Savage responds to "fascist, gay website named Media Matters"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters item noting that his website used the following headline in linking to an article: "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS." Savage asserted that "a fascist, gay website named Media Matters has attacked me for pointing out that it was a so-called feminist type who tasered the student who asked [Sen. John] Kerry too many questions."
On the September 18 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Michael Savage responded to a Media Matters for America item noting that on the afternoon of September 18, Savage's website used the following headline in linking to an article: "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS." The article reported on a University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser and removed by several campus police officers -- at least one of whom was female -- from a September 17 forum featuring Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). On his show, Savage asserted that "a fascist, gay website named Media Matters has attacked me for pointing out that it was a so-called feminist type who tasered the student who asked Kerry too many questions," adding: "They took the side of the Taser woman, of the policewoman."
In fact, Media Matters noted -- in the context of an item documenting Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's reference to the University of Florida student as "the biggest wimp in the United States of America" -- that the Department of Justice has launched several studies on Tasers, citing an increase in the number of reported deaths associated with them.
During his radio broadcast, Savage did not refer to the female police officer as a "bull-dyke." He did, however, characterize two female police officers -- both of whom Savage claimed were involved in the altercation during Kerry's appearance -- as having "extraordinarily large hips and small heads, of the type that you would have seen in a cartoon of Animal Farm."
As of September 19, Savage's website still included the headline "BULL-DYKE FASCIST TASERS STUDENT WHO ASKS KERRY TOO MANY QUESTIONS," with a link to the same article.
From Savage's website:
From the September 18 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Well, you know, you probably heard this today. The fascist police -- and I've never used that phrase, I'm a supporter of the police -- but the fascist police of the University of Florida, including two women with extraordinarily large hips and small heads, of the type that you would have seen in a cartoon of Animal Farm, tasered this student -- who was a Democrat, by the way -- who dared ask John Kerry about the Skull and Bones society. Now, I don't know whether they were told to taser him the minute he said Skull and Bones, but I do know that Kerry has shown he has no character, because he's now saying that he didn't want it to happen, it shouldn't have happened. It's too late, John. You had an opportunity as a former presidential front-runner to say to the police, "Stop that. I will not have you taser a student in my presence. You are wrong." He didn't do that.
Now, that's Andrew Meyer, a student. He's a Democrat, probably a liberal, tasered while attempting to ask Senator Kerry a question.
[..]
SAVAGE: Chicago, [caller], you're on The Savage Nation. Go ahead, please.
CALLER: Good evening, Dr. Savage. I just wanted to let you know that within the last hour, a very liberal talk-show host on a very liberal network was already dumping on John Kerry as to why he didn't get involved and stop this incident in the lecture hall.
SAVAGE: Yes, but a fascist, gay website named Media Matters has attacked me for pointing out that it was a so-called feminist type who tasered the student who asked Kerry too many questions. They took the side of the Taser woman, of the policewoman. Do you know that?
CALLER: I didn't know that. And I am a police officer, as well as my whole family, and if what we saw on TV happened, it shouldn't have happened. They shouldn't have --
SAVAGE: Why did these cops feel it necessary to taser this kid?
Gee, what a surprise. Mr. thin skinned drinking binge calls us names again for pointing out that the real star of clueless doesn't have a clue about what the female officers are like. The stereotype king strikes again!
Savage will make a nice obituary some day and that's about it. I'll get an extra morning donut to celebrate the only decent thing he's ever done....dying and decomposing so that the earth can drink of his nutrients.
I love Savage's inability to quell his homophobia/latent homosexuality. Everything boils down to calling everyone else "f*gg*t". What bastion of conservative ideology.
Seriously.
And which is it? Is MMFA a "fascist" or "commie" site? I can't keep track.
I didn't know the terms "fascist" and "gay" went together.
Oh wait, I forgot. Savage is both. He uses the one thing to hide the fact that he is the other thing.
You have to wonder what exactly is the interconnexion between Fascism and homosexuality, especially for the sake of Herr Savage's warped Weltanschauung and perverting same for "winning of hearts and minds" among the Great Unwashed.
And come to think of it: Perhaps the GOP's ideal campaign song for Indecision 2008 might want to be the former East German National Hymn, "Auferstanden aus Ruinen" (Arisen from the Ashes)....
Savage reminds me of the value of Freudian theory in interpreting current events. Yeah, I know, much of Freud has been pooh-poohed by the modern psychiatric establishment but, hey, some of the man's theories still hold water. Take, for example, the notion of "projection." That is where a person "projects" onto others those qualities or traits in his or her own making that he or she does not wish to recognize, to deal with, to embrace. My hunch is that Mr. Savage is a closet queen himself, which would explain why he thinks everyone else is. Another Freudian theory I think still holds valid is the link between conservative uptightness and constipation. I mean, look at Bill Kristol: every week on Fox Noise Sunday, that creep wears the same damned 20-year-old red and gold necktie. I think it is the only one he owns. Now, if a guy is too cheap to go to Wal-Mart and buy a $10 tie now and then, you can bet your butt he's an anal retentive who hasn't taken a crap in the same period of time.
Right! He's used the word "f*gg*t" exactly 0 times on the radio. Next.
Prove it, Checkers.
You say Savage has NEVER used that term in ALL THE YEARS he's been spewing hate on the radio? Show us all where that is documented. Or admit that you made that up.
One or the other, Checkers. The choice is yours.
You cannot prove a negative. It is up to the accuser to prove of ONE instance where he's said that particular word on the air, or it's up to the accuser to admit they're wrong.
Savage is a racist, and is full of homosexual hatred (take that last phrase as you will), but it does no one any good to lie about what he's said or hasn't said.
Okay... just to clear the air a little... the comment was a bit of a stretched example. Savage has real 'issues' with Gays... that is apparent, clear, not up for discussion.
That being said, Checkers uses the usual tactic of paring down the concept to 'prove it with specifics or you're wrong" nonsense. That's like asking if the asterisks in 'f*gg*t' have a long vowel sound. Come on! Are we children here? Maybe...
Yes, I do believe there are some children in here. As a matter of fact, considering the conversations I've occasionally read here, I'm positive of it.
Savage doesn't have to say the F-word. His audience knows EXACTLY who the sodomites are. Just like they know whothe "old Yentas" are, who "Saulito" is, who the "boys from NYU" are. His show is like a Da vinci Code for retarded racist people who hate homos.
[Savage's] show is like a Da vinci Code for retarded racist people who hate homos.
This place needs to give out awards for great lines like that.
Guess I know who I am now............. ;0(
Well, I'm not retarted. I'm not racist...I have many minority friends who I regulary spend time with. I don't hate homos, I just do not agree with them being married, or their private lives being flaunted around in public (and no, I dont want to see a straight couple making out and groping each other in public either).
Savage is defending the liberal student's right to free speech in a designated Q&A forum, and this website still attacks him, unreal.
Thats one way to look at it another is the Weinerdog is insane and needs serious medical attention
Stunningly insightful comment from you once again.
Savage did the most sober, fair minded analysis of this situation out of anyone else in the entire media. It's quite an obvious conclusion that when a woman cop on a power trip tasers a kid AFTER he was handcuffed (an should have never been removed in the first place), that woman is acting like a bull dyke fascist (translated - "acting like an angry, vengeful woman who was unable to to perform her job and get the kid under control without a weapon...so she got a cheap shot in after the fact).
Thank you for being entirely literal. "Next!"
The truly amazing and saddening part is the fact that this human waste commands an enormous radio audience...we are surrounded by these humanoids.
It even scarier than that, the radio waves from his show created with in his body are passing through you body daily.......you are forever linked by this phenomenon .......YIKES!
What's even scarier is that these shows leave the atmosphere and are beamed out into space. The standard "Day The Earth Stood Still" scenario will soon be visited upon us, though I doubt we'll get away with just a warning.
We? Is the funhouse getting crowded? Pull down the padding if you need extra room.
I'd also like to know why this filth is allowed on the public airwaves.
Someone please tell me the difference between him being on the radio as opposed to the KKK or Nazis
Just keep telling yourself...It is a SHOW...It is a SHOW....It is entertainment for some Republans. The Silly One makes money. It is a SHOW. The Silly One likes money more than human decency. It is a SHOW.
Besides, what else could he do in the real world. If he ever stepped outside his protective SHOW BIZ bubble and spouted off on Main Street USA, he'd either get decked or he'd be wearing one of those white funny jackets.
P.S. They never had the correct size for me.
Fish oil advertisements?
"I'd also like to know why this filth is allowed on the public airwaves." - edenscape246494
Because he makes his company lots of MONEY If you don't like it TURN OFF THE RADIO and don't buy the products and services advertised on his show. He will be on the air as long as people listen and buy the stuff advertised on the show. So stop whining and turn the channel!
"Someone please tell me the difference between him being on the radio as opposed to the KKK or Nazis-" edenscape246494
He's not advocating the extermination of millions of people based on their religeon or the segregation of those of another race.
Its not hate speech to everyone. Try having an open mind and realize that there are divergent opinions.
Well, I suppose as long as one person doesn't think it's hate speech, that's okay then.
Hate speech to a liberal is simply anything which challenges the liberal ideology. You don't get to take away someone's 1st Amendment rights simply because you disagree with him. If you don't like Savage, then don't listen to him. Nobody is forcing you to.
If the first amendment was complete and clearly representative of free speech in any medium, we would not have the FCC fining radio stations for playing "Now you're messing with a son of a b!tch," or, "She f$cking hates me" uncensored on the air. The FCC regulates what can and cannot be said on the public airwaves, because they are considered property, unlike a person's blog, or a conversation at dinner, or even a town hall meeting that elicits citizen participation. Because the FCC has a right to regulate the airwaves, it - and the public through it - have a right to dictate how those airwaves can be used.
Savage has every right to rant in his mother's basement, but the question is - exactly how much incitement of hate can one person get away with on the public airwaves? Will it take someone getting beaten to death by people who quote the man in order for the question to be seriously addressed? Does he get off scott-free for his behavior otherwise?
I've never heard Savage advocate violence on the air, so you don't really have a point with the whole hate speech thing. As far as the FCC goes, they have the right to censor obscene speech in the media but not political speech. If Savage said the f word the FCC would have the right to fine him. But anything that isn't an obscenity can't be censored by the FCC.
... and to many, words like "dyke," "f4g," etc. are obscenities. To me, personally, the n-word is more of an obscenity than any four-letter word you can possibly say.
I'd be happy if the FCC added these to the fine list. There's nothing political about the need to call anyone a bull-dyke, and it's a testament to Savage's lowest-common-denominator approach to intelligence. I do have to say he knows his audience well, in reaching that far down into the muck for his material.
And then low-lifes like Rino Hunter defend him......
RH, I tuned in the Savage loony tunes show one evening because a house guest would not believe what I said one would hear on his broken record radio broadcast. Sure enough, lucky me, it was an "Encore" performance where he advocated hanging muslim extremists from light poles with their guts hanging out. Is that enough for you?
"I've never heard Savage advocate violence on the air"--rino hunter
You've got to be kidding. What about calling for murdering 100 million people? Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot didn't even achieve that feat.
That doesnt mean he hasnt as he CLEARLY has advocated violence on his show he ADVOCATED killing one hundred million Muslims because he was tired of hearing there were One Billion of them. That is flat out advocation of violence on a scale that would demote Hitler to the minor leagues of evil.
"If you don't like Savage, then don't listen to him."
Savage doesn't like Media Matters, but yet he keeps reading, despite you telling him not to. You did tell him not to, right?
There is NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A NATIONAL RADIO AUDIENCE, NONE WHATSOEVER. I tell you what when I put up a billboard opposing the death penalty in YOUR FRONT YARD if you dont like it turn your head. The airwaves belong to us we have EVERY RIGHT to an opinion on how they are used.
He's not advocating the extermination of millions of people based on their religeon
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes he is. He said he is tired of hearing there are One billion Muslims in the world and what we need to do is KILL ONE HUNDRED MILLION OF THEM. That is EXACTLY saying we should kill millions of people because of their religion.
Probably because we still have freedom of speech in this country. I don't agree with everything that Savage says, but I support his right to say it. We will always have freedom of speech in this country until the liberals get in charge and end free speech rights for those with whom they disagree. The once pro-free speech liberals now have an agenda to silence anyone with an opposing view point. Hopefully, the few pro free speech liberals who are left will stand up and condemn those who hijacked their ideology.
Let's make a deal.
We'll rein in the soccer moms and hippies who don't like hearing unpleasant things, if you work on getting your party to stop wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives on useless, immoral wars.
I think that's a fair trade.
Only to a liberal can it be immoral to free millions of Iraqis from a brutal, murderous dictator.
That's the most transparently disingenuous thing I've read today. Thanks.
Before the war, I never heard a conservative argue we should be the world's policemen. Conservatives invariably argued that wars should be fought strictly for reasons of our own national security interests. Now that all of the other arguments they had have fallen through, it is suddenly a "noble" idea to invade Iraq for the Iraqi's own sake. How high-minded of you all.
I guess you have to hang your hat somewhere.
Only to a conservative can an occupied country be considered FREE. Are we going all around the world and free ALL of the worlds people under dictatorships? Well since we OVERTHREW Democracies and INSTALLED dictatorships, since Saddam was at his WORST while he was our ally, your silly frame is ludicrous
Tell us, oh wise one, who again in the government is limiting free speech anywhere in the US? I would specific examples of where the government of the United States came in, and said, you can't say that on the air. You can't say that on a street corner. Good luck finding examples, because you won't find any.
And who exactly are these liberals you keep yaking about limiting free speech and taking it away? Are you talking about the imaginary liberals in your mind who you think are supporting installing, or re-installing, the Fairness Doctrine, because as we've gone around and around on this issue, there isn't one, not a single ONE, in Congress, or currently running for President that is talking about starting that back up again. And even if they did, it wouldn't silence anyone, but would give the opposing side (no matter WHAT side it is) equal time as it pertains to things that are in the common interest of the public. But then again, as I said, there isn't a single legislator bringing up any legislation that would put the Fairness Doctrine back into play, so please, put that meme back in the trash.
Try again.
Please, specific examples of where anyone (liberal or conservative) within the government has impinged on anyone's free speech. Go ahead. Let's see some examples.
You've got nothing but strawman, and weak ones at that.
Dennis Kucinich was working on legislation re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine. Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin are also on record supporting it. This website also has a long history of advocated the suppression of speech for those with whom they disagree. Did you forget about Imus and Media Matters' crusade to get others like him off the air?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010
How many times do we have to tell you? Imus was not a free speech issue. He has NO right to be on our airwaves, but you seem to forget that. He can go anywhere he wants, in this country, and yell "nappy headed ho's" from the heights, and nobody is going to stop him.
What got Mr. Imus fired was his advertisers, after hearing what he said, pulled their money from his show. No money, no advertisers, no show. Funny how when the "free market" works against something you decry as impingement of free speech, you don't have anything good to say about how the free market got Imus fired. If his advertisers had not pulled their dollars, he'd still be on the air, it really is that simple, but keep on making things up. You're getting sort of closer to the truth, oh no wait, you're not.
Nobody currently in the House, or the Senate has brought forth legislation that would bring the Fairness Doctrine back, and again, even if they did, it doesn't stop anyone from saying anything, it just gives balance for public airwaves.
And one more thing, if MMFA and us posters want to respond to something we find repugnant, and urge advertisers NOT to give money to these folks, that is also free speech isn't it? They can say it, we can object to it, and if their advertisers (LIKE IN THE IMUS CASE) pull their ads and ad revenue, they get shut off the air or not printed in a newspaper, but this is in NO WAY impingement of freedom of speech. The government, in this case, is not disallowing you to say anything.
So WHAT. Only in severe dementia can you even make the CLAIM that demandig both sides are heard is limiting free speech in ANY WAY. It is ludicrous on the FACE of it.
There is no free speech issue here. There NEVER HAS BEEN. This has been explained to you at least one hundred times. If YOU talked at YOUR job the way Savage does at his and were fired would THAT be a free speech issue? Is it a free speech issue that I dont have a nationally televised audience? Weinerdog has no more free speech rights than I DO. So if I dont have a RIGHT to a radio show neither does he. We OWN the airwaves he operates on. WE have a right to say how they are used PERIOD. You keep talking about free speech it is a non sequitur. THERE IS NO FREE SPEECH ISSUE INVOLVED.
KKK and Nazis? LOLOLOLOL
OT, but I want to play a game. Republican or Democrat?
LMFAO
I remember hearing this live after I first saw it on media matters earlier in the day.
"Yes, but a fascist, gay website named Media Matters has attacked me for pointing out that it was a so-called feminist type who tasered the student who asked Kerry too many questions."
Talk about wimps, the Savage Weiner can't even quote his own website. Somewhere between his web authoring and his radio show, "bull-dyke fascist" became "so-called feminist" type.
"They took the side of the Taser woman, of the policewoman."
The woman's sexual orientation, physical stature, and political ideology are irrelevant. It appeared to me that MMFA took the side of every policewoman, because the Savage Weiner basically attacked them all.
MMFA has not "sided" with the woman over the incident itself. In fact, MMFA pointed out that it was not known who tasered the student, and that fact was in the article that Savage linked to.
I'm guessing a Gopper. This based on afiliation being usually only mentioned with this type of out of control behavior if its a Democratic person.
So according to Savage the terms Bull-Dyke (a slur against Lesbians) and feminist are synonymous? This guy is so nuts. Their going to have to build a special wing in the mental hospitals for these delusional wingers when they finally have their big breaks, It wouldn't be fair to house the regular schizophrenics with these as the British would call nutters.
A Bull-Dyke and a straight feminist woman both express a much more robust level of dominance within the society than has been the case through most of recorded history. In this sense they are similar though not synonymous. He did not assert they were.
I guess you dont know much about history. Look up Hetshepsut, Zenobia, Golda Meir, Margerate Thacher, Debra from Judges in the bible.
There were exeptions of course, but I'm talking about two classes of women with signifigant numbers relative to the popuulation.
I was also talking comparatively, to modern times.
Also some of those you mention are or were relatively modern figures.
Your equating of "bull-dyke" and "feminist", as well as your description of the types as being dominant, raises some interesting points, and actually leads one to a surprising conclusion.
Feminists do not seek domination, but rather independence from societies artificial feminization by way of submissiveness to men. To denigrate that goal indicates an irrational fear of women.
On the other hand, a "bull-dyke" is a lesbian who likewise eschews all socially-induced feminization such as makeup, clothing, etc. and aspires to a more natural appearance. Your disdain for such natural female appearance would indicate that you are NOT naturally attracted to women.
The logical conclusion is that you are a homosexual with gynophobic tendencies. I suggest that - rather than being embarassed and attempting to suppress it - you embrace your true self and accept your place in this world. That would be your first step toward serenity and inner peace.
Thanks! Now I don't have to worry about paying for a shrink.
I applaud the sentiment behind Savage's viewpoint
He also comes down on the cops who theatrically tackle the suspects on the NBC "To catch a Predator" shows. He captures and removes house flys rather than killing them. He was very distressed at the killing of that extremely old whale months ago.
Basically he's for the underdog, at least on a micro level. .... He also likes to see the best horse jump the ditch. Whether involving job or school or any competion, he wants to see the more meritorious succeed to a higher level. In this particular case he's annoyed at a woman having a job he feels a larger stronger male could have more likely completed without using a taser. This is a theme that runs throughout his commentary and so very likely is authentically his true attitude.
Hahahaha!!
Man, that whole entire post of yours made me laugh. Savage is for the little guy? Seriously? Savage is an obtuse, biggotted, homophobic, fear mongering idiot, and he proves it, on a daily basis.
This was just another case of his homophobia coming out, and him stereotyping a woman cop as a "bull dyke", which he doesn't know if she is or isn't. And then he equates feminism, which you so "clearly" defined for us all in an earlier post.
No, Mr Savage would rather have his women at home, barefoot, pregnant, and making babies. He doesn't want them in the work force, he wants to make sure that a big strong man such as himself, can take care of his women. Which is a joke, because if Savage ever left his studio and said what he says on air in front of actual live people, I'm pretty sure he would get beat down in about, oh, 5 minutes or less in any street corner in America.
Keep the faith though brother. I have read that he was 8 million fans, I'm sure, from reading what you've written, that you're most definitely one of them, and that scares me that any rational person in the world could listen to him and say, "Oh yeah, he makes a lot of sense." Please consult your psychiatrist promptly.
So I guess if you don't like somebody or they disagree with you on an issue important to you, EVERYTHING they say is wrong headed. That's a narrow attitude I try to avoid, although I do fall into it also at times.
If you reread my post you'll see I distinguish between his"micro" attitudes and very broad issues.
That attitude you just described is exactly what savaqe thinks about us. He slurs the site every chance he gets, he thinks everything we say is wrong, and yet you think he's a stand up kind of guy and are here defending him like he's a victim. Nice conundrum you've just created for yourself.
You were wrong when you described bull-dykes (I can hardly make myself type that word and can only do so because I know that I was not the one to initiate the use of that word) and feminists striving for dominance. That was the first sign that you are not being realistic or factual here.
The second sign was when you jumped to the erroneous conclusion that somehow Media Matters is of the belief that if someone does something wrong, and Media Matters points it out, that defines them forever as a wrongdoer. I haven't seen that. I've seen them describe behaviors and attitudes wrong.
I don't think there's anything wrong with core conservative values, but the way that many Conservatives with influence today have abused those principles damns them, not the core philosophy. I think that's what David Brock does. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he is not a Democrat now. I think what's more likely is that he was a disaffected Republican who got fed up with their hypocrisy about homosexuality, and hated other lies they pushed, and he pushed, and this is his reaction to that flawed behavior he was once a part of.
I have a homosexual child, and were I to ever confront a person like this in person, I might be unable to restrain myself. My adult child is a human being who should be entitled to all rights and privileges. Blacks shouldn't be called the n word, and gays shouldn't be called bull-dykes or other slurs.
I saw some people yesterday on this site talking about how it's unfair to attack people based upon characteristics that they can't change, like their skin color or their sexual orientation. They were 100% right.
It's also right to attack people based upon their behavior. It doesn't mean that Savage is 100% corrupt and disgusting because he said what he said here. When you look at his overall history, though, he seems pretty damn sleazy, irresponsible, and bigoted.
You read a lot into what I wrote. I don't know what a conservative or liberal is any more as commonly understood, but I I am a Democrat.
Many people on here are labeled conservatives if they simply deviate from the far left line. I myself am very conservative, but many posters on here are labeled conservative simply because they think independently and aren't part of the hard core liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
No, people's words and actions on here get them labeled as conservatives. Not because they disagree with the so called "hard left liberal" party line that you cite.
Oh yeah. He couldn't have been labeled a conservative because he agreed with the "sentiment" of Savage's "bull dyke" comment, and fawned all over the guy. It's because he's an "independent thinker". Sure. Absolutely.
Very aptly written. Thank you for your words.
Well, looking at Savage's complete body of work, and listening to him on a regular basis myself, I find him to be disgusting, bigotted, racist, misogynistic, and so on and so forth. I will give him one thing, he really seems to genuinely like dogs for pets. So he's not all bad. Everything else, I disagree with him almost wholeheartedly. He's basically the biggest a-hole I've ever come across in my lifetime.
Oh and thanks for the medical advice. I'd love to see one but it's too expensive.
*See my comment above.
Pro bono.
Wow. You MAY be as delusional as the Weinerdog. Perhaps the two of you can share a rubber room and a nice hypodermic of Mellorill
"...[Savage] wants to see the more meritorious succeed to a higher level..."
The thoughtful, caring, articulate person you're describing doesn't sound anything at all like the Michael "Bull Dyke-gay/facist website" Savage on the radio.
Instead of posting lengthy apologetics on behalf of Savage to Media Matters, I'd suggest you ask him to tone-down the hateful rhetoric.
Even if I thought Mr. Savage is a very bad person overall, which I don't, I would still assert that people generally, and Michael Savage in particular, have many sides to them. I was giving a side often neglected here to help people see a less caricatured view of him.
to help people see a less caricatured view of him.
But he himself deliberately projects this caricature. This angry comic bit that he once played on TV when his name was Weiner. He plays this bit because it works. He has become the caricature he created.
Exactly.
I love the apologist's implication that Savage bears no responsibility for the "caricature" he has, in fact, created solely by himself. That caricature is our fault, you see.
The fawning descriptions of what really resides in Savage's soul (if we would only look beyond the "bull dyke" and "facist, gay" remarks) are embarrassing.
I don't fault MMFA at all for highlighting Savages' comments which further their agenda, as I largely share that agenda.....and the caricature of him created here is of course by definition an incomplete picture. I simply added a few strokes to the portrait.
"the caricature of him created here is of course by definition an incomplete picture"
No doubt you wrote a note to Savage telling him that his caricature of Media Matters as "facist and gay" was incomplete, too. Because above all else, your goal is to paint "complete pictures" of caricatured people everywhere.
Again--you want "to help people" understand Savage? Send a note to Savage, not here.
Flag my comments if you feel so strongly.
So the next time Savage calls this a "facist-gay website" we all need to remind ourselves that Savage puts flies back outside. If only he would treat us with the same respect he would a household pest.
Apparently --to paraphrase you-- when Savage disagrees with somebody on an issue, EVERYTHING they say is wrong headed. Or facist, or gay, or bull dyke.
I already made the same point. You'll note he didn't respond to that either.
I don't agree with any slurs on this site. I think it's doing great work for the good of our political system. I don't defend Savage religiously....as a matter of fact I disagree as often as I agree with what he says on substantive matters.
And you came in here saying that you applauded what Savage said, when he called the police officer a "bull dyke". What were you saying about not liking slurs? Do you even read what you wrote or what Savage says? For someone who says he doesn't defend him religiously, seems like you attend mass at the Church of Savage quite often.
You misunderstand my comment. (It's about the 40th at this time.) I applaude the idea of standing up for the underdog. That's all...... I only gave my explanation of what he probably meant with his reference to bull-dykes and feminists. I did not say or mean to say that I applaud the use of slurs in that case. Here it is:
------------------------------------------------
I applaud the sentiment behind Savage's viewpoint
He also comes down on the cops who theatrically tackle the suspects on the NBC "To catch a Predator" shows. He captures and removes house flys rather than killing them. He was very distressed at the killing of that extremely old whale months ago.
Basically he's for the underdog, at least on a micro level. .... He also likes to see the best horse jump the ditch. Whether involving job or school or any competion, he wants to see the more meritorious succeed to a higher level. In this particular case he's annoyed at a woman having a job he feels a larger stronger male could have more likely completed without using a taser. This is a theme that runs throughout his commentary and so very likely is authentically his true attitude.
But, in your view here, you're upholding the sentiment behind Savage which is "HEY THAT COP IS A BULL DYKE" and then you said a bunch of other things in here, like she probably didn't deserve to be a cop because there was most likely some other man who was better qualified for the job (as if you, or I, or Savage know that at all, we don't). He doesn't stick up for the underdog at all. If he did, he would be pulling for the lesbians, the homosexuals, women, blacks, and other groups of people who have been beat down over the years in America. Instead, he sticks up for the "poor persecuted white male" who hardly needs anyone to stand up for them.
Try again please.
I personally agree with affirmative action. But I see the compelling arguement against it. I gave an explanation as to what I think informed Savages' problem with the woman police officer.
I qualified my beleif that he's for underdogs by saying ..."at least on a micro level."
Duly noted, and you made the point better than I did.
You totally want to make out with Savage. I can tell from your postings. These postings of yours sounds like the love letters he once wrote to Alan Ginsberg. History, repeating itself here.
Here's a clue for you, 1: media Matters isn't some guy on the boardwalk drawing what Weiner would look like if he were a cartoon character, they're QUOTING him. It's like a snapshot, it's an accurate depiction of him on that day. One might not give a good picture of what the person looks like all the time, but when you get dozens from different days, Like MMFA has, you have a good idea what a hateful jerk Weiner is.
I'm a listener.
I'm a listener, too, and this story doesn't even BEGIN to "caricature" or even expose how demented this dude is. This is not taken out of context; his whole show, with its occasional insipid efforts at "humor" or "folksy story-telling" is basically a few hours of some bitter old loser talking $#!% about people he hates. Michael Savage has a mental disorder.
Wait a minute... I thought liberals had the mental disorder (nice "book" he wrote there by the way). Any rational and sane person who listens to this guy for any amount or length of time will come to the same conclusion that he is either certifiably insane, or acting. Nobody could be that insane without actually really being insane.
I also find it sickening that he named his little "society" the Paul Revere Society. Way to take one of the actual great patriots of our country, and tie him to your crazed rantings about people you hate.
The Paul Revere Society does not exist. It disappeared.
What makes me so uncomfortable is that I can't refute anything Dr. Savage say with facts....invariably he's 100% correct.........and when I started to really look at the guy, I found out that he has 2 masters degrees, and a PhD from UC Berkeley in HARD SCIENCE, not some scam like "ethnic studies".....in other words, he's not a lightweight....he's a serious intellectual.....and his arguments are rock solid. .......this whole thing is making me look at why I think I'm a liberal...or pregressive.....and it's really making me feel sick.
Sure. If only more "Serious Intellectuals" and "Hard Scientists" like Savage would condemn & ridicule the "gay, homsexual mafia/Nazis" the world would be a better place. Yes, sir.
He has made it very VERY clear he does not feel that way about all homosexuals. I have heard him say that the homosexual class is very powerful, wealthy, and full of good people. Not his exact words, just close. It just so happens MMFA points out all his "Short Comings"..... Easy to do when you are picked apart by a fine tooth comb.
Easy to pick when his insane rantings are so very demented. Sure he just LOVES homosexuals which is why he told a caller to get aids and DIE. When will you guys get that just because you are attracted to his dementia doesnt mean its actually palatable to ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS
As I would expect from you Solon.
Sometimes I get so angry at people Solon, I feel like saying that, be you gay or not.
The Weinerdog is insane. He IS NOT 100% correct when he tells outright LIES like saying Congressman Hinchley is in cahoots with al Queda. Many of his OPINONS are those of a raving LUNATIC like when he says we should kill one hundred million Muslims because he is tired of hearing there are a billion of the. He is a demented psychopath when he calls this a gay fascist website. See the thing is just because you are damaged enough to believe his insane rantings does NOT make them 100% true just YOU 100% full of BS