Savage on "gay, fascist website" Media Matters, a "bunch of punk coward psychotics"
SUMMARY: While discussing Bill O'Reilly's controversial comments about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem, Michael Savage once again called Media Matters for America a "gay, fascist website." He added, "[T]hey attack me, O'Reilly, or whoever they can get their hands on that's a conservative because they think that we're anti-gay. They're psychotic. They're off their medication most of the time."
On the September 26 edition of his syndicated radio show, Savage Nation, Michael Savage once again called Media Matters for America a "gay, fascist website." He made the accusations while discussing Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's controversial comments on the September 19 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor about his visit to Sylvia's restaurant in Harlem. Savage was talking with a caller about O'Reilly's comments when he said, "They [Media Matters] are simply a gay, fascist website without any guts whatsoever." He added, "[T]hey attack me, O'Reilly, or whoever they can get their hands on that's a conservative because they think that we're anti-gay. They're psychotic. They're off their medication most of the time."
Later in the show, Savage urged African-American listeners to call into his show to voice their opinion on the O'Reilly issue. He followed this request by telling his listeners that the controversy would soon subside, saying, "It's gonna go away, you know, this is a gay, fascist website that's never had so much fun in their life. They're a bunch of punk coward psychotics, so -- I'm not on their side, don't get me wrong. They're vermin. They're utter vermin."
As Media Matters previously documented, on the September 18 edition of his radio show, Savage responded to a Media Matters item that noted 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." In fact, Savage has attacked Media Matters on several occasions calling the organization a "hate group," a "group of gay Mafiaso," "the homosexual Mafia," and "a gay smear sheet."
In attacking Media Matters, Savage appears to have abandoned his commitment "not to even read" Media Matters' "name anymore."
Of O'Reilly's comments, Savage said: "But let's be fair to the issue here. To go to a black restaurant and say, 'Wow, they ate just like we -- they behave just like we do'? Good God, that's awful."
From the September 26 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
CALLER: Yeah, I just wanted to give you a call. I watched O'Reilly last night, and that interview, those comments that Media Matters referred to, was an interview that he had done with Juan Williams from NPR [National Public Radio]. And Juan Williams was on there last night, and basically that whole conversation that O'Reilly had, and those statements, were totally taken out of context.
SAVAGE: Well, I know. Media Matters is a gay, fascist website. It's well-known to be a gay, fascist website. They rip me on a daily basis. I know who they are. I know who they are. They are simply a gay, fascist website without any guts whatsoever. Instead of attacking [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad or the Islamofascists, they attack me, O'Reilly, or whoever they can get their hands on that's a conservative because they think that we're anti-gay. They're psychotic. They're off their medication most of the time.
[...]
SAVAGE: I want to hear what black people think. What's the difference what white people think? We can't have the same sensibility on an issue like this. It's gonna go away, you know, this is a gay, fascist website that's never had so much fun in their life. They're a bunch of punk coward psychotics, so -- I'm not on their side, don't get me wrong. They're vermin. They're utter vermin. WOR New York, Stephen, you're on The Savage Nation.
[...]
CALLER: Hey Michael, I don't think that Bill O'Reilly seems to have learned anything from Black History Month. We have it every year, ad infinitum. And this guy goes and makes such a bummer? What does he --
SAVAGE: Well during Black History Month, do you show blacks eating with knives and forks? Maybe he didn't see that part of the Black History Month presentation.
CALLER: Ya think?
SAVAGE: I mean this is -- Catherine, come on, what do you really think about this? I mean, now, look, let's start with the reality of it. The group that is doing this to him is a gay, fascist group: Media Matters. They're insane. And they are very, very evil. There's no question about it. But let's be fair to the issue here. To go to a black restaurant and say, "Wow, they ate just like we -- they behave just like we do?" Good God, that's awful. I don't know. I don't know, people. We can talk about bears if you want. That's not -- we can't get in trouble for talking about killing bears in New Jersey. Can we? Stick to that one.
How sad that this level of "talk radio show" has enough of an audience to be profitable. Sad sad sad.
He's not necessarily generating enough ad revenue to be profitable, because revenues and profits are not the purpose this guy serves.
This is a poltical use of the Public Airwaves: that's the purpose being served, and the power being used here.
Political power, in the form of broadcasting political opinions on the radio and television bands of the Public Airwaves. This guy savage doesn't have to generate dollar one, for him to serve an invaluable purpose to the owners of TRN (Talk Radio Network, which syndicates this guy's show, among others).
It's not about profits (who advertises on the radio anyway); it's about a political use of the Public Airwaves. That's what makes these FCC Licenses worth so much today; it's what makes them invaluable to the holders of them.
I'm sorry Dem, but you're completely wrong. If Savage didn't make money and have lots of listeners, he wouldn't be on, period. Stop with the conspiracy theories.
It's no conspiracy theory, to state that today's FCC broadcast Licenses, in certain radio markets, are an invaluable political tool, used to advance a political agenda; for the relatively low cost of programming an all-talk format in those markets, what the License holder gets in return, is an extraordinaily effectice means to advance a political agenda, on the Public Airwaves.
It was in part resonsible for Republicans taking the House of Representatives in the 1994 mid-terms, and also for the more recent defeat of immigration reform in Congress.
Why broadcast music, or ball games, in these certain radio markets, when for the cost of mere talk, you can hammer away all day long, a political message?
That's what's going on, you know.
I've often wondered was this the case. But, exactly how does it, or would it work? Do the advertisers place ads at a higher than market rate and then get favors? Are Cap Cities and the rest in a secret partnership with the GOP? Do they act as backroom brokers for campaign contributions? Or maybe foundations of wealthy people are funding it all secretly and without direct input from the GOP? There are many ways it could be done. It's generally horrible programming---it really makes you wonder if even the ratings are somehow rigged.
There's no smoky hazy flow chart to it, like those charts that supposedly depict the hierarchy of the "mafia" or the "mob"
It's all clear and obvious and factual.
When the Fairness Doctrine as FCC policy was repealed in 1987 (not repealed by Congress, but by Reagan's FCC), and made it so the Public Airwaves were not required to be politically "fair and balanced" (that "equal time" in political opinions, and "reply time" in personal attacks, were no longer required), what resulted was the elevation of FCC Licenses in certain markets, from mere broadcast outlets of elevator music and ball games, into powerful political tools.
Those FCC Licenses, now transformed into powerful political tools by allowing for them to be used to broadcast political opinions all day and all night, were then gathered up and consolidated into larger media concerns, such as Salem Broadcasting and Clear Channel Communications.
There's no "secret partnership" involved: The owners of Salem and Clear Channel and others, they have their politics. And it is the politics of those owners that you now hear day and night, on those certain radio oulets and by way of those FCC Licenses.
And I point out again, that this was not possible before 1987: The Fairness Doctrine requiring then, that if FCC License holders broadcast political opinions or personal attacks, they were to also allow for broadcast "equal time" and "reply time", as the case warranted.
The authority for such Regulation as the Fairness Doctrine made, is ours: We the People own the Public Airwaves, and we do not License our property out, for the private political purposes of the License holder (do we?)
It's as obvious as that. It's as easy to understand as what Fox does, which is to broadcast the political opinions of it's ownership, rupert murdoch: The main difference being, that murdoch is a high profile public figure that we all know and recognize, but that the ownership of Salem and Clear Channel not so.
But the politics is the same, isn't it?
As a matter of fact, Fox also is a player in this political use of FCC Licences to broadcast on the radio band; they having the stable horses of o'reilly and hannity and others.
And you know their politics, don't you, because they broadcast it day and night, don't they?
And again, all of this (which is obvious and above board and a powerful and effective political tool, used on our property, the Public Airwaves), it has been made to work, by way of repealing our Fairness Doctrine, as FCC Regulatory policy...
A policy we can bring back anytime (it had been in effect for more than forty years you know); a policy that the bringing back of, these radio merchants are fighting, tooth and nail and word upon word, broadcast all day and through the night.
On our property, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Yeah, I want Al Franken and Air America to be forced to have a right-wing opinion on their show/network. Ugh, the thought of that disgusts me, its socialism. I want them to have left wing opinions 24 hours a day if they like, its called the first amendment, and it does not need to be interpreted in a different way to fit the times.
At the same time, yes, Clear Channel and Salem have set up massive networks that give right-wing opinion. The pivotol point here is that, if nobody was listening to them, these networks would go under. 10's of millions of Americans are very happy with their right wing radio programs on OUR radio waves.
I dont see why the socialist portion of the left has to push the un-fairness doctrine when they can set up their own stations and networks to preach left wing politics from 24-7 if they like.
The freedom to run right-wing politics 24-7 and the freedom to run left wing politics 24-7, that is fair.
Or, perhaps when left wing radio fails to gain listeners on OUR radio waves, you people just get angry. It astounds me that someone like hillary clinton has no opinion about the world's most hateful bigotted jihadi killer, Ahmadinejad, spewing his hate on C-SPAN; but wants to impose the fairness doctrine on a man who has never killed anyone, Michael Savage.
You're either unaware of or misunderstanding the facts.
There is no First Amendment "freedom" to broadcast on the television and radio bands of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Why do you think an FCC License is required to do so?
If you are so misinformed to think you have a First Amendment "freedom" to broadcast on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, then just try and do it without an FCC License: You'd be breaking the Law.
Furthermore, there's no such a thing as any "free market" use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. The PUBLIC AIRWAVES is no more a "free market" than is the Town Square or a public park or any other Public Property (the usage of which also requires a License or Permit, there being no "freedom" to use Public Property).
As for Socialism, I guess it would be Socialism to advocate a public ownership of some private property.
But that's not the case here, as the PUBLIC AIRWAVES are already Public Property, and always have been.
You don't know what you're even talking about.
No, you don't know what you're talking about. You are about 10 football fields behind me. Once a network, be it right or left political beliefs, gets approved for their license by the FCC, what is said on those shows is protected by freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
So yes, one would need to go through the technicalities of getting the proper license, but that process is the same regardless of what the political beliefs of the network are.
Since I only see left wingers advocating for the un-fairness doctrine, I have to assume it is because they want to reduce the amount of right wing talk. I fail to see how that serves the people. When you listen to Al Franken, you want to hear him...not some right wing idiot arguing with him. When I listen to Savage, I do not want to hear a left wing idiot shooting points back at him.
What do you have against the current system? Just because left wing politics fail on the radio waves does not mean the playing field is not fair.
Additionally, does ANYBODY actually enjoy watching Hannity & Colmes? I think the arguing and bickering sucks, nobody ever talks long enough to make a point.
TRN and Salem Radio Network is a horse of a slightly different color.
Plus remember, one of the reasons TRN and Salem, Clear Channel, Fox are mostly on AM stations. Hell, who listens to AM radio but people who drive '79 Dodge pickups?
And the ad sales on these stations (at least the one in Chicago) aren't that great. If you listen, you'll hear a lot of PSAs and ads bought by the station advertising their station to advertisers. Plus, credit repair companies and hair growth formulas.
You bet, the AM radio broadcast stations are much cheaper to purchase, because the signal is of such a poor quality compared to FM transmission.
And being much cheaper, they were much easier to buy up in numbers, and consolidate into Clear Channel and Salem and others, and just go "all talk all the time" (because talk is cheap: political talk being the cheapest)...
And what you then have is a powerful political tool, purchased and operated on the cheap, broadcasting day and night the political opinions of the ownership of those "media" companies (and there's not such a wide and diverse spectrum of political opinions we're talking about here: It's really either (D) or (R); and it's (R) that owns these "media" companies).
The ownership of these radio broadcast companies, having purchased also the FCC Licenses that comes with those radio transmitters (and nobody challenges them for their frequency: It's as though the License were a lifetime deal, like being a Federal Judge)...
The ownership of these radio broadcast companies had a tough decision to make:
Broadcast ball games and elevator music and Bible-thumping preachers...
...or hammer away day and night, the political opinions (R) of the ownership of those broadcasters and holders of those FCC Licenses?
It was a no-brainer.
There's an invaluably powerful and effective political tool being wielded nationally, when Clear Channel and Salem et al pound away day and night a political message (R) on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Ball games elevator music and "Salvation is of You-know-who, Brothers and Sisters!"
...that crap pays much?
Not as much as manipulating the politcal opinions of the American People does.
Dammit Dem you keep muddying up this conversation about how radio is right wing because that's what the public wants with all these facts and reality and stuff. Clearly you'd never make it in radio.
There is NO free speech issue WHATSOEVER involved in use of OUR airwaves it isnt a free speech issue. It is a resource management issue. The original agreement about radio was that we would allow private entities to USE OUR RESOURCE to make obscene buttloads of cash and in return they would provide a public service. We have every right to democratically decide IF the way they are being used performs that public service. Suppose I owned a piece of land. A mining company wanted to mine it. I make an agreement they do so ONLY in an ecologically friendly manner. They begin strip mining. I have every right to DEMAND they live up to THAT part of the agreement. Its the same thing with the airwaves. We have EVERY right to say they are not living up to the public service part of their agreement. There is absolutly no free speech issue you only show you have ZERO understanding of this issue claiming there is. No one has a RIGHT to a specific job or to a national audience. NO ONE in the country has any more or less free speech rights than I do. If the Weinerdog has a RIGHT to a national audience so do I. I dont. Neither does he. When the Weinerdog gets arrested for what he says or is not allowed to voice his opinion on a streetcorner or in a public park get back to us. Until THEN there is no free speech issue involved PERIOD. This is very simple.
Where you mentioned mining, let me share an anology similar to yours, that I think also helps to make clear the argument here.
The PUBLIC AIRWAVES are Public Property, and are used by private commercial interests, only under License from our Government (the FCC, as agents of the People); and that any and all conditions of that License (FCC Regulations) are to be met, as a condition of the award of that License.
This is all plain and clear and indisputable.
Public Property (Public Land) is also the many and vast tracts of State and Federal Lands, that are leased or permitted for use, by a variety of private commercial interests, such as grazing and water and timber and oil and the mining of minerals and precious metals.
Public Lands are also used by private commercial interests, by way of a License or Permit to do so, and under any and all conditions of that License or Permit.
This is all plain and clear and indisputable.
Imagine a mining operator, having been licensed to mine precious metals, on the great tract of dry brown mountainous land, that you pass on the highway on your way to and from work.
Imagine one day, as you pass that Public Property (Public Land) that has been Licensed for use by a mining company, imagine you see a Giant Billboard having been put up by that mining company (on that Public Property).
The Giant Billboard proclaims:
"VOTE FOR KERRY, VOTE FOR GORE
DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH, NOT ANYMORE!"
Now, you might say to youself:
"Whoa, what the... who the heck thinks that's why we License the use of Public Property to these private financial interests for, for them to use that Public Property to promote and advance their own political opinions?"
Now, you might think one of two things in that instance:
You might think that that Giant Billboard, on Public Property and advocating the politcal opinions of the owners of the company that holds the License to use that Public Property, that the Giant Billboard should be taken down...
...or that another one be allowed to be put up along side it, by a different or opposing political opinion, perhaps proclaiming "VOTE FOR BUSH/CHENEY"
Because you might feel that while you did not License that Public Property out to be used for political purposes by those private interests that hold the License (and they don't have to do that you know, they can just stick to mining precious metals), that if they did that, and used that Public Property to promote their private political opinions, then they could at least allow for "equal time", in a "fair and balanced" use of Public Property.
You might require some kind of Fairness Doctrine, in the case of where you found Public Property to be used by private interests for political purposes.
Now that's analogous I say, to what we're talking about.
But I say beware of analogies and similes and metaphors in your argument; beware and avoid them especially, when they are used against you.
So screw what I asked you to imagine; never mind it.
Never mind the dry brown and mountainous tract of Public Land, having been Licensed for the private finacial gain of mining precious metals, but then used unfairly (and without balance) for political purposes.
Dismiss that from your mind, and just drive to and from work without that strange fantasy...
...and turn on your car radio, and dial up rush limbaugh, and listen to him hammer away on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, in a most biased unfair unbalanced and even vile manner, the political opinions of those who hold an FCC License.
Why does the left wing want to force its opinions into right wing talk radio, while the right wing has no such desire to inject its views into a left wing radio show?
What exactly is holding a billionare like George Soros or other rich left wing individuals back from setting up a massive network similar to TRN or Salem, but with left wing politics? I mean, I live in a huge city, and most of the AM frequencies are open static.
It seems as if this whole time you have been building the argument that the right wing has purchased and controls all the entire AM band, and nobody else can get in. Thats nonsense, and I'd like to hear your response to my questions above.
Why does the left wing want to force its opinions into right wing talk radio, while the right wing has no such desire to inject its views into a left wing radio show?
I'm actually not in favor of bringing back the fairness doctrine. I think we should break up some of these big media conglomerates. This will allow smaller companies access to some of the high frequency stations and lead to more diversity on the airwaves.
What exactly is holding a billionare like George Soros or other rich left wing individuals back from setting up a massive network similar to TRN or Salem, but with left wing politics? I mean, I live in a huge city, and most of the AM frequencies are open static.
Ultimately, you're going to need advertisement dollars to sustain the format and corporations will not support shows that advocate cutting into their profit margin.
Since you are telling me this is not a free speech issue, and a guy like Savage doesnt have the right to speak freely on the radio stations that his networks have been given the privilage to use, then you believe that some other source has to be telling him what to say, or at least approve of what he says. This other source could be the people, or it could be the government. If it is the government telling him what to say, that is socialism, so lets rule that out...because we know the left wing would never support socialism. If it is the people approving of what he says, isnt that already the case? He has millions of listeners who are happy with his message and the use of the air waves.
Now, I understand there will always be an opposition base. At this point, if the opposition wants to react, they can do so by placing opposition opinions on other radio stations. Yes, that cant happen over night, and yes, the left would have to have a large portion of the public willing to listen to these stations in order for it to work. But the opportunity is there for everyone to make use of the airwaves. Like I state a few posts down, I live in a huge city, and most of the AM frequencies are open static, but the left wants to tell me that the right wing has an iron grip on radio. Get me a violin, its not my problem or the government's problem if the left wing cant run a business that successfully voices it's opinions on the radio.
Since you are telling me this is not a free speech issue, and a guy like Savage doesnt have the right to speak freely on the radio stations that his networks have been given the privilage to use,
Savage would be able to speak freely even if the Fairness Doctrine is brought back. He could do his three hour show (or whatever it is) and then someone could come on afterwards for half an hour to debunk his lies and sort through the nonsense.
If it is the government telling him what to say, that is socialism, so lets rule that out...because we know the left wing would never support socialism.
Don't worry, the garbage that you enjoy will still be there.
He has millions of listeners who are happy with his message and the use of the air waves.
I've come to the conclusion that his listeners are psychotic. How else could you listen to that crap without vomiting?
Since you are telling me this is not a free speech issue, and a guy like Savage doesnt have the right to speak freely on the radio stations that his networks have been given the privilage to use, then you believe that some other source has to be telling him what to say, or at least approve of what he says.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So the question here is do you not read very well, do you have trouble following a train of thought or is the false dichotomy really the only way your mind works. It is in no way a free speech issue which does NOT mean he cannot speak freely nor that others must approve of what he says. He CAN say what he wants within limits, however he has no RIGHT to his job or audience and since the resource being touted is OURS we have every right to democratically decide if he is upholding HIS part of the public service part of the deal. I can be fired if what I say doesn’t reflect well on my company that is NOT a free speech issue. Your ONLY free speech rights are that you can say what you want in public there is NO part of free speech that divorces you from the accountability for what you say. Since we OWN the resource we have a right to decide how it is used it is a resource management issue. When the Savage gets arrested for saying what he wants or is prevented from saying what he wants on a street corner or in a park get back to us.
This other source could be the people, or it could be the government. If it is the government telling him what to say, that is socialism, so lets rule that out...because we know the left wing would never support socialism. If it is the people approving of what he says, isnt that already the case? He has millions of listeners who are happy with his message and the use of the air waves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again you just don’t understand what is being said. He can say what he wants, then faces the consequences of what he says. The Democratic process is the judge. IF we democratically decide he is failing in his obligation to perform a public service then he gets that’s that. IF we don’t make that decision that is fine. What YOU are trying to say is we have no RIGHT to that democratic process. See I am not arguing he should be taken off the air only that we DO have the right to do so. By saying we DON’T have such a right even though he is using our resource YOU are trying to deny us that democratic process its like saying we have no RIGHT to raise grazing fees on public land. It is a resource management issue.
Now, I understand there will always be an opposition base. At this point, if the opposition wants to react, they can do so by placing opposition opinions on other radio stations. Yes, that cant happen over night, and yes, the left would have to have a large portion of the public willing to listen to these stations in order for it to work. But the opportunity is there for everyone to make use of the airwaves. Like I state a few posts down, I live in a huge city, and most of the AM frequencies are open static, but the left wants to tell me that the right wing has an iron grip on radio.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are wrong the radio is a scarce resource which is the basis for its management the Supreme Court has long ago ruled on exactly this issue.
Get me a violin, its not my problem or the government's problem if the left wing cant run a business that successfully voices it's opinions on the radio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Radio is paid for by ADVERTISING and the business community is a conservative constituent. I am sure it would fit YOUR agenda to keep the democratic process out of the equation but that ISNT your call. The bottom line here is simple. There is NO free speech issue none whatsoever. There wont be until Savage is arrested or stopped from expressing his opinion when walking down the street. He has no more free speech rights than I do, he can claim none that I don’t have. I don’t have a national audience and HE doesn’t have a right to one. By saying it is a free speech issue you are saying we have NO right to say how OUR resource is used. We do.
Ok, well then why don't you go after some of the large sportscasting companies, like ESPN, that broadcast on hundreds of AM stations? Lets kick them off our airwaves, so you can set up left wing stations to counter the right.
Or, you can face the facts. You dont care about the airwaves being "ours," you just want Savage and all other right wingers off the radio. Once that happens, you wouldnt even think about who the radio waves belong to anymore.
Switching subjects, are we?
No one here is demanding that his mike be cut; we are astounded that people like the bilge that comes out of his bile, or wherever bilge comes from.
If you want lies and propaganda 24/7, you've got your wish. Hope you are happy with lying in that bed.
It is a conspiracy theory, just like Eddy's. I know the theory you're putting forth would be beneficial to conservatives who also support Savage's message, but it's a theory, with no factual support, and it also goes against the very solid, provable, common knowledge that media is advertisement-dollars-driven.
"and it also goes against the very solid, provable, common knowledge that media is advertisement-dollars-driven."
And this is the reason why I think Liberal Talk will not be as successful as conservative talk. Liberals argue against the corporate takeover of America and they argue in favor of labor which corporate America despises. Corporations have a vested interest in seeing the format fail and the best way to accomplish this is to deny the format advertisement dollars.
Mike mentions this site quite often. I wondered why he made such a big deal about it, and now I see why he did. Why are there so many negative remarks about conservatives on this site? I don't see much, if anything, negative about liberals, or liberal talk radio. Why is that?
But savage is anti-gay. The fact that he uses the word gay like it's a smear when he describes this site is all the proof you need of that.
"But savage is anti-gay. The fact that he uses the word gay like it's a smear when he describes this site is all the proof you need of that."
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. Savage is anti gay marriage, and against the gay lifestyle being mainstreamed and pushed onto the majority of the public that is not interested in it to begin with. Savage constantly states that he has no problem with 2 adults doing whatever they want with each other behind closed doors. You wouldnt know that though, because MMFA will never be fair and play and audio clip of him saying that. He simply just doesn't want the forced acceptance of this behavior to be pushed on the public, specifically children who cannot yet weigh their values and decide for themselves. You may disagree with that outlook, but that's way different that being anti-gay.
One other thing that was very telling about the biased hatred MMFA has for Savage and conservativism in general was the lack of response to the outrageous statements made by Ahmadinejad about there being no homosexuals in Iran (maybe because he kills them?). After he made this statement, the crowd at Columbia booed vigorously. This was the only statement that conjured up a large negative reation. Savage was about the only one in the media to take note of this and stated, "I tip my hat to the homosexuals, at least they realize what a threat this man is."
Savage saluting the gay community? I though he hates them. Is it any surprise MMFA did not play this clip? No, it would ruin their carefully crafted illustration of Savage being anti-gay.
Well put John.
John, if somebody's trying to push their "gay lifestyle" on you, you can always say no.
Do you feel that your posting here is forcing acceptance of your behavior?
HBL, there are forces out there that would like to FORCE awareness/agenda onto children.
Tough nuts motor. There are gay people. There have always been gay people. There always will be gay people. It's bulit into the species. You guys are such cowards. Nobody is forcing anything except the cowardly right that says it's ok for you to be yourself if you lock yourself in a room. Well, screw you chumps. You lose this argument the same way you lost the arguments against interracial marriage a generation ago. Because this is America and it aint for cowards who can't face basic realities about the human race. Don't worry, your kids will adjust just fine. They may even know enough to treat people with respect for being who they are. Takes a lot more bravery in todays world to be openly gay than to be a frightened little wingnut who can't handle seeing two men kiss each other. EEeeeek! That makes me feel all funny!
Passing Judgemnt are you? Pathetic..... My wife is FIlipino for one. I have gay friends as well idiot. Read my post below and you will understand what I am getting at.
What does your wife being Fillipino have to do with anything? I certainly wasn't insulting your wife. Where the heck did that come from?
Nomotor, I may be an idiot, but you're the one who was trotting out the 'forced awareness' line. As it pertains the the homosexual debate, I stand by what I said. People can tell their children that there is something wrong with homosexuality if they think that's good for them. But we as a society can also tell them that you can't discriminate against people for being gay because this is American. What we do is strive towards the ideals that were written into the Constitution.
"All men are created equal," was penned by slave owners. We've been fighting our way towards those words for two hundred years. Some people, millios of people in this country are homosexual. Millions of the next generation of Americans will be homosexual. Recognizing this, what necessity can the government show to deny them their right to the pursuit of happiness and the equality of being able to marry the adult partner of their choice?
We actually have a codified right to pursue happiness. They thought to put that into the basic rule book from the start because they knew that saying rights are inalienable wasn't really enough to protect people from the tyranny of the majority all the time. If we believe in the idea that is America, we have an obligation to continue to recognize what that means for our fellow citizens.
Were they the ones who were always grabbing your package and attempting to molest you?
Oh no not the some of my best friends are... argument. What a joke you are. I have a houseplant here smarter than you and its PLASTIC
Forced awareness? Sounds like pretty tough work without a willing subject. Then it's called "learning".
I've asked before, and never had an answer,but can somebody explain the "forcing of an agenda" on others?
Maybe he means like in school with a captive audience.
Can I just say "no" when the gay mafia, with the help of activist judges, makes it a hate crime to denounce the homosexual lifestyle, like my church community does? Just saying "no" might get me into a heap of trouble in the near future.
How is it a hate crime to denounce homosexuality? Umm, it isn't. Perpetrating violence on someone because of who they are (gay, black, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, etc etc.) is a hate crime, please learn distinctions.
Apparently, one of John 123445's biggest fears is that the government is trying to prevent him from going to church with a bunch of other closet cases and talking about how much they hate gay people.
Man, I wish I had that much free time.
No, how about you learn about current events.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57872
Nice tabloid. Do you have an actual real news source instead of WND? Their agenda is the following:
Gays are bad, and so are Mexicans, and kill all Muslims.
Did I get it about correct?
You forgot, "White males good."
I had to go back and read that "article" again to get a good laugh. Talk about twisting things around about what the hate crimes legislation was about. They tried to turn it into a story about prosecuting military men and women if they talk bad about homosexuals, which is not what the amendment did at all. What it did was to enact laws saying that if a crime was committed against a person because of their sexual orientation or gender, then that is a hate crime. It says nothing about "talking bad" about people.
You should really get your information from somewhere else. You know, like somewhere that actually tells the truth about things that happen, not something from the land of fibbers and liars.
Mag, obviously you read past the paraphrasing by the "pro-family" group to see that the incident the legislation is based on is the murder of a gay sailor by his comrade.
I guess anybody who won't let me murder them is forcing their lifestyle on me.Nice job, John 9878888. Keep reading worldnetdaily, and try to get back on your meds.
And what I think is completely insane about the WND story is that they frame this legislation as being ABOUT the military, because it was attached to a spending bill for the military. They did use an example of the Navy murder, yes. But what the article said, and what they quoted people on was nothing about the legislation at all. They are trying to say that this law would stifle people from talking bad about homosexuals, and that this somehow hurts the military. If you read the article though, buried in there, they talk, for about a half sentence, about what the legislation was actually about. Putting in place protections for people who have crimes committed against them because of their sexual orientation, and or gender.
Maybe it should be the World Nut Daily?
I understand you hate everything conservative, and consider it to be all lies and hate, but that doesnt make the information invalid. WND reported on the fact that this legislation is going to be voted on. It is the opinion of WND and its readers that this legislation, if passed, could be used in a manner to punish the condemnation of homosexuals by religious groups, under the guise of that condemnation being "hateful" towards gays. That doesnt seem like such a stretch to me when the words "natural family, marriage, and union of a man and a woman" could be punished as "hate speech" depending on what the supreme court rules. See the case "Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks"
Although I'm sure you personally are not for punishing the condemnation of homosexuality, ignoring the fact that many people do isn't going to make it go away.
"It is the opinion of WND and its readers that this legislation, if passed, could be used in a manner to punish the condemnation of homosexuals by religious groups, under the guise of that condemnation being "hateful" towards gays."
This doesn't make sense. Right now we have Hate Crime legislation in place which covers race and, as far as I know, no one in the KKK has been punished for their rhetoric.
And condemnation is not against the law so the Hate Crime legislation doesn't come into play.
"Although I'm sure you personally are not for punishing the condemnation of homosexuality, ignoring the fact that many people do isn't going to make it go away."
You're confused about what the law does. If you commit a crime (i.e., murder, assault, etc.) and it is determined that the crime was motivated by hate for a group listed under the Hate Crimes law then that crime suddenly becomes a super-crime (i.e., super-murder, super-assault, etc.).
Way to ignore the supreme court case I referenced where words and beliefs are being tried for hate.
What Supreme Court case?
Sorry WorldNutDaily isnt a credible source about what DAY it is.
Savage is anti gay marriage, and against the gay lifestyle being mainstreamed and pushed onto the majority of the public that is not interested in it to begin with. Savage constantly states that he has no problem with 2 adults doing whatever they want with each other behind closed doors
It appears that Savage is OK with gays as long as they stay in the closet. I wonder what part of equality did he miss?
So... what you're saying is Savage thinks it's okay to be gay and have homosexual relationships, but if you want to push the gay lifestyle (whatever that is... What is an example of gay lifestyle?) and same-sex marriage, then you're just wrong?
Is that right?
Would removing the term, "Mom, Dad, Mother, Father" from our kids school books ok with you? Closing ROTC centers on our kids because of the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy? That ok?
Nice, you hit a home run with that one, norotor.
Yeah. Nice hit, but we're playing tennis here.
Some dog across the street's gonna have a great new fuzzy toy to play with. Doesn't do US much good, but "Yay" for the dog...
Home run? I wonder what a strikeout looks like in your world. Just randomlyslapping the keyboard must be an infield hit, at least.
I've always heard that if you put a dozen monkeys in a room with a typwriters you'll eventually get a masterpiece. I've seen two go at it now, wonder how long it will take?
You guys sound like that ventriloquist Jeff and his puppet Walter. LOL
Is this a new con tactic? Come to a website in tandem and give each other high fives for inane posts as IF they made actual sense? Here is a clue. WE CAN READ.
Aw, Solon, yer just steamed about that "home run". ;0)
Heres a clue, all of you libs on here compliment each other constantly.
Now you're just being stupid and trying to insult my intelligence.
If you want to play that game then...
I'll see your "let's remove Mom, Dad, Mother, Father" from the school books, with let's ban Harry Potter books and raise you Free Speech Zones.
And removing ROTC because of don't ask don't tell policy, I'll raise you Donald Rumfeld.
We can go back and forth all day with this. I don't care for anyone cramming their lifestyle down my throat. You're talking about one or two isolated cases. Last I checked, none of the schools in my state were pushing for the removing of parental names in books, and none of the colleges in my state have put a hold on ROTC because of the said policy.
Now, if you would have said "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" as an example, I may have accepted that.
You do not live in Scumafornia. (California). It shows by your lack of intel.
So that's happened how many times in California? Not many. Why? If you take ROTC out of a federal land grant college/university, do you know what happens? You lose TONS of federal funding. Not too many schools doing that. Private schools, as far as I know, can remove whatever programs they want, because, get this, they're private and not funded through the public. What schools in CA have removed ROTC? Name one state university that has and I bet you can't name one. I don't know for sure, but I don't public universities would ban rotc for the lose of funding that would happen.
As for accepting or acceptace of the so-called homosexual lifestyle. You realize that for the most part, there are lots of gay people who just live, you know, a normal life, except that at night sometimes, they go home and be with someone they love who is of the same sex. Get over it. They're all around you. There is no homosexual agenda. The gay people just want to live life, and be left alone and have the same rights as you, or I.
"The gay people just want to live life, and be left alone and have the same rights as you, or I."
I do not feel like arguing my feelings on so called "equal rights for gays", but if they feel they currently do not have the same rights as you or I, that means they are fighting to get those rights. That is an agenda. They are working to get something they want. How much more obvious does an agenda need to be?
Yes they do have an agenda to be treated like human beings and full American citizens.
Your agenda is to make sure they are treated as sub-humans only desrving of a subset of the rights afforded American citizens.
America is so great, every gets to have an agenda.
So anybody who already has those rights is forcing their agenda on me?
OF COURSE they dont have the same rights. They can be FIRED for being gay, they can be evicted from their rentals. Rent a clue
Fired for being gay? Evicted? What are you talking about? Show me the town where this is lawful!
Now, maybe you meant to say that hateful people may fire or evict a gay just for being gay, but that certainly would be an illegal act in every place I know of.
Fired for being gay? Evicted? What are you talking about? Show me the town where this is lawful! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No problem [link to www.pageoneq.com] A couple of months later, the wife of a fellow reporter told her closeted co-worker that I was fired for being gay. I sought legal counsel to remedy this egregious example of discrimination. To my surprise, I was told that there was nothing I could do because in Maine, it is perfectly legal to end someone's career simply because he or she is gay. [link to www.sovo.com] I was extremely surprised,” Shahar said this week, recalling the day in 1991 that she was summoned into her new boss’s office and received the news that she was being fired for being a lesbian. “Obviously the law doesn’t provide protection for gay men and lesbians in the workplace, but despite that I was brought up to believe you would be evaluated as an employee based on the value of your work,” said Shahar, who now works in the law department of the city of Atlanta We all remember about the military linguists being fired for being gay [link to www.lgbtdemocrats.org] In Nebraska, it is legal to evict an individual from housing for being gay or lesbian. In Nebraska, it is legal to fire someone for being gay or lesbian The sad truth is that while there is more protection for housing only about 10 states have civil rights protection for being gay and every worker not under a union contract is an AT WILL worker and can be legally fired for ANY reason not under civil rights protection and that includes being gay. You have many misconceptions Now, maybe you meant to say that hateful people may fire or evict a gay just for being gay, but that certainly would be an illegal act in every place I know of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then apparently you only KNOW of about 10 states in the country
Maine? Nerbraska? I did not know this,I'll keep it in mind though when I finally have the opportunity to move out of my far left hell hole of a city and state. This makes me interested in performing a little study though. I bet if we studied workplace morale in these two states, where there must be significantly less gays in the workplace, I could almost guarantee the morale and output are higher. Kind of like when the FBI had a brain and would not higher gays because they are of weak character. So smart.
Pleez do not moov to Ner-braska. Stay in yer far left place and listen and learn.
WOW. You really are deseprate to show just how ignorant and bigoted you are. Your mother should be ashamed. I am ashamed just being the same SPECIES you are.
Your speech teacher should be ashamed. It must suck to have to YELL every other word that comes out of your mouth, and still not get a point across. Also, Please tell me what is bigoted about defining an "agenda"?
It must suck to be as STUPID as you. There is no inflection of voice or facial expression on a message board, do you REALLY not get the concept of accentuating certain words in compensation? I did make my point. Your definition of the agenda as you are calling it, I would call it living their lives, as perverted and sadomasochistic pretty much defines bigoted.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Gay Mafia?? Is he calling David Brock the Don of the Gay Mafia, and if so, do they have a secret indoctrination??? Like maybe a tupperware party with miracle Japanese knives, and a demand for fashion sense???
How many stereotypes can you use to discribe a Gay Mafia!! This is fun, would Larry Craig be a member, or is he in deep cover, destined to be in the mens room forever??
What do you think Savage thinks of gay people??? Do you think maybe he himself is gay, maybe one of those self loathers hiding in the rest stop mens rooms at night, and railing against the Gay Mafia during the day!!
Wow, this double life thing must be really exciting, huh?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I hope Larry Craig comes out of the closet. Then you would have to accept him and his bathroom practices as "normal" behavior. If you didnt, you would be anti-gay.
If Craig comes out of the closet, his behavior would not be normal at all. There you guys go, trying to equate people who might have some sort of perversion, and also happen to be gay with sexual predators. If we worked on that assertion, then we're all rapists, because most of the rapes carried out in the US are heterosexual (male on female) rapes.
Thank you for jumping on that one Mag. That has to be one of the most disgusting arguments these guys are making. They want to force gay people in the closet and then condemn them for being so illicit about sex. When they say, we'd like to get married and have respectable families they say, get back in yer closet!
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
john174541842 / Friday September 28, 2007 02:27:42 PM EST
I'm to understand that tolerance, and support for equal rights to All Americans no matter their race, creed, religion, or sexual preference is the same as endorsing public sex acts in public places like an airport mens room?!
If I had a son whom witnessed this while I was at the airport, I would drag the cops to the mens room myself. If there were no cops, I would make it clear to every person in the airport whom could hear what these men were doing in the public mens room!
If you have no substance to rely on in a argument, I suppose a strawman argument is all you have, soooooooo sadddddddddddd!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"If I had a son whom witnessed this while I was at the airport, I would drag the cops to the mens room myself. If there were no cops, I would make it clear to every person in the airport whom could hear what these men were doing in the public mens room!"
HAHAHAHA. Oh, this is great. If you did what you just stated, MMFA would attack you for being a homophobe, ala Tucker Carlson.
If this were a normal citizen, not a government offical (republican), MMFA would be attacking any media outlets that reported the incident under the guise of speaking out against police entrapment. The ACLU would have his back for his "civil rights" being trampled upon.
You are delusional my friend. The ACLU would not support anyone's civil rights for trying to hook up in a bathroom. Nope. I don't know where that is in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. MMFA would not harangue anyone for getting busted on this and decry how they were treated unfairly in the media if someone got busted in a men's bathroom trying to solicit sex. Guess what? It's illegal and we all know it. It's called a lewd act, and nobody here is defending that. The ACLU would not defend that, again you with the strawman. You have no argument.
Strawman my behind. The ACLU can and IS defending this behavior. Matter of fact the are defending the man in question here, Larry Craig (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/09/18/aclu_defends_craig.html). Funny how MMFA did not report on this, huh? And the ACLU defends worse than this....try their own President of the Virginia, and his child porn problem (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1896370/posts).
I do have an argument, and you need to get your news and ideas from sources other than this smear sheet.
Magnolia is right is that conduct is against the law. And, as with many other things that are against the law, it is the job of the ACLU to contest those laws whenever there is uncertainty or ambiguity. I recently paid my dues, so I have already supported this action, although it was not specifically why I paid, nor even something I envisioned for the payment. (Something to do with breaking Bungle's illegal surveillance, which my Senate promptly made retroactively legal.)
"Magnolia is right: that conduct is against the law"
First, your second link does not provide any proof, or anything at all that the ACLU defends child porn. A former President of the Virginia chapter got busted for child porn, and the ACLU did not defend him from that.
For the Craig case, it does appear that they have filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf, and it does appear that they have a potential case on the point on which they filed (soliciting someone to have sex in a private place). Craig didn't have sex in a crowded men's bathroom, and maybe if the guy he hit on wanted to go back to his place and get it on wouldn't that be the same as you or I hitting on a woman in a bar and maybe getting lucky later on down the road?
Your first link doesnt work and I will not go to the freerepublicansewer for ANY reason. Just in case abject stupidity is contagious.
They were right though it IS a strawman argument. The post specified PUBLIC SEX not solicitation. The ACLUs defense of Craig was that he could only be arrested for public sex IF THE SEX ACT WAS GOING TO OCCUR IN PUBLIC so NO the ACLU is NOT supporting public sex which was the POINT of the post you attacked. Tell me do you EVER know what you are talking about?
http://www.todays6.com/global/story.asp?s=7088831&ClientType=Printable
The ACLU says, "Sex is a constitutionally protected public interest." The group also says people can only be arrested for soliciting sex, only if the sex was going to occur in public.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!
John you need a bigger number next to your name, or maybe a double digit IQ.
If you have no substance to rely on in a argument, I suppose a strawman argument is all you have, soooooooo sadddddddddddd!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
See above you regressive.
We did. YOU were wrong as usual
See my other post above, you ultra-regressive. Then actually look at what is at stake in the "Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks" case, and try telling me that the homosexual rights movement is simply trying to create a "hate crime" law that only applies to actions and not words or stated beliefs.
Additionally, I would like to remind you about the persecution the Irish suffered when they immigrated in mass to America. They (and other ethnic groups) were treated FAR worse than the homosexuals of today. Answer this: How is it that the Irish and other groups eventually became respected and made such a successful living for themselves without the existence of so-called "hate crime" laws?
The Hicks lawsuit is about being fired not sent to jail. Companies already CAN make their own rules about how to comport yourself or be fired. If you dont believe it call your boss a knuckedragging, moronic troglydite then try standing on your free speech righst to NOT be fired. You are reaching.
As for the Irish I just read a very good book on that called how the Irish Became White, by Noel Ignatiev. At any rate comparing one minority group to another in this context is comparing apples and oranges. You THOUGHT that it was illegal to fire people for being gay. I dont know WHY you would think such a thing its absolutly NOT illegal in most states but you DID. Perhaps you think it not fair. Why would you not support the RIGHT of gay people to not be fired for being gay? Oh yeah you started this post by calling me a name you ignoramus.
Were the Irish treated FAR WORSE than Matthew Shephard?
Yeah sure, all hetero sex is "normal". Just look at the internet, it's all gay porn, no deviant, disgusting, sick and twisted hetero sex happening at all.
And "normal" heteros stay married forever. Look at Rush, married and true to one wife and he loves his kids and... Oops never mind on that one.
So just to clarify he wasn't calling Media Matters "gay" in a derogatory way implying being gay was a ugly, horrible and deviant thing he was calling Media Matters pro Gay Marriage, which is actually the derogatory, ugly, horrible and deviant thing to do. Gay = good. Gay Marriage = bad.
And as far as Gays hating Iranians thats really, really good.
Good to know.
"You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong. Savage is anti gay marriage, and against the gay lifestyle being mainstreamed and pushed onto the majority of the public that is not interested in it to begin with."
If you're not interested in it, turn your head.
"One other thing that was very telling about the biased hatred MMFA has for Savage and conservativism in general was the lack of response to the outrageous statements made by Ahmadinejad about there being no homosexuals in Iran (maybe because he kills them?). "
I agree. Ahmadinejad's comments were clearly conservative misinformation.
What I find funny about the rhetoric surrounding the Iranian President's statement about there being no gay people in Iran, is that the people who appear to be the most upset that he said this are the conservative talking heads / talk show hosts. They want to know, just like our friend on this board, why we weren't decrying his statement that there aren't gay people in Iran, and why aren't we up in arms about Iran killing gay people? Well, first of all, last I checked, we don't live in Iran. And also last time I checked, there were tons of protesters outside and inside of the "speech" that he gave at Columbia. All of a sudden, the conservatives are concerned about gay folks? Yeah, I'm not buying that. Why protest American policies and American talking heads when you can protest the leader of a country you don't live in right? I'm not saying that Iran doesn't have human rights issues, but first, I'd like to clean our own country up. And if you think that we don't have human rights issues in our own country, take a better and deeper look. We condemn Iran for executing people, but don't we do the same thing? ANd don't we execute more than they do? It's just that ours aren't done in a public square. And allegedly our executions are more "humane" whatever that means.
So now, conservative talk show hosts are all about gay rights as long as it doesn't involve the US right? Is that what I'm getting from this whole stupid line of reasoning as to why people weren't protesting the Iranian president because of his stance on homosexuals?
Take a good look you in the right wing of the Christian nation who want the US to be a Christian nation with Christian laws. Iran, theocratic society, and from what I've seen, I'm pretty sure not too many folks from the US would want to live there. Do you want to live under Christian theocratic rule in the US? No sir, not me.
I really don't know why conservatives are focusing on and denouncing those particular comments. I thought the reaction from the right would be envy. Maybe they're trying to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad.
They don't kill gay people in Iran.
[link to mediamatters.org] If you read the article, some politicians in Iran have called for extreme punishment of homosexuality but they don't actually have it in law that that is what happens to gays and lesbians.
They don't kill gays in Iran. [link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
If you read the article, they don't actually kill gays in Iran, although some of their politicians have called for extreme punishment of it, and it is a country that doesn't accept gays and lesbians.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is clearly biased. Gays don't push their lifestyles onto others unless you think them demanding equal rights is pushing. Heaven forbid that your everyday working stiff might be exposed to that. And like I said, he uses the word like a smear. You don't do that unless you have a low opinion of what the word describes. Savage uses it to smear, so say what you want, he is obviously anti-gay.
Savage is anti gay marriage, and against the gay lifestyle being mainstreamed and pushed onto the majority of the public that is not interested in it to begin with. Savage constantly states that he has no problem with 2 adults doing whatever they want with each other behind closed doors.
What is the “gay life style”? If the mainstreamed public is sooo not interested in the so called "gay life style” then why bother opening you mouth? Usually if you’re not interested in something you ignore it. Why won’t Savage ignore the so called “gay life style”? With the amount of interest Savage pays to the so called “gay life style” one would think he’s pretty damn interested. By the way what is that so called “gay life style”.
He simply just doesn't want the forced acceptance of this behavior to be pushed on the public, specifically children who cannot yet weigh their values and decide for themselves.
“Forced acceptance of this behavior“? Why would you have “forced acceptance” when the public is not interested in it to begin with? Last time I check children don’t get to decide anything for themselves it's their parents who were responsible for shaping their values.
Savage was about the only one in the media to take note of this and stated, "I tip my hat to the homosexuals, at least they realize what a threat this man is."
LOL, Savage has found someone he hates more than gay people? And for this you think gay people should thank Savage? LOL
I would assume that gay people want the same things each and every one of us want. Good health, great career, nice home, friends and someone they love to share it with. Why would that be a problem?
It seems not to long ago states banned interracial marriage and even interracial sex. What would be upsetting about a white man and a black woman having sex or getting married? They love each other right? We don’t want anyone getting a front row seat in our bedroom right? What would be upsetting about two men/women getting married? They love each other right? I’d bet they wouldn’t want anyone getting a front row seat in their bedroom either.
If, as you say the majority of the public is not interested in what gay people do, might I suggest you mind your own business and leave gay people alone. If the issue is the children, might I suggest you do what responsible parents are suppose to do, teach your children that love like people comes in all shapes, sizes, colors and sex. It’s really not that difficult to answer the question of people being gay. You have at one time answered your child's question about race, right? Be a grown up, live your life and allow others to live theirs. After all you're really not interested in what gay people do, right?
"If, as you say the majority of the public is not interested in what gay people do, might I suggest you mind your own business and leave gay people alone."
Sorry, but conservatives will not sit around and ignore something just because it does not interest us. Especially when that something is fighting to redefine marriage and destroy the pro-creative family. If you dont see it that way, fine, i'm not going to argue it. I'm just telling you why we will not and cannot shut our mouths about this. We see the family crumbling around us, and we won't let it be defiled with behavior that we see as sinful, unnatural, and a slap in the face to a decent society. And before you start calling me every typical name in the book, remind yourself that the only reason you are walking on this earth is because 2 normal heterosexuals created you, not a married gay couple.
Perhaps you can explain the mechanism whereby two people you dont even know doing something that effects you in NO WAY, that you wouldnt even know about unless you look for it, could destroy your family? You do know that is not only dumb its the same rhetoric that was used to oppose ending miscegenation laws dont you? HOW would gays being married destroy your family. Its impossible it would only be doing something you dont approve of and NOTHING MORE. Are you really afraid if gays get married you will eventually succomb to the lure of leaving your wife and marrying the guy down the street? It ludicrous
"We see the family crumbling around us, and we won't let it be defiled with behavior that we see as sinful, unnatural, and a slap in the face to a decent society." ???
A conservative whining about family values again, as the conservative leadership keeps getting caught in gay sex stings and dumps their wives on their death beds and frequents prostitutes and.... remember that J Edgar Hoover, defender of traditional American values? The drag queen? Or Karl Rove, mastermind of the Bush presidency, whose nickname in the DC gay underground is Miss Piggy? The only things you conservatives excel in is impoverishing your fellow citizens, getting innocent foreigners killed and spewing non-stop HYPOCRISY. Only people I see who enjoy slapping society in the face are right-wingers, they seem to enjoy making people suffer (sadism is a sexual disorder).
You seem to have a problem with homosexuals. Hiding something and trying to compensate with an exaggerated show of disgust?
This screams nothing but "closet-case" to me. He continues to refer to Media Matters as a "gay, racist website" because of David Brock. Savage has some repressed, unresolved issues he needs to deal with, much like Bill O'Reilly and his condescension of black people.
Who is off their meds? Evil evil gay fascists? What can you even say about this guy? He's used up all the hyperbole in the world so it's probably best just to let his words speak for themselves.
Clearly, just as Democrats with the MoveOn ad, Congressional Republicans should have to defend every word Savage says. Can we get a resolution? Let's turn the legislature into a farce of a farce.
I put another call to Cornyn asking for him to sponsor that resolution. I think I'm on an FBI watch list now.
Just don't let them suspect you value the Constitution. That's a sign of a terrorist, according to the FBI.
That FBI must have a lot of watchers. They should just save time and money and watch the loyal Bush supporters instead. There are far fewer of them after all and that way they can just assume everyone they're NOT watching is out to get em.
I hadn't heard Savage chime in on this issue yet, I was curious because he HATES O'Reilly. Looks like he is using this to insult both parties. He really is too intelligent for mmfa to bring down though, bill oreilly on the other hand...
You know that because he told you that, don't you?
A self-fullfilling prophet, see...
No one can deny the guy is brilliant. How many books have you written? How many and what kind of degrees do you have? How many listeners do you have? I understand you dislike the character. To belittle his intelligence shows your lack of. Mine on the other hand, go for it. I am a high school drop out who can barely spell.
THE GUY IS NOT BRILLIANT, he is a crazy bigoted homophobe and when he retires that will be a blessed day for America. Praise the Lord I'm getting happy just thinking about it.
It hurts that he is, does it not?
Learn what "pseudo-intellect" is, if you're into pain. You heart will break when you're able to finally recognize that your educated and published genius has been feeding it to you non-stop.
I do not think so friend. Noam Chomsky is my next favorite person to listen to. Many on the right call him a Comi. I disagree.
I was unaware that Noam had a show.
It's not syndicated, is it? I wouldn't mind listening to it myself, but can't find him on the radio around here.
You can go to Limewire or such and download videos.
Well you are right about that Chomsky is far to radical to be a mere communist. He is an anarchosyndicalist. I dont doubt Savage is fairly intelligent, though he is a failed academic. anymore than I doubt he is insane.
English please, I don't even know what you're trying to say.
Lynn, I must add a Hallelujah! and Amen!
Just because you have a coupe of pamphlets out and published, does not make you a "genius". Just because you write a book about Liberalism being a mental disorder doesn't make you a mental giant (it's easy to spew your rhteoric onto a page and have your "fans" lap it up). Just because you have a PhD, also doesn't make one smart. It means you were able to stay sheltered away at a University for quite a long time and write a paper. Listening to Savage spew forth his hatred and everything else, just makes him ignorant.
Magnolia: It sounds like you're questioning Savage's brilliance, just after you were explicitly told no one could do that. Aren't you paying attention? Someone having a degree, writing a book or having radio listeners does not a genius make (unless you have set the bar for brilliance really low). I grew up in academia and there are some pretty clueless PHDs running around. As for writing books? Hell, I've written more books than Savage (admittedly they were rinky-dink little RPGs), but I have no conceit that this confers genius status on me.
some pretty clueless PHDs running around===========================I've worked with my share and I concluded they had the time, money, and a very generous board to hear their dissertations.
Hey Noro, if proof of intelligence is all you need, I've got 8 patents now for computer related inventions. How does that stack up against Savage or you, for that matter?
I say he is smart because rush bimbo and sean vanity have both made their fame off of being republican robots, walking lockstep with the party line. it is much easier to build up fans who are LOOKING for someone to feed them tripe. savage actually built his fanbase BECAUSE of his independent and witty repartee. he hates bush and still commands a strong listenership. why do you think he hates hannity for passing him in the ratings? hannity did it by copying rush.
But, he only started "hating" Bush about, oh, less than a year ago. Before that, the times that I have heard his tripe, he was rah rah go George Go!
Savage totes the party line quite often, and then generally steps wayyyy over the line into the realm of the KKK and other serious hate groups.
Ge bagged on Big O the other day.
"Ge"
Obviously a sign of the level of intelligence of WeinerSavage's fans.
oh, such a mean guy he is........
I don't know about anyone else, but I thought Mikey didn't love us anymore. But finally, his little pet name for us, VERMIN, is spewing from his lovely mouth. Thanks Mike, I love you too. I thought it was over but now I am filled with glee and will write to you daily. Read your emails and please respond.
Imagine this "evil" website posting their own words against them. So if MMFA is evil, in turn, Savage et all, who are posted on here, are evil also, since the only reason this site has content is because they keep saying these incredibly stupid, and misinformative things on their shows. If you guys would, you know, tell the truth, and stop attacking everyone who is not white anglo saxon then MMFA could close up shop. I won't hold my breath though.
"If you guys would, you know, tell the truth, and stop attacking everyone who is not white anglo saxon then MMFA could close up shop."
I'll ask you this: Is Congressman Murtha not a white anglo saxon? Savage viciously attacks him for taking the word of the terrorists, and accusing our marines of cold blooded murder. With time comes truth, and to the dismay of the military-haters, the charges against the marines are being dropped because the whole haditha massacre is a hoax. Need proof? http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38206
Oh, and what about George W. Bush? Is he not a white anglo saxon? Savage attacks him regularaly for being a lame duck president and the worst commander in chief America has ever had.
What about Senator Dick Durbin and his "DREAM" act? Is he not a white anglo saxon?
Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Sean Penn, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Chertoff, Rudy Guliani, Fred Thompson, and John McCain. All white anglo saxons.
Matter of fact the only non-whites that Savage attacks are terrorists, and the fraudulant "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton, who are well deserving of critisism. So can MMFA shut down now?
Most people on this blog only get what they read HERE about Savage.
True, and I should have stated the most obvious...BILL O! A white anglo saxon, who happens to be an object of Savage's critisism in this thread.
If you know something about O'Reillys' ancestry other than it being Irish, do let us in on it---I'm sure many would be relieved. The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes which invaded the Celtic island of 'Britton' over a thousand years ago. And there are many other White Caucasions groups which have come to this country in signifigant numbers which are also not Anlo-Saxon (or Germanic), the various "Slavic' peoples for example.
Way to pick that apart like a fool. If we followed your analysis, that means Savage attacks himself since his does not fit your textbook definition of anglo-saxon.
You know what magnolialover meant, dont act like you didnt.
You don't know and neither do I what another anonymous poster meant for sure. On a message board therefore precise use of language is at a premium. In this case there are large numbers of people in this country who are mostly Anglo-Saxon and value it highly because it connects them back to most of the early arrivals here. This gives status and so is important. It wouldn't be important if peopl didn't identify with it over and above being White-Caucasion.
The context of the statement was very clear, the attack of non-white people that dont look like Savage. Don't try to get fancy, there is nobody to impress here.
i DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY SAID THAT wEINER DOESN'T CRITICIZE WASPS. aND, YES I HAVE MY CAPSLOCK ON, AND I DON'T CARE !!!!!!!!
Picking on the insects now?
Come on now, Beach. It's Friday and all, but let's not go nuts. Have a little self-restraint, you crazy goose.
I can understand why the only way some people can have fun is overdoing it with the caps. I grew up in a household with a capaholic parent. That could explain all those parties in college where I'd wake up the next morning not remembering if I capitalized "God" or not. I remember wandering the streets searching for k.d. lang, looking to pop a cap in her name. Despite it all, I managed to recover and find my way through life, but it still hurts to think about it.
All I'm saying is it might be wise to remember: caps in moderation.
You mad fool you. Going for the gusto again, enjoying yourself. Its so sad. After I stop laughing, I'll shed a tear.
Oops' gotta UUrp, first.
Happy motoring.
And you know that how, genius?
Alimentery, osmosis though the glass (hic).
Oh yeah, I forgot that he thinks everyone that disagrees with his misogynistic, bigotted, and hated filled world view is an enemy. I stand corrected on who he attacks. Regardless of that mistake, most of what he says is, well, wrong. He attacks Murtha because Murtha wants to make Marines accountable for their actions. What's so wrong with that? If they're not guilty, they'll go free right?
Why does he attack homosexuals? What have they ever done to him, aside from probably turn him down at the bars I'm sure that he frequents in San Francisco. For a man that harps and yells about how evil a city San Francisco is, and how those homosexual mafia members are going to bring down America, he seems to have a very easy time living in the midst of all of that "icky" homosexuality and all. Explain that one?
He attacks W, only in the last bunch of months. Not too long ago, he was gung ho for George W. Bush, he didn't start attacking him until Bush proposed comprehensive immigration changes. And then that brings us to the Mexicans that he once again fears are ravaging the country, and taking over.
Savage, if you even listen to him for a few minutes, is a serious lunatic. He's off kilter, and wrong about, well, everything.
He hates gay people. He hates Mexicans. He hates women. He hates liberals. Did I miss a group that he rails against?
"He hates gay people." - You must have missed Tuesday's broadcast when he saluted the homosexual community for standing up to Ahmadinejad and booing him for his crimes against gays in Iran. Matter of fact, Savage constantly denounces the way that most muslim-run countries trample over the rights of their gay citizens. I guess that means he hates them. Only in the mind of a regressive progressive. Do you want to know what hate is? This is pure hatred spewed by the homosexual community towards Savage, and every Christian on the face of the earth: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070928c.html
"He hates Mexicans." When you mistake defending America's borders from those crossing it illegally with hatred for a people, you are the one with a problem, not Savage.
"He hates women." Oh, so that must be why he constantly denounces the throwback practices of how muslim men treat their women in the middle east. Perhaps it is why he attacks every extremist muslim who calls the show and tries to defend this sick treatment of women.
"He hates liberals." He hates progressive politics. He constantly asks "where are the true liberals who used to say that I may disagree with you but I would defend to the death your right to say it." No, Savage does not hate liberals, he hates what their morally bankrupt policies and beliefs have done to this country.
No, Savage does not hate liberals, he hates what their morally bankrupt policies and beliefs have done to this country.- john174541842
I hate to keep picking on you, but there are just so many unanswered questions.What have those liberal policies and beliefs done to this country?
DID YOU LOOK AT THE LINK ABOVE? The liberal celebration of acceptance of the homosexual, perverted, sadomasochistic culture has resulted in the unadulterated MOCKING of christianity. Matter of fact, taxpayer money is used to fund parts of this festival of sadomasochistic sex. Thats what liberalism has done.
If you are a christian, can you honestly tell me this does not directly mock Jesus and his Disciples, and the ceremony of communion?
At the same time, I find it hard to believe that liberal lawyers in the ACLU would do nothing if something this offensive was used to mock the Islamic faith, and put out in public as an advertisement. What do you think?
This is only one dimension of what liberalism and unlimited acceptance of people's personal practices has done to hurt America, but it is a huge one.
While I don't really celebrate homosexuality or Christianity, being neither gay nor Christian, I accept both. As strange as the customs and practices of each group may seem to me, I can't imagine wanting to deny a member of either group the rights that I enjoy.
I do have to wonder why you think you have the right to refer to gay people as "perverted". but would deny them the right to use a symbol of Christianity in an advertisement.
And besides, people have been mocking religion since long before homosexuality was as accepted as it is today.
So then besides being a moron you are also a bigot? Your rantings about some imaginary gay lifestyle are offensive and ignorant. You can link to all the rightwing sewersites you want. They dont prove anything you say. The Weinerdog is insane and his insanity seems to be rubbing off on you
"Your rantings about some imaginary gay lifestyle are offensive and ignorant."
Imaginary? Look at the advertisement, there is nothing imaginary about the rubber fist on the table, or the man in a leather dog mask on a leash. Go to the folsom street fair website and look at it if you dont like my link. Perhaps you can register to participate in some of the sadomasochistic orgies there. I hear they need someone to clean up the various body fluids that get left on the street. While your doing that, you'll have time to think about how imaginary their behavior must be.
I guess you are just so stupid its frustrating NOT being able to make a rational argument. There is plenty of perversion in the heterosexual community to REALLY sick stuff INCLUDING sadomasochism. That doesnt make the heterosexual 'lifestyle' perverted and SM. Most people with NORMAL IQs understand this simple concept it would be easy enough for me to find hetero stuff that would turn your stomach would that be about THEM or the ENTIRE heterosexual community, my goodness you are ignorant. When you finish lapping up the sewage the Weinerdog spews I guess it makes you Weinerdog worshippers either incredibly ignorant or totally insane. You are an object of pity. For your ignorance, for your bigotry and your general worthlessness as a bipedal carbon based lifeform I cannot force myself to admit we are the same species. No Homo Sapien could possibly be as ignorant as you.
He stood up once and saluted them with the "well, at least they got it this time" condescending attitude and you think that proves something? Gee, I wish you had the same low standard for everyone else.
I see more moral bankrupcy in your posts than you will EVER find in liberal policies. You arent very bright, that is ok, you are a hatefilled idiot. That is ok to. I just wonder if being a Weinerdog worshipper makes you so dumb or if dumb people are attracted to being Weinerdog worshipers.
here's my guesses in order of mention:
This was a response to one of John123456789's comments where he mentioned all these people and said, aside from the last two, they were all Anglo-Saxons.
Forgot:
Feinstein---ethnic Jew
Hillary Clinton---generic Real aamerican
Dick durbin---Lithuanian, Irish
Another thing, Savage is very ethnity conscious. Very much so. You being a listener John, I'm surprised you're not catching his vibe better.
THis stood out to me:
"that's a conservative because they think that we're anti-gay"
C'mon Mikey! Seriously?
It is simply a mental disorder...... J/K.......
No its just this chromiun switch here. Ah you people are so supersticious.
Yes, I hope I am around to see the day when liberalism, progressivism, and socialism topples over in this country. Think about this: when was the last time you saw a progressive with a "proud to be an American" bumper sticker or t-shirt, or even just a US flag being displayed on a piece of their property? Never. All you see from these people are old weather-beaten "kerry-edwards" stickers, or hateful anti-bush messages.
Good point, you are very right.
You both mistake jingoism for patriotism.
No he isnt.
"In both theory and in practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism."...Joseph Goebbels, 1936. You liberal-haters keep excellent company, don't ya?
That is a very telling quote. Maybe it explains why in the youtube debate, hillary, the queen of American socialism, said she prefers "progressive" over liberalism. I don't think liberals even exist anymore, its jsut a blanket statement for those left of center.
You love to name and label don't you. I know without names and labels it makes it tougher to find meaning in life by finding a group to descriminate against or hate.
Listen no one said it was going to be easy.
So now Hillary is a socialist? What color is the SKY on Planet Wingnut anyway?
Hillary's a socialist? LOL! She's a corporofascist, a conservative, a right-winger! She's on YOUR side!
Well Goebbels was brilliant, evil brilliant, but brilliant.
Unfortunately Weiner is not brilliant, and actually not even evil. More like pathetic - an entertainer who has to debase himself and his listeners daily to get his daily bread.
You're right, John. Liberals are probably statistically less likely to have a Chinese-made flag on their lawn, or a cheap patriotic bumper sticker .We're too busy actually promoting and fighting for the real values that America is about.
We're generally more proud of more important things than where we happened to be born. Like, who we are.
But if "support the troops" stickers and a bunch of flags help you to be less scared of the world, and make it easier to hate people, knock yourself out.
I see plenty of liberals with flags. As for ostentatious displays, they are maudlin. I know the really dumb part of our society thinks patriotism means chanting our name mindlessly and putting rinky dink, made in China stickers on their cars. Us liberals are intelligent enough to understand it is more about assuring that each administration is held accountable for their actions and continues to uphold the values we associate WITH our country
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
solon / Saturday September 29, 2007 11:20:15 AM EST
With just a few alleles that separate us across the planet, proving we are all of the same ancestry, we have no shortage neaderthals that won't be able to distinguish themselves without racism!
I'm of Scott/Irish ancestry, yet I would not want my opinions or associations to be dictated by the narrowminded hatreds of a bunch of "kissin cousins" from the sheet headed, skin headed, air headed 2% in America!
The Irish are the Mutts of the World, our seed has been spread to every corner of the earth, so one could say where all Irish, atleast by the third pint on Saint Patty's Day!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Just remember this...freedom of sppech and democracy are all LIBERAL concepts. Conservatism is authoritarian, totalitarian, repressive and oppressive. Every freedom you have is because some LIBERAL came up with the idea. It was us liberals who won in 1776. Now it's the 21st century and you conservatives are still screaming for us to bow to a guy named George. You monarchists are the real enemy of the Republic. As for me, I stand by old Ben and the boys...down with King George!
DOD, How did you know I was left-handed. Remarkable insight. Now work on the rest of your Mind-reading act. And if you wish to include me with these other posters be aware that they are much better than this lowly prince. And PLEASE, I am VERMIN, hear me roar. And let me know when you guys find the weapons of mass destruction.
WMDS fly out my rear daily. About the only ANYONE could find in Iraq. That argument is so 5 minutes ago.
But DOD was talking 500 years from now. Lets' stay local in reality. By the way did DOD get flagged. And is that "butt" thing something personal. Don't ask, don't tell.
"That argument is so 5 minutes ago."
We're still in Iraq, so I'd say the faulty Casus belli that got us into that quagmire is still a fully relevant fact (and it's not like Republicans aren't still obsessing over Bill Clinton's pants).
"and it's not like Republicans aren't still obsessing over Bill Clinton's pants)."
As well they should. Clinton and libruls are the cause of every evil in the world, including dandruff.
Now excuse me. I have to go find a brown shirt, tell my sons I'm gay, and score some meds.
"They [Media Matters] are simply a gay, fascist website without any guts whatsoever." Michael Savage.
So where is the misinformation?
It would NOT have been misinformation if Weiner made the statement like this:
"I [Weiner] am simply a gay bashing, fascist, brainless wonder, without any guts whatsoever, who gets paid to pander to fools."
Just looking for some honesty from Weiner.
Yeah, but he DIDN't say that.
"So where is the misinformation?"
Boom-ching! Kind of funny, but false.
Gay? David Brock is gay, but the site hardly fixates narrowly on stories that deal with gays or conservative attacks thereon. This story is the only one I see MMFA headlining today that has anything to do with homosexuality.
Fascist? Only in the brain dead sense of calling people you don't like a mean, scary-sounding word. The word gets thrown around a little too easily by people on all sides of the political spectrum. Most have little idea what it means.
I will give Savage partial credit though. Media Matters is a website.
Exactly, he didnt, that is the misinformation
Gee if you are too ignorant to see it I doubt an explanation would do you any good. Go beg borrow or steal a couple of working brain cells then get back to us
There is no error in the statement that I can see. From what I've seen of this site so far the only people who are attacked are conservatives. I'm trying to find a negative article about a liberal but I can't find one. All I see is Limbaugh, O'reilly, Fox news, and Savage stories.
interesting, this guy's fixation on all things gay. did you know that michael thavage was born michael weiner? guess while he was growing up (or should I say "aging") he was either a "whiner" or a "weener." or both.
Is "Fascist" the conservative feel good word of the week or something?
Do these people even understand that fascism is by definition opposed to liberalism? I'm sure it isn't more of that famous right wing projection going on or anything.
It was Goebells who stated that one should accuse the opposition of all the things that one wished or did himself. So when the fascists accuse us liberals of every evil under the sky, while they themselves commit those evils openly, they're just following old Joe's course on totalitarian propaganda. Projection was a huge part of the nazi propaganda machine, as it still is today. We have alienated sociopaths like Wiener, who hate society and want it destroyed, screaming that we liberals "hate America", as they do all they can to ruin it themselves. Or the bs about "Islamofascism" trying to take over the world, when it's corporofascists actively engaged in invasions and occupations and talking of superpowers enjoying global hegemony. Everything they say about us is just themselves in the mirror.
By calling this a "gay, fascist, website" does Savage really mean pro gay: and fascist, as it appears to only go after conservatives? Because that's what I'm seeing here, as well as all that material about Rush on the front page.
The INSANE Wienerdog is calling someone ELSE psychotic? The man needs a rubber room and massive doses of an antipsychotic like a fish needs water. OH the irony.
As it happens Michael Savage is the pseudonym of Michael Weiner and before becoming a radio host and political pundit he was a well thought of and thoroughly liberal ethnobotanist, anthropologist, and herbalist. He wrote a well received and well thought of book on herbal medicine titled Weiner's Herbal: The Guide to Herb Medicine which, among other things, advocated medical marijuana. In the 1970s he sought out the friendship of the Beat Poets Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. He wrote extensive letters to Ginsberg and apparently had a gay crush on him that of course went unrequited. Apparently sometime in the 1980s he was hit on the head or something and was transformed into the hate spewing pig he is today.
Ferlinghetti and some of Savage's other friends from the 60s and 70s refer to him as oportunistic and always out to make a fast buck. It seems that Savage does what he does not because he truly believes what he says but because he wants to make money. In the United States the fastest route to fat bank account is to be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
How wasteful it is to lose one's mind.