our foreign policy
Puddinhead George doesn't need any help discrediting our foreign policy.
Comments just like that are what I mean. We need meaningful discourse, not childish name calling.
Only so long as the discourse focuses upon the urgent need to impeach and convict Bungle and every political member of his Administration, shipping them next to Guantanamo to hold for eventual processing to The Hague, for War Crimes. Of course, we might meantime confirm a Government in Iraq sufficiently stable to allow them first dibs on major players, such as Cheney and Rummy, maybe even Bungle himself.
Or upon the concentration of media ownership since Ray-Gun's abdication of the FCC's defense of the public interest in a robust and diverse media. Were the maximum ownerships set at about half of the proposed MORA (or lower), and divestiture of excess forced, no more Clear Channel torpedoing Air America outlets rated as high as #2 in market, #1 in the target demographics (think Boston, or Madison, or even Seattle) in favor of Spanish-language talk in those cities with negligible Hispanic population; no more two-or-more stations carrying Limbaugh in a single market; in short, no more Corporate Media control of what our choices are, for our media consumption. The entire Corporate Media/Repugnant conspiracy to submerge our critical faculties in mindless titillation, endless lies, and partisan braying, begins to fail the moment Corporate reach is reined in. The scramble for creative talent would be revived, for, given a choice, many fewer would tune in Idol or Survivor, slotted against even more expensive but worthy drama, or good comedy in a vein other than dumb-fat-guy-with-hot-wife. OH NO I'M NOT - (sensitive on that score.) Serious news might even be necessary, with so many free-agent outlets looking for affiliation; maybe we would have seen the last of Anna Nicole-style 24/7 coverage of a gossip-fest. And maybe, in the event of future need, that Fourth Estate would again become the esteemed source of fact-checking anti-jingoism that we so sorely lacked in 2002-2003. Or at least, ask questions about blatant obvious lies issuing daily from the Administration.
As to arguments that the "market makes the decisions", that "market" currently is constrained by the ideology of those Corporate Media masters: any cards they do not want you to choose, are simply not in the deck you are offered. Diverse ownership of outlets tends to change all that almost instantly.
Clinton should be in the Hague too, as well as Albright, Gore, and Clark. As far as MORA goes, it's garbage. Big corporations are not preventing liberals from succeeding in talk radio; lack of listeners is. If liberal talk radio hosts made money, big corporations would have no problem signing them.
You read as well as you reason: inadequately. I gave you three cities in which Clear Channel (one of the media biggies - and they operate in my area, as well) deliberately shut down Air America outlets (2 in Boston alone) despite those outlets being at least #2 in market; and in the Boston case, even the jump to 50KW (previously 10 daytime, 1 KW at night) did not recover in the new format the audience levels on both outlets combined that had been enjoyed with AA on either alone. Nor would one have expected that, rationally: the Hispanic population in Boston (nor in Madison, nor Seattle) would not appear to warrant Spanish-language talk radio. The LIBERAL population in Boston, (Blue City in a Blue State) on the other hand, would require at least two of the three Boston outlets blasting out Limbaugh - who must score really big numbers there - to shut down, in favor of Air America.
Advertisers? Most buy a "package deal", X exposures to Y audience totals, for Z dollars, and never even know what they bought; at least, that is the Clear Channel practice, which I ran into attempting to inform some local advertisers of the Disney lie-fest "documentary that became docu-drama that remained a lie-fest" about 9-11.
I'm sure that there's a logical reason for the example that you gave, assuming that you're telling the truth.
That 9/11 movie was truthful.
All except for the lies . . . the acknowledged "license" . . . oooops - that WAS the movie, wasn't it? I guess the right-wing philosophy remains "Lie! Lie persistently, profusely, continuously, fervently, and hopefully, consistently. But consistency is the least of these things."
How did Clear Channel shut down a separate network they have nothing to do with? If Air America was number 2 in a lot of cities then why did it go bankrupt?
I don't think you can compare liberal talk to conservative talk. Air America is #1 or 2 in several markets but they're only on in 70 and with these big media conglomerates like clear channel owning most of the high frequency stations in a market, Air America is usually on low frequency stations with lot of interference and noise. In contrast, Limbaugh and Hannity are on in several hundred markets on high frequency channels. And as I said before conservatives usually flock to shows like Hannity and Limbaugh because they believe that the rest of the media is liberal. All other Americans can get their news from a variety of sources.
You can compare them. Because if it was people wanted then they would vastly more successful and eventually on better stations that rival the current conservative formats. What your saying it is ok for them to give at the first speed bump they hit.
Did you read what I posted? Americans other than conservatives can turn to a wild variety of sources so Air America will never achieve the success conservative radio enjoys. In contract, conservatives only have a limited number of sources (they don’t want to hear anything that conflicts with their world view) hence the huge ratings for conservative talk (although it has declined significantly in recent years). Another drawback for Air America is what I posted above about these big media conglomerates (which should be broken up) having control of virtually all the high frequency stations.
So because not even liberals will listen to liberal talk successful conservative talk should be forced include them in their format?
Clear Channel was the carrier for Air America in those cities, and many others. Please improve your sources of information, or at least your supply of information, so that you may join the conversation, rather than merely disrupt it as a child might do when the adults discuss something other than the child.
If that is true then if it made money then it would still be on in those markets. Obviously it did not and got pulled. If no one is listening then there is no point in airing the information.
In 2006, the station that Air America Phoenix was broadcasting from was bought by a Christian Broadcasting Company for an obscene amount of money just so they could pull the plug on the Air America programming. In that market, several of the Air America shows were #1. Air America did find another station after a month but that station has a significantly lower frequency than the one they were kicked from.
Then why did you allow the sale to go through. Stuff like that is publicized and requires FCC approval. You could have protested let your voices heard and stopped it.
So you agree that the FCC regulates the airwaves, meaning the ariwaves belong to the public. The FCC is a public organization and as such it is responsive to the public, so let the democratic process work.
If the public wants deconsolidation of media or even the fairness doctrine, we can demand our representaives push the legislation. Here's the best part, our participation in the democratic process is free, unlike the market which is srictly pay to play.
Why are so afraid of letting the democratic process work?
America has a democratic process, but it's also a capitalist nation.
Yeah, I'm a capitalist but I am loyal to democracy not the dollar.
It's also part of the democratic process for us conservatives to oppose the Fairness Doctrine.
You have distorted view of your own individual power in this country to change the way things are without more government control.
That is not positive discourse. That is what a dictator would. State their opinion and everyone else can go to he**.
Except apparantly when Savage, does it, or Coulter, or Hannity, or O'Reilly....
How does the fairness doctrine ban people from making up their own minds about issues. All it does is require the opportunity for both sides to be heard. It seems to me that this would HELP a thoughtful person to make up his own mind.
I remember the 60's through 80's. Back then the news ACTUALLY WAS fair and balanced, but because the right couldn't get control of the congress, they all cried "liberal bias in the media" and Reagan abolished the fairness doctrine. So now we have people like Weiner, Insannity, and Billdo spewing right-wing nonsense without fear of rebuttal day after day after day after day after...............
And you still have people spewing left-wing nonsense. The balance is already there. The free market has decided what it wants to hear.
Please, Scott, The media are not fair and balanced. The left controls the media, with the exception of talk radio and the internet. When you get down to it, the so-called Fairness Doctrine would just make things unfair again.
"The left controls the media"
No, the right controls the media.
No, the left controls the media. For example, a Newsweek article referred to Mark Levin as an "ultraconservative" while referring to Stephanie Miller as a "liberal." Why didn't the article refer to her as an "ultra liberal"? Answer: liberal bias.
That is some irrefutable proof. I stand corrected.
Examples can be found on both sides the media is not monolithic however I am a liberal and my philosophy has NEVER been pushed by the media, its ludicrous on the face of it.
No, corporations control the media. I don't believe there is a definite right or left slant when it comes the the media, except for Fox. You can find a million examples that support the media being biased left or right, but the truth is the corporate entities behind the media are only concerned with one thing- ratings and money. Our media is pure sensationalism.
I agree and disagree. I agree the slant of the media overall is not left or right. However its also not pure sensationalism or they would be all over Bush's lying or things like the Downing Street memo. No I think it is more of a reflection of elite opinion and service of power. Since that seems to break down to socially liberal and economically and foriegn policy conservative I think THAT is a better benchmark for understanding the media.
Solon-
Yes, I agree with your assertion. I just meant that the media selectively chooses what will or will not be reported on, and sensationalizes what they deem news worthy. To me, most of the media comes off as high power tabloid reportage. I agree that the media's current purpose is more or less in service to power and the status quo. I just think that they sensationalize the little they do report on in order to garnish higher ratings for more advertising dollars.
I agree, and it is an important point that its not really that accurate to split it as a simple left/right divide, its too bad that the media does not see its function and peforme the function that the founding fathers invisioned. That of informing the public like adults and letting us do the job the public should do, wieghing in on policy issues. We are the top layer of government and A quote attributed to Jefferson ( which is disputed) "To believe an uninformed people will remain free is expecting that which has never been and never will be"
The assertion is NONSENES. The left in NO WAY controls the media and never has. That is a rightwing mantra that convinces only the feebleminded. It has been repeated enough, however repitition and wishing does not make it so.
You're smoking ban analogy is ridiculous. Second hand smoke kills living, breathing non-smokers. It is not a restriction of freedom to ban smoking in public places.
First, there is no conclusive study done that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that second hand smoke does anything except to infants and fetuses. I have been "second hand smoking" all my life and am healthy as an ox.
Second, taking away choice of the buisness owner to chose his/her customer base is restricting freedom. Before the smoking ban you could go into a restaurant and see smoking and decide to go somewhere else. Whereas after the smoking ban someone who wants to smoke during there their meal has no place to go, restriction of freedom.
You're a lying troll. You can't hide it, you can't deny it, so shut your filthy little troll-hole.
I see you attacking me but not my argument. That says a lot about your character.
Damian, go do your homework. This message board is for adults.
I'm afraid the American Lung Association would disagree with you, Insane.
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults [not just fetuses] who do not smoke.
"I have been "second hand smoking" all my life and am healthy as an ox." InsaneL
What a ridiculous anecdotal argument.
My grandmother never smoked a cigarette in her life. Grandpa did. Guess how Grandma died? Yeah, lung cancer. I guess that is about as conclusive a scientific argument as you deserve.
Let me get this straight. Smokers, whose second hand smoke definitely kills, have their freedom restricted because they're not allowed to kill people? I'm not going to link to study after study after study that identifies tobacco smoke as the killer it is, you won't believe them anyway.
But if you want to get yourself tongue-tied over censorship, just copy my post and paste it at any conservative website of your choice and see how fast your free speech privileges can be revoked (yep, free speech is a privilege on right-wing websites, ain't that a kick in the ribs?) I suggest going to Freepersissies.com. And while we're on the topic of free speech, if you don't recognize that we liberal/progressive/Democrats talk the talk and walk the walk on freedom of expression, right here on this site, then you are indeed fortunate beyond merit to be included in this discussion.
Furthermore, I'm not going to let your petty a** control issues dominate the topic of this thread. The topic isn't even really the FD or MORA or free speech or the free market.
The topic is Savage's eliminationist rhetoric.
So, let me say this because this is a progressive website where we get to set the tone, not you salaried right wing trolls. Savage is a straight up instigator of violent action; it's plain as day to even the most casual observer. Savage equates fellow liberal Americans with the terrorists therefore, liberals are terrorists and must die.
I hope Savage makes you a proud authoritarian.
Savage hasn't called liberals "terrorists." He says that they are unknowingly helping the terrorists through their foolishness. He has never instigated violence against liberals. Your point is absurd. BTW, nobody is paying me a salary to come on this site. Savage is a conservative, not an authoritarian. He is absolutely right about Hinchey too. Hinchey said that Savage is a threat to national security. Savage didn't imagine it.
So libs are just too stupid to be trusted? Sweet argument, dude. Very persuasive.
Of course Savage doesn't come out and say kill libs, but he uses the same tactics and rhetoric as any eliminationist. He makes direct comparisons of leftys to terrorists. Savage then says, as you have quoted for me, that terrorists should die. Now, if terrorists are not to be tolerated, why should their liberal brothers in arms be any different?
Since uneasyone elucidated it so much better than me, I'll refer you to his post on this very thread:
"His [Savage] rhetoric indicates that he does want me and the other people he refers to as "evil, traitorous, scum of the earth, Al Quaida loving etc. dead. He's not stupid enough to say it outright but there can be no doubt."-uneasyone
I don't think that Savage wants liberals dead. He just wants them out of power. I don't think that Savage believes that all liberals are in Al Qaeda. He just thinks that their policies are foolish. He may think that some liberals are traitors though.
Screw you, punk. I don't really care what you think is or is not Mike's intent, you are obviously not capable of objectivity about him.
'Some' liberals are traitors? Nice. Do you know the penalty for treason?
If he can convince people, especially hardcore Mikey loyalists like you, that 'some' liberals are traitors what's to stop the hangings at just a few? If a few is good, more is better, right? Given the right wing authoritarian propensity to fall in lock step with marching orders, the political landscape could be physically altered in a short amount of time.
"I don't think I don't think I don't think."
Read the post above and Michael's exact quote, SavageforPres. He says, "By the time I get through with you, if you should call me to Congress, I'll have you in prison, because you're in cahoots with Al Qaeda."
YOU'RE IN CAHOOTS WITH AL QAEDA. That is a direct accusation of direct terrorism.
Read this other quotation by him: "Now, are you going to tell me that Obama, Hussein Barack Obama, is going to take our side should there be some kind of catastrophic attack on America? I don't think so. Do you think Hillary Rotten Clinton would take our side should there be some kind of catastrophic attack on our soil? I kind of doubt it. I believe that the appeasement that we have seen is only a prelude to what they would do. I think they'd march thousands of us into the hands of the enemy in order to gain what they would think would be a long-term peace. I think that they would gladly take the guns of the American military and turn them first on the American patriot, rather than turning the guns of the American patriot on the enemy within."
He is NOT saying that Clinton and Obama would be incompetent in dealing with counterterrorism. He saying that Clinton and Obama will willingly help the terrorists. He says he doubts "They will take our side." This is what he SAID. SAID, not IMPLIED. SAID.
He's not saying that all liberals are traitors though. Just some politicians.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Serious charges. However it is now your duty (along with Savage) to provide us all with a list of politicians (sitting US Congresspersons or Senators?) who are guilty of treason and to provide the evidence in support of your assertion. Be specific. There is a lot a stake here. To decline to make this information public (unless of course you are part of some secret high level investigation) may make you an accomplice.
Swell pick-off!
Blue, why are you asking me? Ask Savage.
"Clinton should be in the Hague too, as well as Albright, Gore, and Clark."
Just thought you might know since you seem so willing to accuse Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Clark of War Crimes, as you did earlier in this thread. Are you also saying you don't know or may not agree with the assertion (evidently only made by Savage and not you) that some sitting politicians are guilty of treason? Or are you now going to say that Savage never said this? I hope you will join us in the recognition that this is a very serious charge to make on taxpayer owned bandwidth (unless true) and call for his sponsors to discipline him for this.
He is ONLY slandering good people in the fashion of the insane vermin he is.
Did Weiner SAY Hinchley said...NO he said Hinchley is in cahoots with al Queda. That MORA would declare him a national security threat and remove him from the air, would MORA do that? NO, he is a liar and he is insane. Anyone that takes him seriously is unwittingly degenerate discourse in America weakening its democracy. He is a degenerate vermin.
First, I am not salaried as if it makes a difference.
Second, your grandmother died of lung cancer that could have been caused by any number of things. You and the doctors jump the second hand smoke because her husband smoked.
Third, try putting a conservative post on www.democraticunderground.com and see what happens. There are websites on the on both extremes. This is not one of them. Just because it has liberal agenda does not mean those who blindly follow get to set the tone.
Fourth, This is as much about the Fairness Doctrine as Savage's comments. If it was not then it would not have been mentioned in the initial post by the Media Matters people.
Fifth, smoking can increase the chances of getting certain types of cancer that once you have them you may or may not die them.
Six, smoking is legal. If you want to try to make it illegal. That I would be able to support that better then these ridiculous smoking bans. You are not only taking away their freedom to engage in a legal activity you are also taking away the rights of the buisness owners and the others that patronize those locations.
Yes I realize some the grammar and puntuation stinks in my previous post. It is 11:30pm here and I am tired.
Insane, deffocating is legal, but there are only certain places where you are allowed to do it. I'm not comparing smoking to deffocating, as it is necessary to do so. I don't think smoking should be illegal, but there should be certain places where you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Skateboarding is legal, but there are no skating zones in places. You can't light fires in certain areas. Get my drift?
Deffocating?
TMAN, if you don't like smoke, then don't patronize an establishment that allows smoking. If enough people did that, these laws wouldn't even need to be passed.
If a buisness owner wanted to cater to the fetish of defecating I would defend his right to do so.
Been there, done that: although not an idiot rant, I did post some quite conservative material there (as I have done for years all around the web, and in chat rooms before there was a web. Some sites have dedicated little "collections" of my "wit and wisdom"; those are reactions typical of moderately conservative, but sane, sites visited by my "liberal" self. Some sites have bounced me without ever displaying my post, revoking my registration so quickly that I cannot believe they even could have read the allegedly offending material: hard-right sites all, with even a tinge of liberal in the posting.
The very subject of your link was quite accepting of my own critique of the Fairness Doctrine as inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary. Democratic Underground even withstood a follow-up posting in which my attack on the FD was enhanced by explication that the root cause (concentration of ownership) of the problem must be rewound to pre-Reagan (see, I CAN spell it his way, although Regan is how it began, and Ray-Gun was mandated by his little Star Wars boondoggle) levels or even lower. One can disagree there, so long as one is not engaged in shock-jock-ery, tossing explosive devices as though one were an adherent of the Savage/O'Lielly school of debate.
I have been registered with Democratic Underground several times and each time I post it is removed within minutes and I get email saying that because I did not agree with everything they said my post was deleted and I was removed from their rolls.
Same as computer class: RTFM!
See the very post to which you replied: "One can disagree there, so long as one is not engaged in shock-jock-ery, tossing explosive devices as though one were an adherent of the Savage/O'Lielly school of debate."
I posted a soft message in support of Lieberman and was removed.
Democratic Underground is NOT open to all. It is DEMOCRATIC. I have been registered there for a couple of years. You do NOT have to agree with everything that is the simplistic thinking you rightwingers are burdened with. You DO have to support the DEMOCRATIC candidates and agendas. I have disagreed plenty with many posters. IF you are lauding Bush or attacking Democrats in general yes you will be banned. A lot like the toilet known as Freerepublic. It is a place to get away from the partisan rangling. Its fine to disagree as long as you arent trashing DEMOCRATS in specific or in general.
This is from Democratic Underground's own posting rules:
" We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned."
Translation is no conservative voice allowed.
Ah, yes, that is pretty much what I said. What it ISNT is being banned because you dont agree with everything they say.
I posted a soft message as a Democrat in support of Lieberman but because the site was against the man I was banned.
I doubt that. I am a member of that site and saw many democrats supporting Lieberman. I argued with several of them. There were whole threads devoted to Lieberman support.
You can doubt it until the cows come home but it doesn't change the facts.
"I have been 'second hand smoking' all my life and am healthy as an ox." - Insaneloki&abunchofnumbers
And you're almost as perceptive as one.
Your denying the clear dangers of second hand smoke neatly mirrors your trembling panic at the prospect of the public occasionally hearing a non-right wing idea. You harshly reject what is healthy (whether in a pulmonary or a mental way) for what is slowly breaking you down. Your rapturous embrace of physical & intellectual toxins is indeed sad, but you're the one who will ultimately pay the price for these dementia.
The fact that you are spending as much time here... at a hated 'left wing smear website'... suggests that there might still be some level of hope for you. I suspect that it your unconscious serupticiously attempting to draw you out of the darkness of Weinerdom & expose you to the light. Come over from the dark side, Loki. Do your brain & your lungs the favor that they are silently begging for.
The reason I spend so much time here is to help you see the light. I do not deny that smoking has dangers. All I am saying is that second hand smoke does not have has many as the propaganda machine would have you believe.
I am not even saying that we don't need more balance in the media. What I am saying is that legislation is not the way to do it. There are plenty of ways absent of government interference that we could change the face of the media.
Help US see the light????? Physician heal thyself. I dont believe a single concept EXISTS that you could illuminate for us. I dont think you are NEAR bright enough to be taking on the task of guru.
Which is why am here. to enlighten you in ways you never dreamed possible.
I can dream a lot. You just dont have the stuff. Its really that simple. Your delusions of adequacy are fooling you. Ya got nothin.
Apparently you can't dream of your power in this nation seperate from government intervention. That is why am here to enlighten you to this fact.
People are the government, intervention is an extension of our will.
Government does things by force; people do things of their own volition.
I am a liberal person, but I would have to agree that the smoking bans are a bit overbearing. I think that it should be up to the business owner whether or not they allow smoking in their establishment. Of course second hand smoke is bad for you, but I don't think every bar and restaurant should have to force their clients outside whether they want to or not. I used to live in Minneapolis and it got cold smoking outside in the winter, although the beer did help warm me up! The only good thing about having to get up and go outside is it made me smoke less, and I didn't have as bad a cigarette hangover to go along with my awful alcohol hangover.
I smoke too (cowboy killers in fact). Knowing what I know about second hand smoke, I do not mind being segregated from non-smokers.
If smoking is so bad, then why not ban it altogether? I actually don't care either way about the issue.
The risks of second hand smoking are almost nil compared to the risks of first hand smoking. If you don't want to breathe smoke, then don't patronize any place of business that allows smoking (if any place is even permitted to allow smoking these days).
Why are liberals anti-tobacco but pro marijuana?
That's easy. The reason to be "for" marijuana is that it should be treated as a health problem, not a legal problem...exactly like cigarettes. Nobody that I know of is advocating banning cigarettes altogether, but it shouldn't be forced on people who don't want to breathe the smoke.
If marijuana was legal, reasonable people would surely agree that it's not something you do anywhere, anytime either. So would those people be "anti-marijuana"? No. It's not pro- or anti- anything. It's an obvious compromise to understand it doesn't make any sense for either to be illegal, but at the same time that using either whenever or wherever someone wants is not an inalienable right.
Round, it's "your," not "you're."
Yeah, I know. I noticed that a little after I posted it.
How 'boutcha grade this for proper spelling: Go suck an egg.
Mind rewriting that, its a little unclear.
Also where are you getting a liberal veiw on things. Air America, if you can get them, seems to be the only source in broadcast media that I would call truly progressive or liberal. if your source is Mainstream media it does not qualify. They are either in the thrall of conservative money or corporate control. Neither of which has any interest in properly showing or illuminating the liberal/progressive point of veiw.
Check network news. It is has a definite liberal slant.
Liberal media? You must be new here. Pull up a chair, we have punch and pie. Hope you stay awhile and learn something.
Everything they post here is from cable news. I have never seen a network news show posted about on here. Watch GMA and tell me there isn't a liberal slant.
What's so liberal about GMA?
Everything
"Everything"
Like what?
Watch their interviews of conservatives then their interviews with liberals. Watch the colorful adjectives the use when describing a liberal and then the lack of same when describing a conservative. Watch their harping on ever conservative scandal in Washington but ignoring the liberal scandals or the fact that a liberal might have done the same thing years before.
What interviews are you referring to and what scandal did they ignore?
While covering the Congressman Mark Foley scandal they ignored Rep. Gerry Studds' exact same behavior with a male page in the 1970s in which he was only censured not asked to resign. In fact he stayed in Congress until his death in 2006.
There were two congressmen that were censured (one republican and one Democratic). What good would it have done if they reported on something that happened to two congressmen thirty years ago? Was this suppose to absolve Foley or something?
What a nincompoop you are!
"While covering the Congressman Mark Foley scandal they ignored Rep. Gerry Studds' exact same behavior with a male page in the 1970s in which he was only censured not asked to resign. In fact he stayed in Congress until his death in 2006."
While covering the sexual predator Mark Foley, they didn't bring up the Republican nor the Democrat who had consensual affairs in the 1970's. Why would they have? How does a consensual sexual relationship with someone compare to the actions of Foley?
Gerry Studds did not exhibit that same exact behavior as Mark Foley. You are a liar. What Studds did was wrong, but it was not as bad as what Foley did. It was not even as bad as what the Republican Crane did either, because at least Studds wasn't cheating on his wife like Crane was!
Foley resigned because he sexually harrassed pages and ex-pages. Studd's didn't do that. Neither did the Republican Congressman Crane. What Crane and Studds did was wrong, because they had sex with people they were supposed to be mentors for, and in the case of Crane, a married man, the voters in his district decided that what he did was bad enough that his incumbency was not worth saving, and they voted the Republican out.
How come you failed to mention the Republican who was guilty of the same things that Studds was? Huh? How come?
A huge percentage of the rightwingers who come here and the right wing media DID mention Studds, but failed to mention the Republican Crane! A much better question is "why, if the rightwingers thought that something that happened 30-40 years ago was so relevant, did they only mention the Democrat and not the Republican?" Huh? How come?
This site is all about balance. If you are going to mention the Republican then mention the Democrat.
While YOU mention ONLY the Democrats to you that seems like balance. The left balancing every criticism THEY make of the GOP mentioning criticism of Dems while you guys continue to ONLY take the Dems to task. I think I will pass on that advise.
Isupport full investigations into every member of congress absent even any charges.
No it doesnt. I am a liberal they are not slanted my way and never have been. Your delusional fantasies do not define reality.
The Fairness Doctrine is an essential policy to ensure the 4th estate does it's public service. It worked for decades and when it was trashed so conservatives could lie unimpeded the media weakened and people are less informed. And when you smoke, you pollute. Smoking bans only keep inconciderate jerks from poisoning the people around them.
Bing, it's spelled "its," not "it's." Once again, if liberals want to compete in talk radio, they should learn how to get ratings. Conservatives dominating talk radio only balance out the mainstream media, which have been dominated by the liberals. Why do you want the government interfering in what the "fourth estate" does? I thought that they were supposed to be kept separate.
"Conservatives dominating talk radio only balance out the mainstream media, which have been dominated by the liberals."
Conservatives are looking for the MSM media to be in complete lock step with their positions and when this doesn’t happen it’s because the media is liberal [in their mind]. They tune out all other media and focus on the ones that are in complete lockstep with their positions hence the high ratings for talk radio. They don’t want here anything that conflicts with their world view.
You repeating this simpleminded rightwing mantra will NOT make it magically true. The mainstream media is NOT liberal. Remember the runup to the war? Where was the liberal slant again? Remember Donahue getting canned when he had the highest ratings on his network? Remember the Downing street memo, ignored for at least a month while it was Britians biggest story until the internet made it impossible to ingnore. Rember the skewering they gave Gore at the same time they treated Bush with kid gloves? Its ludicrous. No matter how often you repeat this ludicrous mantra, wishing wont make it so.
I was going to respond to your post, Loki, but that moniker of your says a lot. So I decided not the waste any more of my time. Besides, from the looks of things, your comment has been answered quite nicely.
This moniker has been mine since I got online. Why don't you attack my argument and not my moniker.
"prone to hyperbole" that is an understatement.
If all things in the world were fair & balances Michael would be institutionalized and unable to harm society.
Pearlene, that is total nonsense. Savage is not insane.
Weiner's need for a Thorazine/Haldol cocktail is more dire than I can express. He needs to spend some time in a rubber room knitting something that isnt there.
Our foreign policy is downright criminal.
I agree. Bill Clinton bombing Serbia was downright criminal. He should be in the Hague.
Huh? Clinton WITH NATO sought to end the European version of Rwanda in Kosovo and Bosnia. Genocide, in fact, is a war crime, and one which was stopped, with our allies.
Bungle, conversely, finally managed to recruit NATO to step in to mitigate his abandonment of Afghanistan; but with Blair gone, cannot seem to find any allies at all for his mad crimes in Iraq.
Lies. There was no genocide. The Albanians started the conflict by trying to take over Kosovo, which is Serbian land. Albanians have burned down Serbian churches and have murdered Serbian police. The Muslim Albanians also fought alongside Hitler in WW2. Let's also not forget that some of the Fort Dix Six were Muslim Albanians. Wow, what great friends they are! It was a total lie that the Albanians were the good guys and that the Serbians were the bad guys. There were bad guys all around, but the Albanians started the conflict. NATO and Clinton targeted civilians, which is a war crime. The UN also did not permit the bombing. Michael Savage has carefully studied this issue, and he has come to the same conclusion. If Savage is such a "warmongering conservative," why was he against that war? I must further add that Milosovic was clearly murdered in his prison cell because he was about to rat out somebody.
I don't really have a problem with that characterization overall. The Albanian Kosovars were the instigators of much of the problems and most of the worst attrocities happened AFTER we started bombing which was what we actually predicted. The Albanians are religiously diverse though 2/3 Muslim it isnt really accurate to portray it as a Muslim/Serbian problem. Many times unaligned Muslims were the targets. Also Albania was INVADED by Italy, while there were Albanian Nazis there were also Vichy French and it would be as accurate to say the French or Norwegians were allied with the Nazis the Albanians both Muslims and Christians protected their Jews from the Nazis about as well as any country in Europe did.
http://www.frosina.org/about/infobits.asp?id=158
Harvey Samer, brought this to light in 1994 in his booklet, The Jews of Albania -- the first publication in the English language describing Albania's heroic rescue of Jews during the Holocaust. The names of the courageous Muslim and Christian Albanians who saved the Jews are honored as "Righteous Among the Nations" at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and are inscribed on the Rescuers Wall at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC. where, during dedication ceremonies, its Director, Miles Lerman, gratefully stated, "Albania was the only country in Europe which had a larger Jewish population at the end of the war than before it! "
I didnt support the Bosnian campaign when it was happening and I am not going to start now. As I said the argument can be made, I have no problem with someone making it. It would be disengenuous for someone to make it however that didnt agree Bush and Cheney belong in the Hague. If the Nuremberg precedent were applied they would be hung.
That argument can be made. Certainly Bush and Cheney should be in the Hague, if the Nuremberg laws were applied they would be hung.
The World Court is illegitimate piece of rubbish. I am happy the US refused to become apart of it.
It would be nice if once in a while you knew what you were talking about. The World Court ajudicates ONLY disputes between nations. You are thinking of the International Court of Justice. If the concept is illigitimate then what was OUR right to host the Nuremberg tribunal? Or is it OK for US to do just not for others to do to us? Is this another case where conservatives are demanding others conform to standards we never accept for ourselves? WE did Nuremberg, as I said if the Nuremberg precedent were applied Bush would be hung.
Iwasn't confused. I think they are both irrefutably stupid. Anything that would force Americans to answer to higher authority than their own people is ridiculous.
I am sorry I misread your post. You did not deserve the tone I used nor the insults I spewed in it. Please except my appologies I should have only made the point that since WE held OTHERS to this standard it ought to apply to us also and to think otherwise is hypocritical and immoral.
I appreciate your apology and can see your point.
The World Court and and the ICC are not the answer.
“Our actions in this country are watched closely. Information we give out is then used by our enemy to attempt to discredit our foreign policy.
- insaneloki20024664 / Friday May 11, 2007 06:18:14 PM EST”
Our current foreign under Bush is nonsensical. He's given people like Zawahiri and Bin Laden more credibility in the Middle East. The only way to marginalize these people is to stop creating this apathy and disaffection among Middle-Easterners towards the U.S. which these extremists use to recruit followers for their cause. Bush with his asinine foreign policy is creating more potential followers for Zawahiri and Bin Laden and endangering our national security. It’s perfectly alright to call him on it.
No he is not. Before 9/11 when we were not even over there was still animosity toward the US. You do not "legitimatize" a foe by fighting him. Terrorism has been being fostered in the Middle East for centuries. They aren't getting help from us.
These people are getting plenty of help from Bush. We need to get rid of this disenchantment Muslims feel with the U.S. and bombing and invading Muslim countries will not accomplish this. Invasions will only increase this feeling and give the extremists a larger pool to recruit from which is detrimental to our national security. You're right about terrorism being there before Bush came into office and it will still be there long after he is gone but our goal should be to marginalize these extremists and Bush’s foreign policy is given them more credibility.
I don't care what Muslims think about us. We should totally destroy the terrorists.
You should care because Zawahiri, Bin Laden and other extremists use this disaffection for the U.S. among Muslims to gain followers who will try to kill us.
I agree. Lets do that. Lets do that INSTEAD of using terrorism as an EXCUSE for imperialism. Lets do that without starting an unecessary Holy War. Islam is not the problem. A group of nutbags within Islam is the problem. Lets not give them credibility among the reasonable Muslims of the world by making them look like they are right about us targetting Islam instead of terrorists.
Iraq was no a Muslim nation they were secular.
When I say Muslim nation, I’m referring to fact that almost all the people in Iraq practice Islam. It has nothing to with being secular or a theocracy. Right now the Iraqi constitution makes Islam the official religion of Iraq and the basis for all of the laws of the country. It also refers to Iraq as being part of the Muslim World.
Just because it is Muslim nation now does not support your previous argument that it was before. They had very large Christian population.
Iraq has always been a Muslim nation (i.e. a country in Muslim World where virtually all of the people follow Islam). Iraq has a two to three percent Christian and other religions population which is on par with the rest of the Muslim World.
Muslim Natiuon implies that there leadership was Muslim, it wasn't.
Is america a christian nation? Are ALL of our leaders christian? Are all the PEOPLE christian? OUR government is SECULAR. So does that mean the people of america are secular too? You got it twisted buddy..
Muslim nation IS quite accurate. The leadership in Iraq was SECULAR, but that doesn't mean that the people of iraq weren't muslim or just secular. In fact, you hear it every day, sunni, shia, these are all Muslim sects in the population. Hence the term, sectarian violence (civil war).
First, there is no civil war. There is a insurgency from outsiders recruiting some easily manipulated peopl who live there.
Second, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation because there entire culture and government is based on Muslim belief. That is what makes them a Muslim nation not that that majority of their people are Muslim.
Third, the United States may have been started with Judeo-Christian values our government is not run and our culture is not run on those principles necessarily.
We get it, Weiner. Bin Laden is a BAD GUY. The question is, why aren't we trying to catch him?
There's no money in catching bin Laden. It would mean the "war on terror" would have to end and the war profiteers can't have that, ya know.
Bin Laden is not the only terroist. The War would continue.
“Bin Laden is not the only terroist. The War would continue.
- insaneloki20024664 / Saturday May 12, 2007 10:13:28 AM EST”
You’re right. Bush's asinine foreign policy is ensuring it. The only solution is to elect someone with some intelligence in 2008. We can’t afford to have another dolt in the White House.
Loonz, I agree. That's why I support Michael Savage for president in 2008. He has a Ph.D. and an I.Q. of 170. He's written over twenty books. He's far more decorated than any other current or potential candidate in the race.
Then again he IS insane. How about Noam Chomsky his IQ would be at least that high, a Noble Prize winner for SCIENCE not politics, he has written about 100 books. 65 of them political books and he would eat Savage alive in a debate. Smarter, more respected. In a poll of academics he was voted the 8th most influential intellectual OF ALL TIME. Savage palese in comparison. Of course I wouldnt want Chomsky to be President. I am just pointing out your criteria leaves a lot to be desired and of course Weiner is insane. This doesnt much matter because I will become the King of Belgium long before Weiner becomes President of the United States. This is a good thing. I dont want the President running things from a rubber room.
Savage was never in a field that is eligible for the Nobel Prize. Let's also not forget that he was denied professorships due to affirmative action. I'd love to see Savage debate Chomsky though. Let 'em go at each other.
Well thats HIS story. What we know is he didnt make it as an academic. Botanists have won the Nobel Prize before. Chomsky was voted by Foriegn policy magazine the most important intellectual in the field. The NYTimes called him the most important intellectual alive. There really isnt any question Chomsky's academic reputation and accomplishments make Savage pale by comparison. The point is, even so and a far lefty I wouldnt want him to be president. Savage will never be president, though I really wish he would run.
There's no Nobel Prize in botany.
Just because Chomsky is more celebrated as a scientist than Savage doesn't mean that he is smarter than Savage. I'd love to see the two of them debate each other on politics.
Oh please. While there is not a Nobel prize in botany, that does nothing to refute the FACT that botanists have won the Nobel prize before for their work and its applications in other fields like medicine, in fact they HAVE. You cant seriously believe Weiner is even in Chomskys league intellectually. I mean I understand you like the guy but lets be serious. I would love to see the debate to. I have seen excerps of him debating William F Buckley and he took him apart. I watched him debate the head of Boston college and the poor guy never knew what hit him. Its all academic neither will ever be president. Both are far too rigid and extreme in their views for the American people to be comfortable with them.
Bush does not create more terroist. Some lunatic in the middle east misinterpreting and twisting the Quoran(I think thats how it is spelled) for his purposes fosters/creates terroist. Terroist existed before Bush and will exist after.
We always tell rape victims it is not their fault no matter what they were wearing or how they acted. Apply the same logic to the US. We are the victims.
Correct, Loki. Muslims have been killing "infidels" for over a thousand years.
Muslims and Christians have been killing "infidels" for over a thousand years. And both Muslims and Jews were being persecuted by Christians. In fact the Jewish community had always had better relations with the Muslim community up until the creation of Israel.
Loonz, nice job of making the Christians the bad guys and the terrorists the good guys. Typical of the left.
Actually Jews were killed by Muslims in Palestine before the creation of Israel.
When were Muslims persecuted by Christians? Are you referring to the Crusades? The Crusades were a response to the Muslims' attempt to conquer Europe.
“Loonz, nice job of making the Christians the bad guys and the terrorists the good guys. Typical of the left.”
Which part of my post makes terrorists the good guys?
“Actually Jews were killed by Muslims in Palestine before the creation of Israel.”
This violence occurred because of the Zionist movement which was advocating the creation of Israel. Anyway, how is this in conflict with anything I said?
“When were Muslims persecuted by Christians? Are you referring to the Crusades? The Crusades were a response to the Muslims' attempt to conquer Europe.”
During the emergence of the religion, during the crusades (which was fought to recapture Jerusalem) and European colonization which resulted in artificial borders throughout the Middle East, the forcing together of different sectarian groups and puppet governments being setup during decolonization.
Ah yes, blame the Zionists. They're wrong just for wanting to have a homeland. Of course, the Palestinians, who want a homeland, are saints.
Muslims have nobody to blame but themselves for why they don't get along with anybody. It's not the fault of the Christians. Muslims tried to conquer Europe. Hell, Islam was violent from the very beginning. Muhammad was a violent man.
"Ah yes, blame the Zionists. They're wrong just for wanting to have a homeland. Of course, the Palestinians, who want a homeland, are saints."
I don't have a problem with anyone advocating for a homeland but the reason they wanted it smack-dab in the Muslim World is that they believed they had a God-given right to the land. Their homeland could have been placed anywhere else on Earth and this conflict would have been avoided (we could have given them Idaho and have all the residents there move to Utah).
“Muslims have nobody to blame but themselves for why they don't get along with anybody.”
It has nothing to do with them getting along with anyone else; they just want others to stop interfering in the Muslim World.
“It's not the fault of the Christians. Muslims tried to conquer Europe.”
Who said it was the fault of the Christians?
“Muhammad was a violent man.”
He had to be. Muslims were being persecuted by Christians, Jews and Pagan Arabs who felt that their power and influence would be threatened by the emerging faith.
I disagree that Muslims are only mad because people are interfering with the middle east. As Michael Savage has stated many times, Muslims can't get along with their neighbors anywhere. That's why India was split up. Muslims have also persecuted Buddhists. It's not all about Israel.
After Israel was created in 1948, the Palestinians still had land. They then proceeded to attack Israel and lost. They have no one to blame but themselves.
There was little religious animosity in India before the British using the time honored divide and control technique whipped up the religious tension there, much the same way Belgium did in Rwanda between the ethnicities. It is a LIE that Muslims cannot get along with their nieghbors anywhere. Look at Cyprus where the two cultures have been getting along for hundreds of years. A bigotted view of what happened as was your take on 1948. It would be more accurate to say a virtual civil war erupted on both sides after the decision and the Jews were much better organized.
The British whipped them up? I actually blame people for their own actions.
Oh, I see that Iran arrested an American for "spying." Those Nazi bums! I bet that Bush and congress won't do a darn thing about it either.
No you really dont you want to blame SOME people for their actions. i am not absolving the Indian people for falling for the oldest trick in the colonialism playbook but you seem to want to absolve the British for their well documented divisive actions, which again were colonialism 101
Muslims were nomadic and immigrated there only after Jews were displaced form there land. The land was rightfully theirs to have.
That is ludicrous propaganda. Not all Arabs are nomadic people. Damascus in Syria is probably the oldest continuously occupied city in the world. The people of Palestine claim the ancestry of the Caananites who PREDATED the Jews in the Levant. Are you seriously trying to say the land was just empty until the Jews came back? The claim is ridiculous.
No I am saying that Jews they have legitimate claim to the territory.
I did not mean to say all Muslims were nomads. I meant Muslims in that region.
You are talking about the 12th Century, everyone was expanding their territory to the best of their ability, it was what was done. Look at European history at this time the internecine warfare was as bloody as anywhere in the world. You are beggining to look like a bigot. The Muslims werent doing anything that the rest of the world wasnt doing at this time. It was about the time of Ghengis Khan in Mongolia. It was the context of the time. Its not JUST that the Jews wanted a Homeland but they were committing terrorism to get it. Bombing trains, Hotels, assasinating Folke Burnadotte and Lord Moyne. There is no question Palestinians are committing vile terrorist acts, a violent minority of them, there is also no question that before they got their homeland the Jews were also committing vile terrorist acts. King David Hotel anyone?
Those acts were not sanctioned by the whole of the Jewish community as the Palestinian acts are supported by most Muslim countries.
Yes they were. Of course that goes both ways Jewish terrorist groups like the Stern group were also killing Muslims and the British by the score, remember the King David Hotel? Ah, no, the Crusades were NOT retaliation for Muslims trying to take over Europe, it was an attempt by Europeans to take back the Holy land, that is certainly what THEY said at the time.
Jews were persecuted by the Romans decades (centuries) before becoming a Christian nation. The Crusades were as much Muslims as they were Christians.
"Jews were persecuted by the Romans decades (centuries) before becoming a Christian nation."
And this means...?
"The Crusades were as much Muslims as they were Christians."
The crusades were specifically Christian. The objective was to recapture the "Holy land" – Jerusalem. Europe’s response to Muslim expansionism is separate from what the Crusades were about.
The barbaic acts and continuing of hostilities are the fault of both sides.
“Bush does not create more terroist. Some lunatic in the middle east misinterpreting and twisting the Quoran(I think thats how it is spelled) for his purposes fosters/creates terroist. Terroist existed before Bush and will exist after.” We want these extremists to be seen as lunatics misinterpreting the Qur’an with as little followers as possible but president is f—king it up. His actions foster this anti-U.S. feeling in the Muslim World which gives these extremists more credibility and put our nation in peril. You cannot destroy terrorism but there are ways to limit the amount people who want to attack you and bombing and invading a Muslim country that did not pose a threat is not one of them. “We always tell rape victims it is not their fault no matter what they were wearing or how they acted. Apply the same logic to the US. We are the victims.” What does this have to do with Bush’s invasion of Iraq?
Well put, Loonz.
There were two Al Queda training camps in Northern Iraq. Confirmed meetings between Al Queda and top Iraqi officials. Saddam funded families of suicide bombers that killed our allies. Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate one our Presidents. We were the victims, you cannot say what we do to get justice creates them, they were already created and waiting.
"There were two Al Qaeda training camps in Northern Iraq."
Northern Iraq which Saddam didn't control. And they weren't Al Qaeda training camps.
"Confirmed meetings between Al Queda and top Iraqi officials."
This doesn’t mean anything. The United States has discussions with all types of people.
"Saddam funded families of suicide bombers that killed our allies. Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate one our Presidents."
Common practice in the Middle East.
"Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate one our Presidents."
Again, Clinton retaliated against the alleged attack.
“We were the victims, you cannot say what we do to get justice creates them, they were already created and waiting.”
The Iraqis are the victims - first by Saddam and then by Bush.
Saddam controlled what he wanted. If he did not want the camps there they would have been gone. J
ust because it is common practice in Middle East does negate the support he gave.
Clinton's retaliation was not good enough.
I agree with you the Iraqis are victims. Of Saddam Hussein and of wackos from other countries spilling into theres and meddling with their affairs, NOT THE US.
People seem to forget the difficulty we had forming our new nation. Iraq is going to be a trouble spot for years to come. But they will emerge a freer more prosperous nation when it is all done. IF/WHEN it delves into a civil war I would support our leaving.
You are flat out wrong. Saddam did NOT control the Kurdish Autonomous zone. We were flying over the nofly zone and would not allow more than limited incursions into the area. Saddam did NOT control what he wanted and had no control over their group. WE could have bombed it and chose not to for whatever reason but Saddam did NOT control that area its that simple.
Tell that to the Kurds who were persecuted.
The Kurds are most definitly a persecuted people in Turkey, Iraq, wherever they are maybe because they are not Arabs racially. However at the time of the invasion they were in the Kurdish autonomous zone and Saddam DID NOT CONTROL IT. That is a fact.
In practice, however, the assembly created in 1970 was under the control of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein until the 1991 uprising against his rule following the end of the Persian Gulf War. Concerns for Safety of Kurdish refugees was reflected in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 which gave birth to a safe haven, in which allied air power protected a Kurdish zone inside Iraq.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan
Condoleeza Rice had THIS to say in 2001
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=4530
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of his country," she said.
This is a fact
I thought you didn't believe everything you read in the right wing controlled media?
I still say he exerted much influence.
"ust because it is common practice in Middle East does negate the support he gave."
This is the only legitimate argument you have. Bush has expended so many lives and resources to stop someone from giving money to the families of suicide bombers which is a common practice in the Muslim World. Now if we could only get the rest of the countries to stop doing it.
“Clinton's retaliation was not good enough.”
It was good enough especially since we couldn't interrogate the people who told the Kuwaitis that Saddam put them up to it.
“I agree with you the Iraqis are victims. Of Saddam Hussein and of wackos from other countries spilling into theres and meddling with their affairs, NOT THE US.”
Bush is the cause of everything that is going on in Iraq today with this asinine war he started which did not have to be fought.
“But they will emerge a freer more prosperous nation when it is all done. IF/WHEN it delves into a civil war I would support our leaving.”
It’s up to the Iraqis to decide what happens to their country; we should have been gone long time ago with Bush, Cheney and the rest heading to The Hague.
Bush is not the one to blame for this, well not the only one. Congress voted him the authorization. It was their responsibility to ensure they were voting on accurate intelligence. The failure is theirs. COngress failed us on this.
"...ensure that they were voting on accurate intelligence"
And just how is the congress gonna do that??? Start their own CIA, FBI or NSA? How about trusting the information presented to them as accurate from the people who's job it is to tell them.
My friend, you are insane indeed.
Wait a sec --if the media has liberal bias, wouldn't the Fairness Doctrine push the media to the right? Savage should be clamoring for it!
Don't be so logical. Logic makes Republicans nervous.
I don't know about Republicans, but conservatives certainly don't fear logic. Logic is purely conservative.
"Logic is purely conservative." Weinerformessiah
And conservatives, as is their nature, use it as sparingly as possible.
No delusion is pure conservative, logic, along with reality are pure liberal. Well not really but my baseless assertion is at least as valid as YOUR baseless assertion.
That is hysterical! I had not thought of that. Conservatives who routinely bitch about the "Liberal Media Bias" would presumably stand to gain the most by re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. Of course, if you are waiting for conservative opinion to be based in logic, you'll be waiting for awhile.
As for Savage, exactly how is erecting barriers to protect America from propaganda (i.e. the Fairness Doctrine) in any way related to Al Qaeda?
How can Savage can call proponents of the Fairness Doctrine "Nazis" when (just like the Nazis) Savage is fighting to preserve propaganda in the media?
Savage is protecting freedom, not propaganda.
Hinchey is quite possibly an Al Qaeda member if he claims that Michael Savage, a patriotic, red blooded American, is a threat to natiional security. Hinchey is nuts.
It's national, not natiional. Dick.
That was a typo. Nice try though.
national
I see that I've gotten you mad.
You're a dick. No anger in that statement. That's just the God's honest truth.
Don't bring God into your insults.
Actually, *I* would argue that God brought the poster into the insult. Seemed the reasonable thing to do, since he is finished (for now) punishing Kansas for reinstating teaching evolution, and you so richly deserved a warning.
Just got a little reminder - someone's hose fell on me, I think - "He's ".
SO you think God is to blame for everything wrong in the World?
Nope. Since I am uncertain of the existence of a "Supreme Being", I cannot blame Him/Her (see, I did learn from having the house fall on me) for everything. However, IF THERE WERE A GOD, it is most certain that (S)He would be offended by your behaviour; and if you were unfortunate enough to draw the Old Testament God, the one the wingers were blaming for Kansas' recent tornados because of the reinstitution of evolution in the classroom, take heed at the warning delivered as a perceived insult, and mend your ways, my child!
I am not with those people who claim God is punishing us by killing us. Read the Bible God is about Grace and Love.
I guess that whole bit about Noah and the flood must have been in some other book.
The Old Testament God was vengeful while still full of grace. It was like parent punishing His children. But in the New Testament with the gift of Jesus it became about grace.
I would add that even though the New Testament is about grace, as Loki has said, that Jesus still preached about hell. Not everybody gets grace. People have to accept God's grace. People have to repent their sins as well. However, I don't think that God punishes us with floods or turns us into salt anymore.
Round, that was such a nice statement from a "compassionate" liberal.
Some liberals are more compassionate than others.
Every liberal is more compassionate than any Repugnant.
And show a little pride - at least a Dick is part of a human, and for Repugnants, that is as close as they are likely to come.
Dude, what is with the insults. We have never claimed to be Republicans. I am a registered independent. I am a conservative and do agree with our current foreign policy but disagree witht the administration on much else.
Dude? Am *I* "Dude"? If so, note that the most recent insult was directed toward another (one of the features of "Reply To" is the indentation). As to your profession of "registered independent", note that O'Lielly claims the same. "Repugnant" is not a recognized party, but rather a loose affiliation of those who feel a need to aggrandize themselves by minimising others; to apply ethics and mores as weapons, rather than as self-regulation; but who can readily shape personal ethics and morals to accomodate whatever action appears most likely to produce rewards commensurate with that aggrandized self-image. Hence, the familial resemblance of Repugnants and Republicans is not exclusionary; and even (legitimate) registration as an independent may not exempt you from membership in the Repugnant phylum.
Big Words, too bad they are meaningless.
"Round, that was such a nice statement from a "compassionate" liberal."MSFP
What? You don't like Nixon?
Comem on, I know you love Dick. You come here tossing off subtle and not so subtle insults, ejaculating willful ignorance, yet expect to have no comparisons made between yourself and Dick?
I'm just feeding you, Dick, that which you lust.
Actually I don't like Nixon. He was a liberal.
And you are quite possibly a moron who molests small furry animals. Another baseless assertion with at least as much validity as your ignorant smear.
Baloney there is no freedom issue at stake. Nothing in the fairness doctrine would limit what he could say only mandate the other side be heard. The most logical reason to fight so hard to keep that from happening is to preserve the propaganda. A basic tenet of propaganda is conformity of message.
No, because he understands that is what the public wants.
So, Savage doesn't think the public should get what it wants? Isn't that anti-democratic?
Iflurry, no. Savage is exactly for what the public wants. The public doesn't like liberal talk radio. The public loves conservative talk radio. I think that you're confused.
Weiner is insane he doesnt even know what color the invisible yarn is he used to knit things that arent there. A small minority of people listen to AM radio at ALL much less hate filled insane bigots like Weinerdog. Does the public agree with the concept behind the fairness doctrine. If so it wins in the democratic process if not it loses. That is how it should be. NOT it shouldnt even be tried because you seem to think that in the arena of ideas the hatemongering insanity of Wienerdog would die out if the other side was heard.
If the public wanted anything other than what they have then it would be available. If there was money in it then it would be on the air.
Sure thats why Donahue who had the top rated show on his entire network is still on the air, WAIT, he isnt. So your baseless assertion isnt all that clearcut.
He obviously messed up. Or you have a distorted view of his ratings.
Ah, no you are just WRONG AGAIN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue
February 25, 2003, MSNBC cancelled the show, citing low viewership. However, that month, Donahue averaged 446,000 viewers and became the highest rated show on the network
Later, the website AllYourTV.com reported it had received a copy of an internal NBC memo that mentioned that Donahue had to be fired because he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war"
Just because you believe it OUGHT to be so doesnt MAKE it so.
Where is the memo? Plus things like that get discussed all the time. It does not mean that is the reason he was fired. There are tons of things that happen behind the scenes. Don't assume you know everything about it just because of one news story.
Solon, Wikipedia isn't an accurate source of information. Secondly, even if what you're saying is true, it means that NBC fired Donahue to protect itself. NBC still believed that he was bad for the network. Nobody would ever fire someone who's good for the network.
Linden, no, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to radio, which is mostly conservative now. The mainstream media only have a covert liberal bias.
Talk radio.
Also any commentative broadcast TV show.
No they dont, no matter how often you repeat it, repitition will not magically make it true. Also the fairness doctrine would not necessarily apply ONLY to radio, depending on how the specific law was written.
Savage is an eliminationist.
He wants liberals to die.
It's obvious.
He makes constant comparisons and parallels between libs and terrorists, Al Qaeda, Jihadists etc.
It's a simple logical conclusion.
Al Qaeda terrorists are evil, they killed Americans on 9/11 and should be killed as enemy combatants.
Libs are in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
Libs should be killed as enemy combatants.
If you don't understand that, you're just lost.
Actually, your logic is a bit off, I think it's a bit simpler than that. Al Qaeda = Evil, therefore they must die. Liberals = Evil. Therefore Liberals = Al Qaeda and must die.
This is also why they have no problem comparing us to everything from communists to fascists. Terrorists, communists, fascists, liberals are all evil, so they are all the same and thus deserve the same treatment.
That kind of logic, of course, is symptomatic of an extremely simple mind.
Thanks for simplifying the equation. It's been a long, long day already and my ability to formulate simple equations has been inhibited.
Again, radio host may be prone to hyperbole but that does not make them wrong.
Getting facts wrong = wrong. Just because you're one of Weiner's pointy-hooded slaves doesn't mean he's right about anything.
You're a filthy troll, plain and simple.
Who the hell is Weiner? I do not listen to this guy.
Try writing your name on a piece of paper and then tearing it into little tiny pieces. That's what you've just done to your chances of being taken seriously around here.
What, because I don't know who one person is? Your name is iflurry8094 how is that better than my moniker?
Savage hasn't been wrong about anything. Period. Sorry, Damian.
Yes he has. In this very thread he was WRONG that MORA would label him a security threat and take him off the air. It only mandates that the other side is heard. Wienerdog worshipping is no way to go through life.
Solon, Savage is going by what Hinchey said about him.
No, he's NOT going by what Hinchley said about him, because Hinchley didn't say that about him.
That's Savage's insanity talking. It does not reflect reality. You've had this explained to you at least 2 times already. Are you that dense that you cannot understand simple explanations?
Hinchey said that Savage is a threat to national security.
Even IF Hinchley said that it would have WHAT to do with MORA? Savage didnt say Hinchley was wrong he said he was in cahoots with al Queda, he didnt say HINCHLEY was claiming he was a threat he said MORA would declare him a threat and take him off the radio. BOTH LIES, Neither one right. Your repitition of the Everything Weinerdog says is godlike and 100% correct is precious in its sychophancy , simpleminded and flat out WRONG.
Ashen, it takes one to know one.
Round, you're projecting, as usual. You should really stop it.
What should cease is your extreme passive-aggressive tendencies to control the debate through defining acceptable behavior.
savage is in cahoots with al Qaeda. So is all the other right wing talking heads. They propagandize to insitigate them and divide the citizenry of this country. These guys want another attack. They want our troops tortured and killed. They promote policies that help al Qaeda recruit and they weaken our resolve by claiming a large segment of our society root for the terrorists.
By definition these same pundits are also terrorists. They lie to peddle fear. They justify un Constituional activites by insisting they are necessary to protect us. Protect us from what? 6 idiots in Jersey with a half baked "plan?" Seems law enforcement was quite competent in getting a warrant and watching a group of suspicious individuals legally. We have a local idiot "Gunny Bob" who advocated monitoring all Muslims with GPS and wire taps who weren't natural born citizens."
If they are truly so afraid, they are cowards. If they are purposely spewing scare tactics they are yelling fire in a crowded theater. They truly are the traitors they claim those of us living in the real world of being.
Bing, you're projecting, just like Round does. We don't want another terrorist attack, and we don't want our soldiers tortured. Hell, Savage has opposed what he perceives to be the torturing of our own Marines in Camp Pendleton.
I noticed that some of those idiots in New Jersey were Albanian Muslims. Thanks, Clinton, for aiding those vermin in the Kosovo conflict.
Absolutely annihilating the terrorists won't help Al Qaeda recruitments. I can guarantee that. That's why I support Michael Savage for president. Screw Bush. I don't care about Bush. He's a failure. It's time for America to move on to a real patriot like Michael Savage.
Weinerdog will become president about the time my ass learns to chew brass bubblegum
Savage should be fired
He says things 1000X worse than Imus, yet he still has a job.
No, he shouldn't be fired. He's said nothing wrong. Why do liberals fear talk radio hosts so much? Savage WILL NOT BE FIRED. Just deal with it.
He probably wont be fired. He probably WILL be led away by the nice young men in the clean white coats. He is a liar and a bigot besides being insane.
I prefer to yell Theater in a crowed fire. Those folks maybe traiters, its a hard call. What would you charge them with that given an inverted situation would find someone we approve of facing the same charge? Besides, the architechs and money sources of the Neocon movement are where I would place charges. Do any of these folks share much of what the majority of the population sees as our shared history, present. and potential futures?
Savage is a paleocon, not a neocon. Get your facts straight.
Since I didn't get that memo, A definition of paleoconservatism would be handy.
Wikipedia actually gives a pretty good definition.
Thought ya said wikipedia is not a reliable source for information? Or did you mean to say that it's only good when it suits your agenda?
Wikipedia is not a reliable source for facts. Wikipedia routinely gets people's birthdays wrong. It has information that's not sourced. However, I read Wikipedia's entry for "paleoconservatism," and it was pretty good. When you get down to it, Wolfowitz=neoconservative; Buchanan=paleoconservative.
Are you saying that you disagree with Wikipedia's definition? Perhaps we can discuss.
I have been warning every progressive I know about this dangerous demagogue since I first heard him on the radio a couple of years ago. His inflammatory rhetoric makes it clear that killing a liberal is the patriotic duty of every "good American." I loathe Limbaugh, Hannity and their ilk, but Savage is in a class by himself.
For a brownshirt wingnut like him to call progressives nazis is the height of irony - but it ain't funny and I ain't laughing. This kind of rabble-rousing instigates violence. Savage is a threat to national security. His intent is to demonize, dehumanize...us! What is the appropriate thing to do with "scum of the earth" (one of his favorite terms) evil, terrorist loving traitors like you and me?
Any of his followers who take him seriously want us DEAD!
Any progressive who doesn't take him seriously is making the same mistake progressives and Jews in 1930s Germany made in not taking Hitler seriously.
By pursuing nazi policies and rhetoric while calling his enemies nazis, Savage seeks to demonize his opposition,confuse the issue and render the term nazi meaningless. Since he makes the accusation loudly and frequently, to respond in kind will be taken by the ignorant as "So's your old man" or "Yo Momma!"
If you value your life, listen to this guy a few times. You may have nightmares but - in this case - that may be a good thing.
He does not want you dead. I see that when right wing people use Nazi comparisons and they have gone too far but it is ok for someone who labels themself a "progressive" to do so.
No, it's not okay for anyone.
That's is the crux of things. It is ok. We have freedom of speech in this country. Not freedom of speech as long as it conforms to a standard set by the government.
There is NO freedom of speech issue involved. Weiner has NO freedom of speech rights to a voice on OUR airwaves, nor of employment. If someone arrests him for spewing his insane hatred on a streetcorner or at the park get back to us. Weinerdog does NOT have any freespeech rights that I do not have. I dont have a radio show he is not ENTITLED to one.
I am not saying that he is entitled to a radio show I am saying that if he has one he has the right to say whatever he wants since the airwaves are as much his as they are yours and mine.
If you want to be radio be on radio. Heck there are some radio stations in New York hiring people who call in and make a good point.
Sure he does within FCC guidelines. He can also be held accountable for what he says. Personally I dont want him off the air. I am saying however EACH of us have a right to say how the airwaves be used. The subject has a right to be brought up then however it plays out is fine with me. No matter which way it goes there is no free speech issue involved. NONE. Actions have consequences and he has no right to be immune from such consequences done within the democratic process
His job to talk and bring up questions and subjects that might be thought of as controversial. To some extent this is a free speech issue since he is encouraged to be the way he is.
No it isnt. Not in ANY way. Your only free speech rights are that you wont be arrested or stopped from saying what you want. There is NO free speech argument that you be exempt from consequences for your actions or what you say. You have the right to say what you want in the park or on a streetcorner. Your boss can fire you for causing problems anytime and there is NO free speech issue involved period.
But when you job is to be controversial and you are encouraged in this and then fired for it. That becomes a free speech issue. The only limitations a radio host are given are the ones set by the FCC. IF the radio station imposes others that is there prerogative but if they have not to selectively enforce limitations is a violation of a person's rights in the workplace.
Uneasy, that's total nonsense. Savage has never called for violence against liberals. He is against violence. He has made that abundantly clear on his show. He is quick to distance himself from any caller on his show who promotes violence.
Savage doesn't support any Nazi policies. Stop lying.
Like the rest of your insane posts, this one is completely deceptive. I hope it prompts any progressive who doubts that Savage is a rabble-rousing demagogue to listen and judge for themselves who is the liar. Since your denials have been more than adequately refuted by others in this thread, I'm not gonna bother. As everyone here knows, you are the liar, troll.
Nope, none of my denials have been refuted. Sorry, try again. Savage has not once called for violence against liberals.
Oh, yes, they have absolutly been rebutted.
Solon, nope.
Yes, they have.
With documentation and facts, almost everything you have ever said on this site has been clearly and completely refuted, and virtually nothing you have tried to debunk has been successfully debunked by you.
Just read through this thread, as I just did. Example after example of your lame and illegitimate attempts to rebut the points of others as well as countless examples of your lack of competence, clarity and truthfulness in making your own case will astound any casual reader.
Sorry, wrong, Not. Nowhere has Michael Savage called for violence against liberals. Period. No liberal in here has proven that he has. You saying that he has doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter how many liberals repeat the big lie; it just isn't so. Try again next time.
WeinerdogworshipperMike. Yep
Oh yeah, he is against violence, that would be why he said we should kill one hundred million Muslims, apparantly to demote Hitler to the minor leagues of evil.
Yes, he said to kill one hundred million Muslims if that's what it takes. He said, "Would you rather die than them?" He meant to kill as a means of national defense, not just for the thrill of it.
Oh no he didnt. The man insanely said we should kill one hundred million Muslims because as he said he was tired of hearing there were one billion of them. NOTHING about defense was said except AFTER the fact in a weak false dichotomy of would you rather it was them or us. He never indicated WHICH Muslims or ANY reason they needed to die INCLUDING self defense. The vague toss away comment afterwards about them or us was meaningless justification without a shred of linking to any reasoned cause. He is absolutly INSANE and there is NO POSSIBLE DEFINITION of never advocating violence that can cover lets kill one hundred million Muslims you are FLAT OUT WRONG.
Savage is for self defense. That's not a call to violence.
Ludicrous he was NOT in any way calling for self defense. The point was there were one billion Muslims in the world he said he was tired of hearing that and we need to kill one hundred million of them. It was insane. Only AFTER that did he say would you rather it was them or us, never in any way specifying why it would be that way or how killing one hundred million human beings would do anything positive it was insane ranting and in NO WAY was it calling for self defense. You are weakly trying to appologize for outright insanity. Also there is no possible reading of the claim we need to kill one hundred million people that any sane person could reasonably claim did NOT call for violence. Killing one hundred million people is by definition violence. You can spin until you screw yourself into the ground no one in their right mind can claim otherwise its dumb. Killing millions is without any possible exception violence. HOw brainwashed could someone possibly be to claim otherwise?
It's obvious because he said, "Would you rather us die than them?" that he was referring to a situation of self defense in which the radical Muslims were trying to kill the entire population of the United States.
Great job M.B.B. and MMFA.
The third paragraph alone, which begins:
In fact, MORA would merely require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to once again enforce its "fairness doctrine,"...
...that paragraph alone contains more important information on the subject of a biased "media", which so plagues our Democratic process, and which is now known and agreed upon by a great majority of the American People (a biased "media" that is)...
That paragraph alone, and the links it contains, informs us better on the matter than would a hundred hours of cable or broadcast "media" nonsense... no, make that better than thousands and thousands of worthless hours of cable and broadcast "media" bias.
"Media" bias that we're right sick of, and has us calling for a Doctrine to restore our health, and the health of our Democratic Process.
But we do not need more legislation. Legislation does nopt solve problems. We as a people need to tell the media outlets what we want. If they loose enough money they will listen. It is all about the all mighty dollar which we control. We do not need more government control over our daily lives.
What about the public schools - forcing kids to watch Al Gore's inconvenient truth. This is only one side of global warming and could be argued to be more propaganda than anything else. Public schools are funded by the GOVT ! They have to be non-bias as well. You can't have it both ways. You can selectively pick certain areas where there is a bias and apply the fairness doctrine to them.
What's the FCC got to do with your local public schools?
I think you have your jurisdictions mixed up... I think your issue is with your School Committee, or the Superintendent of Schools, or Town Meeting...
What's the FCC got to do with your problem with the public schools?
You guys at mmfa want to selectively remove bias.
DEM, you're missing the point. The point is that liberals only want fairness in certain areas of society. It's true that public schools brainwash kids into becoming liberals. That's why I'd never enroll my child in a public school under any circumstances.
Michael Savage is organizing a manmade global warming skeptics conference that will feature real scientists. Children should get to hear these people's point of view on the issue.
You talk big but as of yet I've seen no proof.
No, its not true, its another of your delusional fantasies.
What exactly isn't true?
Most of your baseless assertions to choose one virtually at random, that schools brainwash children into being liberals. Many of my teachers in school were rightwing including the civics teacher. In college our philosophy professor would have made Limbaugh blush. You just say things you WISH were true then hope repeating them over and over baselessly will magically make them true
I actually once saw John Stossel do a piece on 20/20 where he visited a public school. He showed how the students were totally brainwashed to support the liberal position on issues (especially the environment). Stossel would make factual statements supported by scientific data regarding the environment, and all the kids would scream in disagreement. It was scary, to be honest.
Stossel is a propagandist and not a very good one. Your example was weak on specifics but even IF true it is anecdotal. My example is just as valid, no question my MATH teacher tried very hard to push his conservative values on us in MATH CLASS we argued so much that he eventually tossed me out of his class and even though in 8th grade I was the only kid on my entire school in my mathbook by my sophomore year in highschool my math career was over. Many teachers are good and try only to teach kids HOW to think and not what to think others have their biases, you still havent come within lightyears or in anyway substantiating your baseless assertion that schools are brainwashing children to be liberals. It certainly hasnt been what I experienced nor what I saw from my daughters schooling. You pulled that directly out of your ass like about 90% of what you post
Solon, how do I know that you're not making up a story? Stossel, at least, visited an actual school, so I know that he wasn't lying.
Michael Savage has a great point here. That sheik said to "provoke corporations." It seems that that's what Hinchey is doing here with the Fairness Doctrine. Is Hinchey against conservative talk radio because conservatives are tough on the Muslims? I think that that is Savage's overall point here. Hinchey is, whether intentionally or not, aiding Al Qaeda.
Sooo - the Repugnant take on "public schools" is out: they cannot teach anyone to read or count, because they are so busy brainwashing them "into becoming liberals". I suppose that charge arises from teaching the scientific method, which impairs the credibilty of flat-earth, 6000-year-old-earth, religion-belongs-in-Government, serves-at-the-pleasure-of-the-Bungle cretins just based on readily observable phenomena surrounding us. But it must also somewhat detract from the ability of those brainwashed masses, to gather the data and structure to formulate that "Liberal" hypothesis, doesn't it?
Or would you care to provide some examples of that "brainwashing" that we could compare to the Repugnant insistence that evolution is out-of-touch with reality, rather than based in observation and prediction and verification? "Global Warming" happens to be the scientific consensus, but I suppose we have already indicted that "scientific method" as just another liberal ploy to poison the minds of those whom we would brainwash, so pick your favorite example of inherent bias in the public school system, and bring it forth for discussion?
Actually many scientists disagree with manmade global warming. Savage has had some on his program. Children should get to hear that point of view.
So what that there are people who "disagree" with manmade global warming.
If there are people who disagree with the known facts about gravity, should they also get as much airtime as the scientists who "believe" in gravity? Because there is as much certainty about Gravity as there is about manmade global warming among scientists, you know.
You cannot "disagree" that gravity exists. It's a fact. The existance of manmade global warming is a similar fact.
Not, sorry, it doesn't exist just because you say so. BTW, it's not just random people on the street who disagree. There are scientists who disagree. I don't know of any scientist who disagrees with the fact that gravity exists. Nice try.
Most do not deny Global Warming (Climate Change) exists, I don't. I do not believe it is caused by man.
When they DO the science and have peer reviewed studies that pass muster, sure, until then industry paid propaganda masquerading as science should NOT be given equal standing to those scientists who actually DID the science in the way science is done.
It's a copout for liberals to refer to everything that they disagree with (especially when scientists disagree with them) as propaganda. That reminds me of both fascists and communists, to be honest. Savage has had bona fide climate experts on his show who have stated that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Schools should teach both sides to this issue.
Like I said, Savage is organizing a skeptics conference featuring REAL SCIENTISTS. It should be quite interesting.
As Savage has stated, the temperature on Mars is rising. Is that because of SUV's too? Al Gore wouldn't last fifteen seconds in a debate against Michael Savage on this issue.
What weak talking points you repeat like a demented myna bird. I dont care what their OPINIONS ARE. When they have done the work and published peer reviewed papers to support those opinions they can be taken seriously when they just demand their opinions be considered as equal to those who have DONE the science in the way science is done its propaganda.
Apparantly you dont know much about the orbits of planets. Mars has a very eccentric orbit, that is its more eliptical than say our orbit, when it gets close to another planet it is then effected BY its close approach. Mars is closer to Earth than it has been for 60,000 years. The Earth is closer to the Sun in the last four years we have had two approaches to Eath closer than it has been for more than 5000 years that is also closer to the SUN. Now that MIGHT have something to do with its increased warming. Its eliptical orbit might there are many reasons why it is different than Earth and just because they are both warming at the same time is not evidence they are warming FOR THE SAME REASON nor at the same rate. Again do the science then get back to us.
They have published. Many climatologists do not support the idea of manmade global warming.
You actually proved my point by Mars. Warming is easily caused by natural phenomena.
Savage has also stated that, historically speaking, civilization has progressed more in times of warmer climate. We should embrace these somewhat warmer temperatures.
It is the same principle though.
False Comparisons Make Way For Killing Field
There has been a up tic in claims Al Qaeda is behind much of the killing in Iraq. In most news coming out of Iraq about attacks on Americans and civilians, there has be an overuse of the word "suspected to be" and "sources say" Al Qaeda is behind the attacks on American solders. Because we have not gone after the people who brought down the two towers, Bush has taken a lot of heat. This heat has brought about attempts to make the case Al Qaeda is taking over or is behind all and every attack coming out of Iraq.
There are two important facts about this current attempt to strengthen the claim Al Qaeda is firmly embedded in Iraq:
1. The first is now the war in Iraq is now connected to 911. Yes, they are trying to make the case we cannot leave Iraq because Al Qaeda is there. How is that for making it so? If you cannot find Al Qaeda, bring Al Qaeda to Iraq.
2. The other reason is the only way they can really do something about the violence in Iraq is to address the direct true elements causing the war. Since the Bush administrations say there is no civil war, they have got to find a way to eliminate one side of the civil war. Thus, any over kill can be assumed to be Al Qaeda's demise. This amounts to creating a killing field.
The Bush administration cannot do this alone. They need someone to disburse this lie Al Qaeda is behind all the killing in Iraq. Enter the media: Fox news and the Fox wantabees. Look for a lot of "framing the issue" kind of news. CSPAN's Washington Journal will do it with a question: Should we leave Iraq if Al Qaeda is so entrenched in the Iraq?
The lies and misdirection concerning this war never seem to stop. Before believing anything coming out Iraq, it is almost a must to second guess its content.
Joseph
His rhetoric indicates that he does want me and the other people he refers to as "evil, traitorous, scum of the earth, Al Quaida loving etc. dead. He's not stupid enough to say it outright but there can be no doubt.
When a far right wingnut calls a progressive a nazi, it's not going too far - it's stupid. When I call a demagogue who is as far right as the German nazis were and employs identical hatemongering rabble rousing speech to rile up the troops, it's discriptive.
I wouldn't have to explain that to someone who wasn't painfully ignorant about history and the names inaccurately flung about by their Fuhrer. Keep reading here tho - there's a chance you might learn something.
The above was intended as a response to INSANELOKI
On So Many Levels
Savage is a danger to Americans who chose truth to guide them. Often, I get the impression he is trying to scare people into believing what he says. What is really funny to me is the so-called hype build up to any point he is trying to make. You expect something grand to come out of the build up to his points; instead, what you get amounts to a dull thump that usually make no sense in a factual sense.
I like your logic. I will look forward to reading more of your posts.
Joseph
Joseph, everything that Savage says is, in fact, the truth. I'd say that it's a good thing if more and more people believe what he says.
"... everything Savage says is, in fact, the truth." - Weinerforpresident
Wow.
This sort of Weiner worship has crossed all the way over to idolatry. Everything that Weiner says is the truth? Are you sh*tting me?
We need a new term to describe such unmitigated idolatry. You're hardly a fan... or even an admirer. You've clearly demonstrated yourself to be a fawning worshipper of Weiner. So, what shall we call you from here on? A Weinerite? A Weinerist? A Weinerisimo?
Get a f*cking grip, son. This undiluted & fanatical adoration of a chubby, sputtering, ego maniacal, hatred-spewing middle aged debic is downright embarrassing! Where is your dignity, for God's sake? This is beneath you. At least, I HOPE its beneath you. Until you can put aside this sort of spineless sycophantry you can't really expect anybody here to take ANYTHING that you say about Weiner seriously.
There's still time, son. Your brain is supposed to do more than keep your head from falling over sideways. The first step is to admit that you have a Weiner problem.
No new term is needed for that idolatry of which you speak. They had one in Germany. It was "Brown Shirts."
Ah, you're so funny, Mescal and wicked smart to boot. Thanks for the laugh.
I'm just gonna kick back and watch this thread burst at the seams because I just can't bring it the way you and Solon and Uneasyone and Mefirst and Loonz and Ewestone can bring it.
(my apologies to anyone I missed in my shout-out)
No it isnt. I find it amazing even a Wienerdog worshipper could even make that claim. He made claims in this very thread that are wrong. Will MORA label Weiner a security threat and remove him from the air or will it only mandate the other side be heard, can he back up his statement that Hinchley is in cahoots with al Queda or did he pull that directly out of his ass? The man in insane and lies flat out.
Round, you're right. You can't bring it.
Solon, Hinchey said that Savage is a threat to national security. Now, I think that Savage is using hyberbole in calling Hinchey an "Al Qaeda member." However, Hinchey is clearly a member of the thought police if he believes that Dr. Savage is a threat to national security.
Why are you apparently addicted to lying?
"Solon, Hinchey said that Savage is a threat to national security."
That's a lie.
Show me one place where Hinchley ever said that Savage was a threat to national security.
I can show you lots of places where Savage has made unfounded accusations against anyone who supports MORA, but you cannot show me one place where Hinchley said what you have repeatedly claimed he said.
Why do you keep lying about this, even after you've been corrected on this very issue?
I haven't been corrected. Hinchey said that Michael Savage is a threat to national security. Period.
He said it because YOU claim he did? Because Weiner claims he did? Sorry not good enough. YOU are making the claim prove it is so or show yourself out in disgrace.
You've been mopped up on this a few time already. You havent shown this is true and even if it is Weiner didnt CLAIM that Hinchley falsely claimed he is a national security threat he said MORA would declare him one which is a LIE.
According to Media Matters, Savage claimed the MORA would name him a threat to national security. Honestly, I don't remember Savage ever saying that. I remember Savage making a specific point on his show that Hinchey himself called him a threat to national security. I'm not going to take Media Matters' word for it. The simple fact is that Savage is rightfully riled up by this bum Hinchey.
Yup, I just listened to the audio of what Savage said. He's basing his claims of MORA on what Hinchey personally said about him. Perhaps Savage is overreacting, but he's not lying here. Hinchey's statement has rightfully angered Dr. Savage.
The Fairness Doctrine most likely will end Savage's show if he's forced to pair up with a liberal. It would be the end of The Savage Nation as we know it.
IF Hinchley said that it still makes NO DIFFERENCE to what the law is. He is basing what a LAW would be on what a specific lawmakers opinion of him is? That is ludicrous. He made a ludicrous claim it is an outright lie. You spin like a demented top but cannot get past the FACT that MORA which could be referenced in no way would do what Weiner claimed. So its a lie. He has a responsibility not to pull things directly out of his ass and pretend they have some connection with reality when he fails that he is LYING. As for whatever your I CHING says the law would require or its consequences. I am sorry but after the Iraq fiasco no rightwinger has any credibility whatsoever when predicting the future. You guys suck at it. Savage made claims he cannot hope to substantiate in the real world that cannot reasonably be considered 100% correct and always right in some demented Godlike fashion. Your idolotry and devotion are showing your logic not so much.
Solon, Savage actually predicted that Iraq could become a mess. He wasn't one of the Bushbots when the war began. He wasn't one of the Commies either. However, he never said, "Yeeeeeeeeeee hawwwwwwwwwwwww, we're going to kick some Iraqi butt, and nothing bad will happen." Savage also never believed the story that the Shi'ites are all great guys and that the Sunnis are all evil. I mean, Iran is a Shi'ite nation. It's hardly good.
My points is that Savage can and has accurately predicted the future, despite being a right winger. I trust him. Hinchey definitely has it in for Dr. Savage.
I have listened to Savage before. I don't anymore mainly because I do not know when or where he is on. I believe he goes extreme to make a point.
Uneasy, nonsense. Stop projecting.
BTW, Hitler was pro environment, pro animal rights, pro euthanasia, and anti-gun. How right wing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hinchey is a Nazi for calling Michael Savage a threat to national security. Period.
I don’t know if any of that is true (I never heard it before) but I do know that Hitler was jingoistic, authoritarian, pro-war, pro-torture, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-union and racist. And the tactic he used to silence his critics was to label them unpatriotic.
Loonz, Savage is not necessarily pro war. He opposed the war in Kosovo. He's not an authoritarian either.
And YOU are a Weinerdog worshipping moron for saying everything Weiner says is true and that Hincley is a Nazi
"When a far right wingnut calls a progressive a nazi, it's not going too far - it's stupid. When I call a demagogue who is as far right as the German nazis were and employs identical hatemongering rabble rousing speech to rile up the troops, it's discriptive."
You cannot have it both ways. It either is descriptive or stupid.
You are confusing conservatism with fascism. Maybe you should think twice before calling me ignorant in the same post you make a serious gaffe like that.
See, the problem wou have with spurious, illogical attacks like that is that people here konw how to both read and think. Another stupid attack not even worthy of a response - nice try though. I'll let others judge who has logic on their side.
So then by that logic, I appologize to REAL logic for even implying the assertion was logical, if I say murder is evil is descriptive and that jaywalking is evil is stupid, that means I am trying to have it both ways? Or maybe each MIGHT be best judged according to ITS merit rather than some arbitrary rule about such judgements.
Your origianl statemrent is saying purely becasue someone is conservative if they use the comparison it is stupid. But if someone is liberal and uses it, it is somehow descriptive.
If you were talking about white and black people that would be a racist remark. Your generalizing and makes you look ignorant.
This is also another example of a thing these "media" hacks do regularly, and even the members of the Bush administration too...
They use strange and vague slang, instead of speaking clearly and directly.
"In cahoots"?
Now a hack like this guy, he makes a living out of speaking out of the side of his mouth, like a wise-guy... but you know, the members of George W. Bush's administration do the same thing, but to even more damaging and deadly consequences...
...and while there's nobody who can hold this "cahoots" wise-guy accountable in real-time, there's always someone on hand (supposedly from the 'press') when the administration does this kind of thing.
I remember when a State Dept. spokesman, several months ago, in the midst of the administration's campaign to depict the Iraq 'insurgency' as Iranian, said of the bombings that occur almost daily in Baghdad, that the Iranians were...
[quote] "up to their eyeballs"
...in that kind of activity, in those bombings.
And everyone just like that spokesman get away with that... get away with implying complicity by way of using the wise-guy slang of "up to their eyeballs".
I'd think a real 'press', real Journalists, would insist on a higher degree of clarity and directness in speech, than "up to their eyeballs" and "cahoots" passes for.
I will settle for the truth in reporting the news and not creating it.
Joseph
Dem, you just absolutely nailed the reason that the MSM is becoming less relevent by the day. There is real journalism about, but well over 90% of it is taking place in places like this. I've been on the net less than a year.
For a long time now, I've been a "news junkie." I read a newspaper every day, watch the "Newshour" and have timeshifted just about every available news program on non-pay TV to watch. Now I no longer bother with "Nightline," "Fox News Sunday," "CBS Evening News" and many others. I'm not gonna renew my newspaper sub when it runs out either.
Did I lose interest in current events? Hardly. I have found though, that every story I'm interested in is available on the net - sooner, in more depth - and I can go beyond the sound bites to the source. No more slanted, predigested pap for me!
If it doesn't change - and soon, most of the MSM will just wither away. I know this won't be news to you, but it was to me. I used to have trouble finding decent coverage of the issues I considered important. Now the only problem is - how do I deal with it all? I'll bet there are thousands of sites I haven't even visited yet that I would find fascinating. I'm lovin it, but I'm in serious danger of overload.
Welcome to the Internet Wire Brother, the American People's News Wire... the world's News Wire!
Prior to making this Wire my exclusive source for news, I used to regularly watch those various male models and beauty contest runner-ups and other powdered and blushed and styled talking heads, all focus group-tested for their appearance and voice...
Good riddance to that crap... crap that passed for 'news', crap formerly in the hands of just three privately held corporations, which then expanded to two or three more with the establishment of cable...
Four or five or six sources for 'news', for the American People to choose from and stare at... what a joke that is! Or was, I should say.
Praise the Internet News Wire, for it's near infinite selection of news sources, for it's speed and 24 hour availability... for it's true source materials, such as the Congressional Record (online! I'm still amazed at that, that I have the Congressional Record right here, on my desk!), all the various House and Senate web-sites, all the Agencies and Departments of the Federal Government, all the Opinions of the Supreme Court... more sources, original sources, than I could ever completely catalog here.
Consider it: Consider those five or more former monopolies on the 'national news', NBC and ABC and Fox et al... consider the fact that they're also on this News Wire, this Internet Wire...
Now, do you ever access their web pages?
I'd guess not... I can't think of a single reason why you would...
Good riddance to them, I say... Praise the Internet Wire, the People's News Wire, I say.
I'm with you on that. Praise the Internet Wire, the People's News Wire, indeed. But for each one of us who can access the people's wire, there is probably one or two more who do not have access to this Eden of information.
That is a problem that consolidated media have no intention of addressing. They must just love the influence and dominance they exert.
Once upon a time in America responsible leadership took it upon themselves to bring running water, electricity and roads to rural towns. Today, the every man for himself leader sees this lack of inclusion, lack of access to information as a moral failure of the individual to stay informed.
So what are we to do about that?
Letting the market decide is not a good enough answer.
"You are a threat to our national security, as are all the other left-wingers who have signed that edict against -- that fatwa against Michael Savage, and [conservative radio host] Rush Limbaugh, and the others who want to disseminate the truth."
I think he meant to say "disseminate rightwing propaganda" which conflicts with the truth.
Where is this list we can sign to get rid of Savage and Limbough? You guys need to stop holding out on the good stuff. Give up the sign-up sheet.
Joseph
Loonz, name one thing that Savage says which counters the truth.
Read the Media Matters post.
Loonz, I have.
Then why were you asking me to name one thing that Savage says which counters the truth?
Loon, I'm waiting for an example.
Read the Media Matters post and you will see several examples.
If you've read the article, you've seen the examples.
If that wasn't sufficient, then the problem is not that we need to show them to you again. The problem is your lack of the intelligence necessary to grasp words on a page and understand what they mean! Showing them to you every time you demand that we show you the same examples over and over again will do no good if the flaw is with your comprehension skills, nincompoop.
Not, sorry, but that's a copout. You lose. You are incapable of coming up with an example of Savage either lying or threatening violence against liberals.
Its all too bad that the left chooses to eliminate the likes of Savage,Limbaugh,and O'Reilly because they bring out the worst in Liberals."They tell the truth" and the truth to liberals hurts the agenda they've been a proponent of what seems forever.
They have managed to get your attention and thats a good thing.
IMO this country need an enema.We need to clean out the crap that libs like Pelosi,Kennedy etc spew on a daily basis.
Should anyone here want to challenge me please do..There is much that can be said about the ethics,politics, and morals of such people.
Wino
I'd like to challenge you - to turn OFF the "bold" when you complete the emphasized phrase. Else we might think you are shouting?
Otay
Might want to learn when to use quotes too ,Wino. And thank you for granting permission to challenge you.
"Its all too bad that the left chooses to eliminate the likes of Savage,Limbaugh,and O'Reilly..." (Wino)
There are some (even some posting here) who state their opinion that they'd like these clowns off the air- that's their opinion. Most liberals are Pro-Free-Speech to a degree that would make conservatives heads spin.None of these GOP mouthpieces has been eliminated by anyones whim, they're still on the air.
You're entitled to your opinion- that Rush and the others tell the truth, regardless of extensive documentation that they lie constantly, just as your free to believe in a flat earth, Bigfoot or Unicorns.
You're also free to state that Pelosi and Kennedy spout crap, while not providing any evidence or examples. This reinforces the image you've presented here as a gullible dittohead.
I personally don't want to stop you or any of your sources from talking. The more opportunities to point out your confusion and BS, the better for the Truth in the long run.
Right wing propaganda doesn't bring out "the worst" in Liberals, except from your point of view; "The worst" thing that can happen to conservatives is that their free speech is allowed to run wild, and we're here to expose it as the anti-American dung that it is.
I can give evidence of Pelosi and Kennedy spouting crap.
Pelosi lied to Syria about Israel's position. She angered our dearest ally Israel. I thought that liberals were against angering our allies, yet no one said a word about her.
Ted Kennedy lied back in the 1960s when he said that the immigration and nationality act would not change the demographics of America, as Savage has pointed out over and over and over again on his show.
On the contrary, Savage has never spoken an untruth on his radio show. Never. I'm still waiting for the liberals to give one example of Savage's misinformation. Just one.
" On a daily basis" = 40 years ago. Weiner would be proud.
Pelosi did NOT lie about Israels position, those AT the conference said she gave Olmerts message and Olmert himself admitted she did. He didnt like the way she did it more likely he wanted the opportunity to throw red meat to his Likud base. This very thread shows Wienerdog LYING. Its clear as can be. Weinerdog is insane deal with it.
I can give evidence of Pelosi and Kennedy spouting crap.
No, you cannot, and you will proceed to prove that you cannot.
Pelosi lied to Syria about Israel's position. She angered our dearest ally Israel. I thought that liberals were against angering our allies, yet no one said a word about her.
This is your first failure. Pelosi didn't lie about Israel's position. There was a misunderstanding about what was said. Someone gave a thumbnail sketch of what was said, but when the full version of what she said was given, there was no lie, and there was no anger from Israel. And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say that "liberals were against angering our allies." We need to say what we need to say, in diplomatic ways and in diplomatic circles, and if that pisses off some of our allies, so be it!
Ted Kennedy lied back in the 1960s when he said that the immigration and nationality act would not change the demographics of America, as Savage has pointed out over and over and over again on his show.
Here is your second failure to prove anything. Are you such a simpleton (I know that Savage is a simpleton, and I expect that you and he are one in the same) that you believe that EVERY outcome in our nation today as it relates to immigration is a direct result of that bill? Are you really that ignorant of reality? Or are you simply being disingenuous? The bill did not change the demographics of America. The world did. Life did. Many other factors control the demographics of America. Wow. I can hardly believe you think you scored a home run here when in fact you struck out without even hardly swinging!
On the contrary, Savage has never spoken an untruth on his radio show. Never. I'm still waiting for the liberals to give one example of Savage's misinformation. Just one.
Just one? Okay, can do.
Savage said that Hinchley said he was a threat to National Security. You (since I believe you are Savage) are wrong. Hinchley never said that. That means that when you said that, you spoke an untruth. It was misinformation.
Just for the edification of others, because I don't believe you even qualify as someone who can be educated, based upon your comments here and elsewhere....
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5393857
NPR Q: What's striking about the debate in 1965 is how so many people did not expect a huge increase in immigration, or a change in the demographics of the nation. You told Congress that immigration levels would remain "substantially the same," and that "the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset." Why weren't these changes foreseen?
KENNEDY: There were enormous changes as a result of illegal immigration.
...
KENNEDY: Everybody obviously wants to come, because this is the land of opportunity, but we've seen a rather dramatic shift as well in terms of the birthrate here. That was not really foreseen.
...
Well, well. Kennedy didn't foresee all the potential things that might change in our world, and you say he lied. Do you really not understand the difference between lying and being wrong? When someone lies, they know the truth, but say something different with purpose. When someone is wrong, they don't know the 'right' thing. Don't you understand the difference between those two behaviors?
Maybe it's your insanity, Savage, that makes you not understand the difference between being wrong because you didn't understand all the dynamics that would feed into the outcomes and telling an untruth!
1. Pelosi did lie and was rebuked by the Israeli government. She said that they're ready to negotiate when they are not.
2. Hinchey did say that Savage is a threat to national security.
3. Kennedy is lying to cover his tracks. The immigration bill did change the demographics. Illegal immigration has made things worse, and he supports amnesty for said vermin.
You lose.
No she didnt. This has already been debunked a dozen or so times. Those at the meeting deny it, Olmerts own website admits it you are wrong
Whatever Hincley said and you are yet to substantiate your claim Weinerdog claimed MORA would declare him a national security threat, that is a lie
Your claiming victory by dint of worthelss baseless assertions is cute but meaningless and delusional. In the reality based universe you have had the floor mopped with your weak arguments. Better luck next time.
Solon, I'm sorry, but they've changed their position on Pelosi as they have backed down to political pressure. She lied.
Hinchey called Savage a threat to national security, regardless of whether or not MORA does. Savage is rightfully upset. I win.
No she didnt you are a liar. What MORA would do is EXACTLY what Weiner claimed nice try at moving the goalposts it wont wash. Wiener is also a liar besides being insane
You've resorted to insults because I'm getting you mad. The first to insult loses. I win.
Most of us would agree that requiring equal time to refute the disinformation spouted by the wingnut propagandists would be sufficient.
Savage however, is in a class by himself. If you can listen to his program for a few days and conclude that he isn't trying to incite violence against the likes of you and me, I will humbly apologise, Lefty. Incitement to riot is a crime. All licencees of our public airwaves are pledged to serve the public interest. Broadcasting the kind of hatemongering incitement spewed by Savage is in direct contravention of that pledge.
If there haven't been already, there will be deaths as a result of Savage's hatemongering vitriol. I consider myself a free speech absolutist and believe that most problems along that line would be solved by more free speech (balance) not less. Savage may be the exception.
Un, that's total bs. Savage is not inciting riots. He does not call for violence. If some liberal scumbags have Savage arrested after a riot, he will be acquitted. Hopefully, he'd sue the pants off of any government (federal, state, county, or municipal) that falsely arrests him.
Savage has done nothing wrong, and he's in no trouble with the FCC. His job is not in danger either.
And if some conservative Wienerdog worshipping deviant vermin take Weinerdog's insanity seriously it shows their lack of proper brain function and nothing else. There is NO free speech issue here, NONE. Weinerdog has no more RIGHT to a nationally syndicated radio show than I do. If I say the wrong thing at MY job I can be fired. Same for the Weinerdog he isnt Godlike, only insane.
Hey, don't joke about Sasquatch.
What is too bad is that morons hate reality so much that they choose to listent to bombastic, lying, bigotted screechmonkeys to bolster their delusional fantasies. Its too bad that people are so weak minded that they turn to those like Limbuagh and Weinerdog to do their thinking for them. Its too bad that brainwashed brainded wingnuts dont know what being silenced is. If you find a lefty anywhere who demands these lying sacks of hot air be arrested then get back to us on this silencing thing. Until then they are using OUR airwaves and we have every right to give our opinion that they are being misused and the public service function part of the deal by which they exploit OUR recourse to make THIER millions is not being upheld. It is YOU rather that by your spurious definition who is trying to silence US from our rights as citizens to give OUR input as to how OUR airwaves ought to be used.
Its all too bad that the left chooses to eliminate the likes of Savage,Limbaugh,and O'Reilly because they bring out the worst in Liberals."They tell the truth" and the truth to liberals hurts the agenda they've been a proponent of what seems forever.
No one is choosing to eliminate these people. I, for one couldn't care less what they say. Let them speak and show themselves for what they are. If I were conservative, I would be embarrassed to have these people in my camp. I would rather have intelligent reasonable conservatives like Buckley than irrational sensationalists like Savage, Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
They have managed to get your attention and thats a good thing.
These people get my attention and my laughter. What they do not get, however, is my respect.
IMO this country need an enema.We need to clean out the crap that libs like Pelosi,Kennedy etc spew on a daily basis.
Yes, not to mention almost every other politician, on both sides of the aisle.
Should anyone here want to challenge me please do..There is much that can be said about the ethics,politics, and morals of such people.
No more so than the republicans.
Why is thread so full of wingnuts today?
Savage can't have that many defenders.
I am not defending Savage I am defending freedom and the American Way.
No you arent. There is no freedom issue being discussed here. No one has a RIGHT to their job and they can be fired for virtually any reason other than specific civil rights reasons or if they are under a union contract. This is simple. There is NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE HERE. NONE WHATSOEVER.
The post you responded to had nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, the way you would be able to tell that is it wasn't mentioned. I was referring to smaller government. If we were to pass a Fairness Doctrine it would put more government control over our daily lives which is unnecessary.
Try to make sense. If you are saying the FD is unnecessary fine. That however is NOT what you said you said you were defending freedom. Therefore by extension and logic that would mean you are saying the FD is an infringement upon FREEDOM. Since the context of this is what is said on the radio, I naturally assumed it wasnt freedom of assembly you were talking about but freedom of speech. THERE IS NO FREEDOM ISSUE WHATSOEVER INVOLVED IN THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Everyone can still say what they want but if someone is attacked they get to respond and if a public issue is raised the other side must be heard. No one is being silenced, no freedom is at stake.
I was talking about Freedom from larger government. Stop assuming you know what that does.
There is no such freedom mentioned in the Constitution. Stop assuming you know anything at ALL. The discussion was about the Fairness doctrine. YOU are still talking about the fairness doctrine you just want to frame in differently. The only freedom involved is freedom of speech. Get over it.
You just contradicted yourself and said Freedom of Speech is involved in this issue.
The Constitution gives more power to the States rather the Federal Government. This is an implied freedom from larger government.
the left chooses to eliminate the likes of Savage,Limbaugh,and O'Reilly
If only we could.
TCALL, thankfully you'll never be able to do that. I'm a proud defender of Michael Savage. He's a great man, and he deserves to be our next president. Hey, libs, if Savage becomes president, you win. He won't be on talk radio anymore.
Weinerprez, fortunately a presidential election isn't American Idol, where a handful of emotional ,gullible kids with too much time on their hands get to text in 100 votes each.
Embarrassing enough that Bush got (officially)elected twice,I don't think more than a tiny percentage of Americans is stoopid enough to think that Savage is fit to serve in public office.
Sorry, but the lowest common denominator is still floating a bit higher than that.
Huntington, how can you compare Savage to Bush? Bush is an idiot. Savage is an intellectual with a Ph.D.
The more intelligent the psychopath, the more dangerous.
And when he has an opinion about Nutritional Ethnomedicine in Fiji (the title of his thesis) we will be all ears.
Three points of comparison spring easily to mind (to correspond to your points of contrast):
Both lie incessantly, rarely even pausing for breath between lies.
Both are "agin them libruls", and willing to "hyperbolically" attack those "libruls" at any challenge to their own lies.
Both mask their absolute evil in the guise of the "common man".
Conley, name one lie that Savage has said.
That MORA would label him a national security threat and remove him from the air. ITs an outright lie. He knows it is and is insulting the intelligence of all his listeners to even say it. You should be embarrassed to even pretend its not saying something that isnt true.
Thanks, Solon! This thread is getting so long that it has become difficult to respond in timely fashion to such challenges, due to inability to watch all 300+ comments simultaneously and continuously.
I also like the charge "in cahoots with Al Queda". If not lying, certainly delusional, there.
I've already touched on this. Savage is not lying regarding MORA and Hinchey. Now please come up with an example of Savage lying.
Yes, Savage IS lying about MORA and Hinchley.
Hinchley never said that Savage, or anyone else, was a threat to national security.
Now, Savage has said that about others, but the supporters of MORA have not said it about him.
"Then, purporting to address Hinchey, Savage said: "By the time I get through with you, if you should call me to Congress, I'll have you in prison, because you're in cahoots with Al Qaeda. You are enabling Al Qaeda," adding, "You are a threat to our national security, as are all the other left-wingers who have signed that edict against -- that fatwa against Michael Savage, and [conservative radio host] Rush Limbaugh, and the others who want to disseminate the truth."
If they had said it about him, you could have provided a link to them doing it.
Waiting, waiting, waiting. Oh, that's right, you cannot do the impossible and prove that Hinchley said that, because he did not say that. It's Savage who said that about others.
But you already knew that, didn't you, because it's been explained to you countless times. So why are you still trying to maintain that it's reality - that's what I want to know!
It's Hinchey, not Hinchley. Secondly, I gave the proof. Insight Magazine wrote an article.
You gave no proof you made a claim. You rightwingers think things become true because you say and repeat them. The rightwing blogs are reporting this it doesnt make it true. Not that it would in any way be relevant to the FACT Weiner lied about MORA. When I finally got to a rightwing blog that actually linked to the article, an hysterical screed by Kuhner, he did NOT QUOTE Hinchey, it was HIS characterization of what Hinchey said. All irrelevant whatever Hinchey said the bill MORA exists and Wiener lied about what it would do. Your citing rightwing blogs not exactly the paragon of credibility, about what Insight magazine claimed is far, FAR from proof Hinchey said this. Even if he did it is not RELEVANT.
What you have done is repeat a mindless talking point without merit in the vain hope that repitition will add validity where none exists. You have NOT addressed this point. He made a claim about MORA that is a flat out lie. Nothing Hinchley might have said and you have been unable to substantiate he said any such thing, is relevant to the LIE he told about MORA. The next time you actually ADDRESS this will be the first time
Obviously Bush is not an idiot if he was able maneuver himself to where he is now. No one who becomes President is an idiot.
That assumes people with power who know they could never be elected wouldnt support and prefer an idiot who they could easily control. That is assuming facts not in evidence.
That is such crap. The people vote in their elected officials. Sure someone can throw a lot of money at a candidate but it does not mean they will win.
Yes they are elected is that supposed to be a point? There is no reason an idiot well managed by smart people could not win an elections. The crap is in most of your posts. You seem to think if you said it that means its true.
An idiot cannot become president. The sheer notion of it is ridiculous and sounds like a movie plot.
Forget what he says on the radio a moment. Look into his Paul Revere society. Look into his beliefs on Border, Language, and Culture. I doubt you would disagree.
Lets forget about your husband getting shot in the head Mrs Lincoln how did you like the play?
That is a faulty comparison.
Its a spot on analogy
It is faulty because Savage didn't cause death. I am not saying ignore what he says. I am saying for a moment take a break and look into everything about the man not only what you read here.
Yes, how can anyone be against borders, language, or culture?
When my goldfish starts writing thesis on quantum mechanics written in ancient Aramaic. Weinerdog has less chance of being president than I do of winning the Olympic Gold medal for Grizzly Bear Wrestling.
I don't understand why we bother with Al Qaeda when the true terror comes from the liberal US judiciary.
Damned liberal judges!
If only we could find some way to stop them from flying airlines into highrise buildings!
F*cking idiot!
Mescal, so TWolfe isn't allowed to hate liberal judges more than he hates Al Qaeda, but Commies are allowed to hate Bush more than they hate Al Qaeda?
Huntington, how can you compare Savage to Bush? Bush is an idiot. Savage is an intellectual with a Ph.D.
- MichaelSavageforPresident
Haven't you got your attention quota yet? Every time one of you right-wing hate mongers come on to a leftist site, they take control of the posting board with hatred statements. I know Rush Limbaugh's internet site has a comments section. Go home.
Maybe you think you can lessen the strong common sense movement that is waking up to put everything Republican out of power. I know you would claim Savage, Limbaugh, Beck and the likes are not in the government so they cannot be touched. Wrong, your kind takes things too far with the hatred of true American people. Once we have all three branches of government, we can restore some of the fairness in the media. Who knows what will happen to the shock jock who use others to build their self-esteem.
Joseph
I think the main reason that rightwingers come to websites such as this is to debate people who don't share the same views, at least this is why I come here. To post on sites where everyone agrees with you doesn't require that you back up what you say. It's interesting you equate Savage with people like rush when one would be hard pressed to find a more critical person when it comes to bush than Dr. Savage.
Good point, Sebastion. Savage is no Bushbot. Liberals should actually like the guy. He's fair in his criticism.
Probably because he is insane. Even if insanity has no bias its still insane.
I don't like Rush or Beck. I'm a Savage fan. Secondly, Savage is not a Republican. He's an independent conservative. If Republicans were like he is, they'd win all the time. Republicans lose because they are incompetent, big government, pc liberals who have totally abandoned their base.
Your delusions are amazing in their granduer. What color is the sky on your Planet anyway?
The only one in that list that is a Republican is Rush Limbaugh. I would agree you that he is just a mouthpiece but he other two are not.
SOLON
Because you are afraid that you may have to open up your mind to other peoples opinion other than your own. I spent the last two days here in Davis, CA at "The Whole Earth Festival". It is a festival that is meant to celebrate mother earth. Most of the people that show up are hippies from past to present and you know what, unlike you SOLON they are REAL liberals, although there were several bolshevicks as well. I had a polite friendly conversation with a man that was doing a questionnaire to see if I was a liberatarion and you know what, it turned out that I am infact a liberatarian. We discussed our own points of view on politics and Michael Savage obviously came up and we had agreements as well as disagreements. There was no yelling or name calling whatsoever and we left the conversation as friends, something you ought to try for once.
And some people just love the three stooges. I dont. It says nothing about me that I dont subject myself to what I see as their inanity in order to look objective to a Weinerdog worshipper. I just love the book Deterring Democracy by Chomsky. I dont expect the rightwingers here to appreciate it nor would I go to the Freerepublic toilet and post huge sections of it in order to, in some desperate sense of messianic fever spread the word. IF we want to read Weinerdog we KNOW where to find his books. I have no obligation to do what YOU want in order to show how fair minded I am. Get over yourself. YOU are not the arbiter. YOU dont get to frame the debate as either read what I say or you are biased. Stuff your Weinerdog garbage.
More crap by Pelosi: The GOP is the culture of corruption, whereas the Democrats are angels.
Tell that to Will Jefferson, former Senator Torricelli, and Dianne Feinstein.
More crap by Kennedy: Our government tyrannical?
Remember that statement? Kennedy has no grasp of why the second amendment was written. I'm sure that there are many many many more examples of those two being full of crap. That is all that I can think of right now though. Oh, and Kennedy is a fat drunk murderer.
Michael Savage is absolutely right about Hinchey. Hinchey started this.
When was Kennedy convicted of murder again? Oh thats right he wasnt you are just a moronic liar.
I've been searching the net. An article by Insight Magazine states that Hinchey said it. Savage says that he said it. Conservative websites say that he said it. That's overwhelming evidence. What? You want me to show video footage of him saying it? Savage is considering a lawsuit against Hinchey, btw.
Im sorry. Rightwing blogs are not even underwhelming evidence. Try again. Cough up a credible source or give it up. Littegreenmorons, freerepublctoilet, Newsishmax and Worldnutdaily do not qualify. Even IF he said it that would STILL be irrelevant to the FACT Weinerdog claimed MORA would declare him a national security threat and take him off the air. An outright lie.
Are you arguing that Insight is lying? I know that you disagree with the magazine's views, but it's not going to make up stuff. It's enough evidence for me. Whether you believe it or not is your business. I win.
No you dont win. Dont pull a muscle patting yourself on the back. You need all your energy to feed those delusions. First the Washington Times is a whole lot worse than hated on the left it is owned by a nutbag who had himself coronated he messiah of this world and admitted he used it to further his agenda. It is a joke to anyone who respects journalism. THAT however is not the problem. I finally found the source before you linked to it. Kuhners hysterical screed did not QUOTE Hinchey saying Savage is a threat to national security only the word threat was in quotes it was his CHARACTERIZATION of what Hinchey said and considering the tone of the article its pretty far from compelling. This falls far short of PROOF that Hinchey called Weinerdog a threat to national security. Show him QUOTED as saying this directly from a credible source. Having said this its all irrelevant. Weinerdog didnt say Hinchey is mean he is saying bad things about me he claimed MORA would label him a national security threat now the law exists whatever a lawmakers opinion is unless Weiner can show the part of the bill that would do exactly that he is talking out of his ass. Making claims he cannot substantiate. YOU LOSE.
Dont pull a muscle patting yourself on the back. The Washington Times owned by a man who crowned himself the messiah and admitted to using it to push his agenda, which loses tens of millions a year, is FAR from credible its not just hated on the left it is a joke to anyone that takes journalism seriously but that isnt the problem. And NO you dont win, not even in the ballpark. Notice that Kuhner did not QUOTE Hinchey as saying that only the word threat is in quotations. It was his characterization of what Hinchey said and if you want to prove Hinchey called Weinerdog a threat to national security you have to do a whole lot better than THAT. This is why we need to see the original source.
Kuhner: Liberal totalitarianism | Article | Free Access | Insight
Insight is owned by the Washington Times, which is hated by the left. However, it is still a reputable newspaper that's not going to make up facts.
"According to Hinchey, these men pose a 'threat' to national security."
Read it again. YOU put the whole thing in quotes Kuhner didnt. HE only put the word threat in quotes it is HIS characterization not in any way evidence Hinchey said this directly.
The Fairness Doctrine would not ban Savage, Limbaugh, or Hannity. It would require balanced commentary on political issues. It would certainly hinder Savage’s ability to effectively disparage the left. His current formula is: Here is this horrible problem. This is how the left caused it. Insult to the left. Plug his book. Congratulate the audience for agreeing. Repeat.
This formula would really struggle if there was a credible counter perspective from the left.
By the way, can you explain to me why anyone would not see the contradiction where Savage accuses Hinchey of employing totalitarian tactics, by deeming political opponents enemies of the state (A statement he did not make anywhere, but inside Savages twisted mind.). Then he turns around and says “Sir? By the time I get through with you, if you should call me to Congress, I'll have you in prison, because you're in cahoots with Al Qaeda..” So you are saying you totally agree with Savages statement that if I may paraphrase goes something like this: “How dare you attempt to criminalize my political opinion (Blatant distortion). That is an egregious assault on our society. Further more, boy if I were in charge, I would so do that to you.”
Thanks. Love the passion, up at 2 and 4 in the morning duking it out. Forget ancestor worshipping Mormons, Magic Negroes, no-ankle females, damaged goods "war heroes" (he only had his plane shot down for Christ sakes!), cross dressing baby killers, and all the rest. We need someone like MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT to show us the way.
Oh and SOLON for VP. He can be MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT'S Dick Cheney.
"We need someone like MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT to show us the way"
To where ohhh "great" leader? Michael Weiners A** CHEEKS?
You can count me out...