Savage: "90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Michael Savage referred to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the Nobel Peace Prize, as
"socialist perverts." He continued: "Why do I call them socialist
perverts? Answer: because they are. By and large, 90 percent of the people on
the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the
latest scientific studies."
On the December 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage referred to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the five-member panel appointed by the Norwegian parliament to select an annual Nobel Peace Prize recipient, as "socialist perverts." He continued: "Why do I call them socialist perverts? Answer: because they are. By and large, 90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies."
During the same segment, Savage referred to former Vice President and recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore as "the head of the five families of deceit on the planet, Al Gore-leone." After noting that the "Midwest is plastered with ice," Savage said: "Why is that a story? I mean, if the Midwest was not plastered by ice in the winter, that would be a story. You people would say, 'Maybe there is something to do with global warming.' But the fact that we're walloped with storms in the winter doesn't deter Al Gore-leone, the head of the Gore-leone crime family, from continuing his con? I don't understand that. This is unbelievable. He's the tutto di capo tutto -- whatever, tutto ruto ruto. The tutto di capo di tutto, or whatever."
As Media Matters for America documented, Savage previously said of Gore: "[O]f all of the dictators in the past, you know the one Al Gore strikes me as [being] closest [to] is [Benito] Mussolini -- sort of a non-racist, benign demagogue using global warming in an attempt to take over the world's economy and put it in his own hands and the hands of his cronies."
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the December 12 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: "Midwest plastered with ice." Duh. It's the winter. Why is that a story? I mean, if the Midwest was not plastered by ice in the winter, that would be a story. You people would say, "Maybe there is something to do with global warming." But the fact that we're walloped with storms in the winter doesn't deter Al Gore-leone, the head of the Gore-leone crime family, from continuing his con? I don't understand that. This is unbelievable. He's the tutto di capo tutto -- whatever, tutto ruto ruto. The tutto di capo di tutto, or whatever. He's the head of the five families of deceit on the planet, Al Gore-leone.
You know, the Gore-leone crime family is now the number one crime family in the world, when you think about it. He's about to pull off the biggest scam in the history of the world. It's bigger than any bank heist, bigger than any drug deal. It's bigger than any counterfeiting scheme, and he's doing it all nice and natural with a little help from the socialist perverts in Norway, who gave him a Nobel Prize.
Why do I call them socialist perverts? Answer: because they are. By and large, 90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation, according to the latest scientific studies.
I'll be right back. Be here or be absolutely nowhere.
My god.... who employs this man and on earth listens to him!?!
Who writes his material? I mean, this stuff is priceless. He couldn't be on the level.
according to the wingnuts every snowstorm disproves global warming. antartica is the coldest place on earth, and has very little snowfall. not to mention, these same wingnuts ignore the massive melting in the arctic.
Let's all crawl into Savage's brain. Maybe we could get a touch football game going.
I wonder if there's enough room for golf?
Not enough room in his brain for golf.
To play golf you'd have to get inside his ego.
Yes, call the treatment brigade for psychotics. I actually tried to find his documented information on the net and alas, not one response hit from both of my searcvh engines. Only .some right wing nut can resort to such a disgusting comment and have the nerve to state it is documented, Not only is the guy delusional, he makes stuff up.
Its astonishing to me that somebody gave this man a microphone and paid him big money to insult the viewers sense of fairness.
Calling 90 percent of the Nobel committee members are associated with pornography with simply no evidence to downplay awarding Al Gore his just due is highschool bully tactics. When deliberate insults becomes acceptable journalism, presidents will be able to steal their office.
Only 90%?
<> Higher, Savage: make it 95%.
Geez this guy makes me laugh.
I feel kinda bad doing that cause I think he might be insane....
You THINK?
I sure hope insanity isn't contageous because apparently he has an audience of idiots who listen to him.
I'm all for 1st ammendment rights, but seriously folks, this sort of thing has to stop. I could see FCC rules not affecting this type of media when cable and satelite radio was in its infancy, a tiny portion of America had access, and the arguement was that people paid to see or hear it, so it was Ok.
Well if someone likes rape porn and are willing to pay for it, then they have to put that on TV and satellite too? It can't be much more disgusting than some of the vile things that spew from the pieholes of some of these "shock jock" pundits. When will it end? Where do we draw the line?
At the very least we should change our slander laws to be more in line with Great Britain's laws. This sort of thing wouldn't happen in England - they would get their a$$es sued off.
Well now PJ the guy could be perfectly sane but evil..or the jokes on everybody & he's been pulling our legs for years.
I guess I'd still go with insane though ;-)
It's obvious to me that he's joking here. I've used the same "according to the latest scientific studies" cliché for jokes.
It's just that Weiner also happens to have extremely bad taste, so the joke just isn't funny.
Ok I get the "according to the latest scientific studies" setup line. But it is still one sick joke. It makes "nappy headed ho" sound as benign as "little miss muffet".
The guy's a scumbag.
This man is so disgusting, where does he come up with this? 90% of the people on the Nobel Committe are into child porn? What freaken study?
"90% of the people on the Nobel Committe are into child porn? What freaken study?"
He was making a joke. OK - a bad, over-the-top, tasteless joke, but a joke nonetheless. Do you really think a listener couldn't tell that?
Malloy, Rhodes, and Seder spew equally offensive rants as well. This kind of vitriol is simply what some hosts on both sides do.
Personally, I think it's a shame no matter what side it's coming from. The ugliness on the dial these days is awful.
YES!
The first one on here to claim it was a joke. I've listened to Savage a lot, unfortunately, and this wasn't a joke, he was in full tirade mode when he made this statement.
Well, it is obvious that you don't understand conservative humor
Apparently I don't.
Sort of like the republican/conservative sense of humor during the 2004 presidential campaign was to make fun of John Kerry's purple hearts.
Yep, wicked funny that stuff. Wicked funny.
Of course, I was deciding between that link and this one
I just found [link to www.imao.us<] that site is SO FUNNY! This, for example:
http://www.imao.us/archives/009312.html
This is why I've always said that if you find out someone is a socialist, you kill him immediately. We can't let this sort of thing take root here. If socialists take over, think of how much ammo will cost. Then we'll never be able to fix things.
Man, that joke is just wickedly funny! Fortunately though, it's a right-wing site, so it's not hate. It's just a joke!
"Well, it is obvious that you don't understand conservative humor"
Yeah, like laughing about poor people. They must have great holiday tables-- can you imagine Thanksgiving at the Coulters?
How am I supposed to sleep now?
It was a subtle joke; very, very, subtle.
Thanks as usual, Mis-Info Guy, for your insightful contribution to the discussion.
How's the Franken site doing?
i used to like when he posted from the franken site. it was so easy to knock down.
A JOKE? No he was LYING. Just because YOU are a child molestor doesnt make it funny to be one. Wasnt that a hilarious joke? Ah, not it wasnt it was disgusting. The Wienerdog is both disgusting AND insane. Give the man some Haldol for goodness sake.
What joke? I'm from a part of the world where people listen to this stuff ALL DAY while they work at fairly menial tasks. These guys tell their troops what they want to hear and justify it by filling in the inconsistencies with fabricated facts -- which, I assure you, are absorbed along with the message by the listeners. IT'S NOT A JOKE. It's yelling fire in a crowded theater; not protected.
If it wasn't obvious before, the person named Savage in this article has gone stark raving mad!
He can only hope that he is insignificant enough to avoid lawsuits from the Norwegians over his ravings.
As for the ice storms we're presently experiencing here, it doesn't disprove global warming of the climate. He is totally and I mean, TOTALLY clueless.
I'm in North Carolina, and it's 80 degrees and there were birds that woke me up this morning
Hey me too! My brother just moved here from North Dakota in the spring and can't believe we've been sleeping with the windows wide open for the past week and it's the middle of December!
Anyhow, back to topic - Anyone who has done any reading on the subject knows that the effects of global climate warming are more intense fluctuations in temperatures (up and down) as well as increased frequency and intensity of storms such as tornados, cyclones/huricanes.
All of this has already started playing out and magnifying over the past decade or so, and the statistics show it. These selfish jerks just refuse to look at the data as they don't like the idea of possibly having to change their fat-cat lifestyles.
Same here, living in NC. Windows, open. All week. Just got back from a vacation in the Caribbean, and the weather has been just as nice here. Makes me wonder why I even spent all that money to go down there when I could have stayed here and received the same weather, albeit minus the white sandy beaches, and aquamarine water of course.
Wow, we've got all sorts of people from NC on here. Is there anyone else?
We could always have a MMFA NC gathering, and then we could complain about Savage to each other in person. Or just listen to 101.1 out of Greensboro every night from 7-10, if you want to really lose your mind, or want to punch the radio hoping that Savage feels it.
Haha, I didn't even know he was on around here. I've heard him on Sirius a few times just to see what he's all about, but that's crazy. I think I'm too far away though (Durham) to pick up that station.
Nope. I live in Durham as well, it's a pretty powerful station, so it does come in around our town. They do have some interesting shows on there at times. Boortz in the afternoon between 10-1, now that guy, really has no talent at all. Savage between 7-10. Their morning guys are OK for the most part, and the afternoon drivetime guy is OK some times, but has a lot of wacky conspiracy theory folks on there all the time. Aliens, UFOs, the people who think we're going to combine with Mexico and Canada and make one BIG country, you know, things like that.
So yeah, 101.1 out of Greensboro. Comes in nice and clear in Durham.
Thanks, I didn't really check to see if it did. I'm too much of an NPR nut anyway to listen to anything else. But it's interesting to know we get him here.
If any of use Yankees come to that NC reunion, please let us know what to bring as gifts...re: Shoes, False teeth, Books etc. Now that was a joke.
Signed, A Verminista
Since I'm a transplanted Yankee, I have all of that stuff you mentioned already. So I'm good to go.
foreplay in north carolina.....hey sis, you awake?
"These selfish jerks just refuse to look at the data as they don't like the idea of possibly having to change their fat-cat lifestyles."
I'm sorry that you have been brainwashed by Al Gore and his "science" that is still very much up for debate. I could link up to article after article from credible science journals about how global warming is probably not caused by humans, but i think this one single article makes it abdundantly clear that Al Gore lies when he says "the verdict is in."
Less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
We are all glad YOU have been brainwashed by extraction industry pet scientists. The VAST majority of peer reveiwed science is not on your side. Feel free to tell us about our being brainwashed about that round Earth thing. Then stick your head back in the sand.
Climate scientist can look at evidence and modify theory. Right wing attack drones will never accept anything that contradicts the playbook.
And They accuse liberals of being politically correct.
"...by extraction industry pet scientists"
NASA's take on the issue: [link to www.jpl.nasa.gov]
Let's see if you can turn the scientists at NASA into pet scientists or whatever you want to call anyone who doesn't immediately buy into liberal man made global warming.
Apparently you didn't even read the link that you posted, because this story was about how Arctic ocean circulations might not be affected by global warming. It has nothing to do with global warming at all, but it has to do with something that may have been, and may still be, changing due to global warming.
Contrary to what you think, this is not a story about how global warming is not happening.
Keep trying, you might come up with something that adheres to what your opinion is.
Global warming is not a "liberal" issue either. It's an "everyone" issue, and shouldn't have a partisan tilt to it, but this current administration, and others on the conservative side have made it so, not so called liberals.
Well this isnt a Global Warming thread is it a thread about why the Wienerdog is such an insane lying jerk. Snivel all you want there isnt any question that as much as you cherry pick data the huge majority of climate scientists disagree with you. That makes it just dumb to tell US we are brainwashed.
Well, it seems to me like you do not believe there is any legitimate opposition to the theory of man-made global warming, you think it's all "industry pet scientists." That kind of thought, especially towards science, which is supposed to be skeptical, seems like brainwashed thought.
Do you honesty believe that every opposition scientist is an "industry pet," but at the same time think that ALL the scientists on the Al Gore side of things are squeaky clean little angels?
Do you understand what peer reviewed science is?
Do you know about scientific method?
Geez, get a clue, or better yet--keep arguing that up is down, right is left, black is white, and salt is pepper.
"Do you know about the scientific method?" - Yes, it is all about forming a hypothesis, testing it and coming up with a theory after a bunch of testing. My point is that when scientists test the hypothesis of whether or not humans contribute to global warming, and their tests show that it is more natural than anthropogenic; they are waived off as industry pets, etc. Peer review? Yeah, there are hundreds of scientists from all around the world that do not buy into the "concensus" that humans are causing the warming. Matter of fact, here is an example of their combined voices: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925
Take note of the paragraph that says: "Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.”
You mean the peer-reviewed paper taken to task at Realclimate.org? Put forth by more-or-less well-known fabricators and puppets Monckton and Singer at the Bali event?
Hooray! I always love getting non-biased "facts" from wikipedia. Did you ever notice how every conservative is somehow marginalized on that site, and every liberal, socialist, whatever is praised?
But, I am not surprised at this response. I almost forgot that every skeptic of anthropogenic global warming is a fabricator, puppet, or loon; and every scientist who goes along with it is accurate, non-compromised, and squeaky clean.
i followed one of the links http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html in your canadafreepress link, and lo and behold it lead to one of the usual suspects. dr. fred singer, a recipient of both oil and tobacco money and the industry friendly views to match.
and this link points out all dr. singer's industry ties.
http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology-is-owed-dr-s-fred-singer-and-none-will-be-forthcoming
it "leads" ..... first post.
And what, o great learned one, will you do when the next climate cooling period gets ready to roll in?
Ring the alarm bells all over again?
IDIOTS!!!!
Here's the thing chief.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, thinks that the global warming that we're not experiencing is not part of a natural cycle. Here's the caveat though about it. The warming cycle we are experiencing now is being greatly enhanced and increased by the emissions that we, as humans, are putting out.
Nobody denies that we're in a warming cycle, a natural warming cycle, but it is being exacerbated by what we're producing and dumping into the atmosphere. That's what global warming is about.
I'm curious if you actually read beyond the title of the article you linked to - it's horribly misleading and completely disagrees with its content.
What the article actually says is that only about half of a certain group of papers makes a claim about Global Warming, and the vast majority of the remaining agree with Gore. Really, read it again. It says only 6% of that selected group of papers disagreed with the premise, and from that concludes that less than half of scientists agree with the premise.
So, you (and the post) say confuse # of papers with # of scientists, and then you assume that the 48% of the papers that neither agree with nor disagree with the premise should be lumped in the with disagreers.
If that's the best you've got, and you think that it makes your point abundantly clear, then you've shown that Gore is on solid footing, indeed.
You're absolutely incorrect.
As others have mentioned, the vast amount of actual peer reviewed science has shown that global warming is indeed real, and manmade emissions do contribute to the general global warming trend that we're seeing, and exacerbate the situation.
Saying 50% disagree with the scientific data is not even remotely correct.
previous posters have said that those who oppose GB are in denial, yet when John posts a reasonable comment with apparently credible links the posters avoid the substance of his argument and parrot each other attributing the opposing view to corporate influences.
There is not nor should be a consensus on GB at this point in time, it is still a young and therefore questionable theory. What "scientists" say is not the supreme word, Look at their field of study, i can bet that most actual climate scientists agree that it is questionable that Global warming is primarily caused by man made emissions. Certainly some scientists would say (and have said) that humans are contributors to global warming, but they could mean that we contribute 2% or 80%. Humans definitely have some sort of effect on the warming of the earth but i would range this effect less than 10%.
well if YOU put it at 10%, why are we even worried?! lol. There is consensus on global warming. The idea of a non-consensus has, as Al Gore suggests, been disseminated to confuse the population.
yeah look at all these global warming deniers putting together their right-wing propoganda during the clinton administration. if you ask me it's a shame that the oregon institute of science and medicine and 17,000 scientists could be bought by the oil corps.
'We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto. ... The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''The carping of an oil-industry flack? The ignorant mutterings of fringe antienvironmentalists? No. It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place. By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist, 11/05/98
Please dont tell me you hauled out that discredited petition again. The one signed by Perry Mason and a dozen or so other obvious fake names? If you cant cough up actual peer reviewed SCIENCE, and you cant, you are wasting our time.
i suppose some reference for your slander?
So then you arent even minimally informed about the rightwing trash you propigate. This was pretty well covered long ago
http://www.desmogblog.com/infamous-oregon-global-warming-petition-alive-and-well
Yesterday we came across this post on DailyKos about a University professor who recently received a package from a PO Box in La Jolla, CA, asking him to sign a petition denying global warming and condemning the Kyoto Protocol.
The package included an official looking research study titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," by Dr. Fred Seitz (a gentleman we know all too well here at DeSmogBlog).
It seems that either this Professor has not picked up his mail in a long while, or the infamous "Oregon Petition" effort has resurfaced.
Below is a quick background and some helpful links to the history of the Oregon Petition. If you've also received one of these packages, please let me know it would be great to get a hold of one.
Background on the Oregon Petition
The Oregon Petition has been used by climate change deniers as proof that there is no scientific consensus, however they fail to note the controversy surrounding the petition itself.
The Oregon Petition was initiated by an individual named Art Robinson in April 1998 under the auspices of Robinson's so-called "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine." [picture above] Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson and his Institute published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science . They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz a notorious climate change denier (and former tobacco company scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled: "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal.
The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
Oregon petition and big tobaccoIt’s interesting to note that Fred Sietz, the author of the cover letter is also the former medical advisor to RJ Reynolds medical research program. A 1989 Philip Morris memo stated that Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition. It also seems that Seitz is still “sufficiently rational” to sit as the Chair of notorious climate change denier, Fred Singer’s, Science and Environmental Policy Project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
ya, you found a website to prove your point. that's hard to do in this day and age... lets dissect some points from your arguement. your first step is, as algore says, 'to attack the messenger and ignore the message'.
The [petition] signed by Perry Mason and a dozen or so other obvious fake names? you also mentioned dr. frank burns and a spice girl...
so by mere innuendo you have succeeded to discredit (giving you the benefit of the doubt) about .014% of the list. my congratulations to you.
With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
(that former nas president was fred seitz, by the way. you know, the geriatric fellow that you seem to think is too senile to take advice from. your article didn't really make that clear.)
perhaps it looked like an article that appered in a prestigious journal because it was put together by professional scientists who, at least to appear to know what they were talking about. hardly areason to knock it.
if many scientists were duped into signing based on the pretty pictures and professional appearance, how many do you think were duped by an oscar winning movie made by a nobel-peace prize winner?
Seitz was: “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.” However, 9 years later, it seems that he was “sufficiently rational” to lead the charge on Robinson’s Oregon Petition.
hey worrierking and perlene scott, solon here seems to want to thow out any advice you might have based on your advanced years. whatever happened to the good old days where age was given repect for wisdom, instead of questioning it's ability to cogitate.
you sure got me on that spice girl thing though- way to go!
what is your opinion on the massive ice melts in the arctic that have increased markedly each summer? there does not seem to be anything in recorded history to match them. which would seem to leave the only variable not present before, the massive amounts of man made pollution.
PERRY S. MASON, PH.D. Professor, Math and Physical SciencesB. S., Harding College, 1959M.A., Texas Tech Univeristy, 1997Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Chemistry, 1963.
is this that dirty faker? how dare he share a name with a famous fictional character! i suppose you are a fake as well... there's a solon right down the road from me, they do nails. and they use ALL CAPS.
Yeah, I suppose Gerri Haliwell Dr Frank Burns and so on are also real. Being a chemist by the way makes him a climatalogical expert HOW? When you find the PHD for the Spice Girl get back to us. It really isnt our fault you dont even know when you are being duped. This petition was discredited years ago by the National Academy of Science.
'My name is Dr. Frank R. Burns. I am an ophthalmologist, eye physician, and surgeon specializing in the care and treatment of your eyes. I am proud to provide you and your family with the finest medical and surgical eye care available.'
found this for you, probably not the guy, just making a point that just because a name is famous doesn't make it statistically impossible for a scientist to have the same name...
last i checked co2 was a chemical, which gives a chemist room to express his opinion in the matter. if climatologists are the only ones allowed in the debate- what the *#@%$! is algore doing there. please tell me his scientific degrees- get back to me when you have them.
al gore merely points out what the vast majority of climatologists are saying and you.....well, you guys are content to offer tv weathermen and snake oil salesmen repeating the company line.
i suppose you have evidence that all of these climatologists are paid by the oil companies...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
what i do know is that a lot of these fakers go out of their way to hide their relationship to business. when the canadian paper "globe and mail" exposed the so called "friends of science" as recipients of oil and gas money, they reformed as the "natural resources stewardship project" with all the same fakers running things. it's all in the link.
http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
Al gore is a politician and thus should not be the one throwing around his "facts". Let the scientific community speak for itself.
uh, i think that's what i said, mr. comprehension deficit. it's not gore's "facts", but those of scientists that he is quoting. clear enough?
That is in no way true just because you said it. I tend to agree with the British, He does twist and distort facts. A politician's trait, hence why he should not be the self-appointed mouthpiece of the scientific community.
i already adressed the point about the "british". one of the things that the judge said was that gore could not prove that mount kilimanjaro is melting due to global warming. however, that is exactly what it is doing. it's kind of like you can't prove smoking caused cancer, but it does. the judge also called the movie "broadly accurate". lastly, if gore were distorting the facts, then the majority of the scientific community would be saying that. instead they are saying he's right.
I'm sorry to say, but you are citing propaganda. The article you quote is highly misleading.
link
The blog reports of the Schulte piece misrepresent the research question that we originally posed. It was, "How many papers published in referred journals disagree with the statement, "...most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"? This statement came from the IPCC (2001) and was reiterated explicitly by the 2001 NAS report, so we wanted to know how many papers diverged from that consensus position. The answer was none. The Schulte claim does not refutes that.
Did you get that? Not *one* paper disagrees with the consensus that global warming is real and man made.
You won't be able to link to one peer-reviewed study that refutes global warming, so you are lying through your teeth about being able to do so.
Nice work busting on the parrots. I like it very much.
The link he provided before is sort of like one day I was listening to Neal Boortz, and his assertion was that for the people who are so concerned about global warming, if they couldn't tell him what the ideal temp of the Earth should be, they shouldn't be complaining about it.
What a tool that guy is.
Do you realize the kind of brainwshed people you're talking to Magnolialover?
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck’s book "An Inconvenient Book" has hit the number one spot" on the New York Times Best Seller book list.
I hope the guy lives long enough to apologize to the wingnuts for this book. (Or maybe not)
You "debunk" someone's research with one other dude's opinion? Nice. Try running your man-made global warming theory past John Coleman, founder of the weather channel: [link to icecap.us]
He's probably not credible though, right?
Umm, is he a climatologist?
Answer = no... He predicts the weather on a TV station and he's a meteorologist. Are you telling me that he knows more about climate change than people who, you know, actually study it? The link that you provided is all supposition and his opinion about what's going on, and it's not founded in actual science, like studies about global warming are.
Keep trying...
Umm, is he a climatologist?
Answer = no... He predicts the weather on a TV station and he's a meteorologist.
And... his opinions and writings have been regularly (and easily) debunked by the REAL climatologists
Can you name two or three "real climatologists" for me? Every one that I know of is apparently compromised by the oil industry or some other ridiculous factor.
well, there you go. did the little light go on in your head? the guys your side tends to offer up often seem to have the smell of industry money on them. keep thinking about it, you're getting there.
Guys on both sides have money all over them. It is ridiculous to believe that only those on the right, or those who question man made global warming are being paid off. The scientists on your side of the equation are just as dirty. I suggest you do some research on how impossible it is to get grant money if you do not go along with the man made global warming conspiracy. If the scientists provide the facts that Al Gore and other politicians want, the politicians give money and credibility in return.
So, this all boils down to a bunch of morons out for their own good. My good friend's dad is a successful scientist who develops new compounds and products locally. His take on global warming is that it is most definitely a natural occurrence...from volcanic activity to sunspots, to the varying intensity of the sun. I'll take this common man's opinion over anything else.
oh please. any scientist that disputes global warming becomes the industry golden boy. it was one of the right wing think tanks that was offering ten thousand dollars, travel, expenses, and future money to any scientist willing to deny global warming. you are consistent though, your denial is complete.
Good grief! The problem with trying to show the blind that global warming is real and man made is as difficult as explaining the earth is older than 6000 years to a fundementalist. No matter how much proof we come up with, there is always one dummy out there who the global warming deniers will quote.
The guy you quote is a wheatherman--not a f*@ climatolagist. Wheaterman predict the weather.
Let's get back to your original post, though. You claimed that you can quote numerous scientific articles. But then you don't even quote one when I call you on your bluff. You are lying through your teeth. My post above with the link shows that there are *no* peer reviewed papers refuting global warming. You can not challenge that except by trying to dismiss it as an opinion, when it is a fact. An opinion is that blue is a nice color. A fact is verifiable. If you cannot link to one peer-reviewed scientific paper, then your argument has no merit.
You were lying through your teeth and still are. If you bothered to read the I provided, you would see that the author of your bogus study was backpeddling furiously from what she had written.
"The guy you quote is a wheatherman--not a f*@ climatolagist. Wheaterman predict the weather." - Wheaterman? What's that? A man who eats wheat? Are you seriously that illiterate? I normally would say anything, but you said it 2 times, and you had to drop an f-bomb.
"Let's get back to your original post, though. You claimed that you can quote numerous scientific articles. But then you don't even quote one when I call you on your bluff." - Throughout this thread, I've posted at least 4 articles so far, and we aren't even close to being finished.
"You are lying through your teeth. My post above with the link shows that there are *no* peer reviewed papers refuting global warming." - Then I think you need to do some research into the peer reviewed study by the Australian Dr. David Evans. It has been published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.
evans is a mathematician.
JOHN174541842: How many of these scientists believe that the world's climate is not getting warmer, regardless of the reason? If there is even one, he probably also still believes the world is flat.
What I don't understand is (to quote from YOUR link), "While today we are even more certain the earth is warming" you wingnuts still like to pretend there is no global warming problem just because Al Gore is world's leading whistleblower for the phenomenon. Whether his theory on why it is happening is 1% or 100% correct, the fact is the world's climate IS warming.
History shows that the effects of global warming include rising sea levels, glacier retreat, and altered patterns of agriculture are cited as direct consequences, but predictions for secondary and regional effects include extreme weather events, an expansion of tropical diseases, and drastic economic impact.
I find it pathetic that you (and the rest of the wingnuts) insist on pretending that this is either not true, or no big deal, simply because you hate Al Gore. What you wingnuts have done is taken a potentially catastrophic worldwide issue and turned it into partisan politics.
You should get past your hate for Al Gore and start doing something about preparing the world for the changes to come and the possible catastrophic chaotic affects it might have on the environment and economy of nations around the world. Maybe once you do that you might actually start trying to figure a way to at least slow, the warming - and have a second look at Gore's theory that includes possible solutions.
I just hope none of your blogs are available for your children to read in 20 years.
Thank you for the attack. You are so backwards and incorrect about my beliefs on the issue, I want to throw up. I have NEVER stated that the earth is not warming, nor have I ever contested it. The only thing I contest is the credibility of data that "proves" humans are doing it. I firmly believe the earth is heating up due to natural factors. It will continue to warm up whether or not we produce greenhouse gasses. It is a well documented fact that in different periods of the earth's evolution, there has been more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, and the temperatures have been higher on average than now (obviously, without humans causing it). So, I do believe in global warming...just not that humans are the cause of it.
This report from an international team of scientists provides great insight to the fact that as recently as 120,000 years ago the earth was 9 degrees warmer than now, and the greenland ice did not melt. Kind of flies contrary to what Al Gore says will happen to the ice if temperatures rise. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/?page=1
Do you honestly believe there is no room for debate or skepticism over the role humans play in global warming?
No, I for one believe that there is no room for debate on the issue, but I suppose you're free to "debate" with yourself all you want. The rest of us rational, sane people will believe in gravity and heliocentricity.
I guess you didn't really read this article either:
But please, go ahead an draw self-serving conclusions that the experts find unconvincing.
I would also like to add reason as to why Al Gore is (justifiably) attacked on this issue. Justic Burton from the High Court in England has passed verdict on the verified lies and alarmism in the movie: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do
That link to the British paper was funny. Did you see that guys picture? But, really John, are you for real. That story has nothing to do with this discussion. It does nothing to prove your point. All it shows is that there are ignorant people in Britain too?! These "errors" have all been discussed and scientifically handled already
It proves that the High Courts in England see Al Gore's global warming movement for what it is: a politically compromised movement of alarmism, and a movie that skews and bends certain data. It proves that not everything that comes out of his big yap is the truth about global warming. If you dont like it, don't try to discredit me, take it up with the High Court in England (maybe the oil industry owns them).
the judge called the movie "broadly accurate".
While it pointed out a number of very precise lies and distortions. Including the polar bears and mt. kilimanjaro....two of the most commonly cited "results" of man made global warming.
righttttt....it was claimed that gore could not back up his contention that global warming is causing the glaciers on kilimanjaro to melt. and yet, for the first time in recorded history, they will be gone in a few years. just like you guys pretend all the massive melting in the arctic is somehow natural. dream on.
You are using the same sort of faulty reasoning that Savage is using, just because it is warm in a usually frigid area GB must be happening. this is doing that which you are criticising. otherwise known as hypocrisy.
About abrupt climate change, you gave us no evidence or links whatsoever to back your postulation, you just said that you read Abrupt climate change happens as because of GB, your word is far from being absolute. Abrupt climate change is a questionable theory, Al Gore's version even more so.
Pardon me, I was replying to comments made in the first 20 posts by Magnolialover Dbeden and PJbaur.
I wasn't proposing that climate change relates to weather. I was having fun with some other folks from NC about how Savage is saying it's cold and snowing somewhere, but in NC it has been very unseasonably warm this past week.
I know that the daily weather is NOT an indicator of periodic climate change. Al Gore's version, as you call it, is not about abrupt change either, it's about changes that are going on naturally, and how they are being accelerated by the toxins we spew into the air.
Oh, and pardon me if I can't comment on the weather here. Thanks for taking me out of context, since I wasn't even talking about global warming. I was just doing a little gloating because while they have ice storms, I have birds outside my window. But hey, I guess it doesn't matter to you now, does it?
Hey, here in Michigan, we have ice storms, and bird out our window, often at the same time.
Rush pulls the same thing most any time the temps are below normal in West Palm Beach.
They know better, they just do it because they know it "makes sense" to the idiots in their audience.
weirner-boy...its been too long. so glad to see you back on media matters. it must have been cold away from us.
Savage Weiner gives a bad name to all of the mentally disabled folks out there. Most of them are very kind, considerate people, but there's always the one bad apple...
Savage further cements his position as one of the world's foremost idiots.
First by condemning ever-amassing climate change science by citing the weather, and then citing "the latest scientific studies" to level the charge of pedophilia against the Nobel Committee.
Is this the part where someone accuses me of having no sense of humor?
Pete you have no sense of humour. Get with the program.
I have to assume Sue has a great sense of humour, because she can't seriously be searching for the scientific study for verification of that 90% statistic... can she? lol....
no i can not.
LOL! It's great that we can still find humor in thread like this.
OK, I didn't make it thorugh the whole list of comments, so if this is a repeat forgive me...but if 90% of this group is into pedophila, that equals 4.5 people. Are we sure that Savage has all the academic qualifications he claims?
because weiner studied "Natural Medicine" aka. Voo Doo. I work at a book store...I've tried to spit in his books whenever we get one in....cause no one ever buys one.
Are on your medical marijuana? His last 4 books in a row have been NY Times best sellers. In your fried brain, that must constitute "nobody."
John, first of all, everyone knows these books (like O'Lielly's and Mann Coulter's, too) are purchased in bulk by wealthy individuals/corporations in order to push them up the lists, but popularity does not equal intelligence or correctness.
Why is everyone but Savage a pervert?
Not that I mind.
I'd rather be with the perverts than the Savage people.
Well for a guy who just made a post about slander, I should probably let my thoughts slide - but I've made the point before. Look at his picture - you want a guy who looks like that hangin' around your playground?
He looks even more frightening without his sunglasses.
His glee over Bernie Ward getting busted is causing his little syphillitic brain to call everyone out. It makes you wonder what the "good ol' doctor" has hiding in his own little closet, if you catch my drift, what with this wild projection. Everyone who is not Mike Savage is a child predator now? On the air the other day, he implored liberals to admit that we are all perverts. Anyone know what study he's talking about? Answer; no, because this old coot can say just about anything and his retarded brain-dead "fans" will lap it up. He's about as intelligent as an sixth-grade valedictorian, this idiot, with a far more insidious agenda.
I guess the only vague weak link with reality is a controversy regarding the legal definition of child pornography in Norway. How he get's to this conclusion can only be attributed to pyschotic disease of some sort. This poor pathetic man is another of the walking wounded that would have a nice padded room some where if Reagan had not gutted mental health budgets.
"Little Syphilitic Brain"
ROFLMAO
And 90 percent of Michael Weiner's audience regularly has sex with barnyard animals - mainly sheep and goats.....
:-)
I think that it is more probable that 90% of the posters and staff of this site have intercourse with beasts. Myself excluded.
I think it MOST probable you are a complete moron without a shred of decency. Depraved, ignorant, and braindead is no way to go through life. I suggest you attempt to beg, borrow or steal some braincells moron. They wont last, certainly dying of lonliness but at least you will know what it was like to have had them.
Thank you Solon for the kind of vitriol normally attributed to Savage, but you said nothing. If you are such a believer in the borrowing and lending of braincells then open a Neuro-pawn shop. Although not many posters here would frequent such a place.
And JJamelle, I was not trying to be amusing, rather I was replying to WZwriters post with an equally base comment. What is funny is that you do not attribute immaturity to his post. But then again he is a liberal, It is okay for liberals to speak of bestiality seeing as they are the ones most experienced on the subject.
The really pathetic thing is that I'm sure you thought that post was funny. So sad. Please tell me you are an eight-year old boy. I'd hate to think that you've reached adulthood, and that's your idea of a joke.
I think that it is more probable that 90% of the posters and staff of this site have intercourse with beasts. - finarfin
I agree, that was pretty childish, although true in my case. BTW, Finarfin, your mom says "hi". ;0)
Finarfin, your mom says "hi". ;0)
Actually, Finarfin's mom said "Baaaaa!"
:-)
"And 90 percent of Michael Weiner's audience regularly has sex with barnyard animals - mainly sheep and goats" - wzwriter
vs.
"I think that it is more probable that 90% of the posters and staff of this site have intercourse with beasts. Myself excluded" - finarfin
Can someone help me figure out why fin's comment was childish and deserving of critique, while wzwriter's extremely similar comment was left alone (and I have to assume, not childish at all)? I cannot figure this one out.
This isn't a pre-school, John. Get your mommy to help you.
Was that supposed to explanation?
No, it was supposed to be dismissal. Explanations are wasted on you.
I think it's more the fact that you can't explain unchecked hatred for those you disagree with.
thank you john, an extremely good point that has about a 90% chance of not bieng confronted.
Members of the Savage Weiner's audience having sex with sheep often does not technically constitute the practice of bestiality.
Most of them ARE sheep!
Come on guys! This is great stuff! I mean...
LOL. I'm sorry. I can't even sarcastically take this guy seriously. I'd say he sounds like a third-grader, but even our schoolyard put-downs were better than this! And as sad as the educational system in this country has become, the most third-graders are still smarter than this guy!
I think that he may have a growing audience simply becuase of the fact that listening to him actually makes you less intelligent.
San Francisco talk radio is really a mess. Savage is one of the worst. I don't even know many conservatives who can stand that guy.
And now we have a longtime progressive for San Francisco, Bernie Ward (KGO), who has really gotten himself into a mess.
Something is rotten in the Bay Area.
And you can tell by the fruitflies?
LOL (I can say that, I'm gay)
Yes, we gay folk are always the problem here in the Bay Area...always. ;)
(sarcasm, friends, sarcasm)
And you can tell by the fruitflies?
THAT was funny and I'm NOT homophobic.
PJ, I called this about a week or so ago when i made a clean, lighthearted joke (similar in nature to yours) about the gay general whose question was aired in the youtube debate, everyone called me a hateful biggoted homophobe. Now, everyone laughs at your gay joke. Is it because you put the disclaimer about being gay? Or is it just because everyone here has a raging hatred for everyone conservative?
Umm, first of all I don't think that the general in question was gay. I don't know what comment you made, but chances are, considering what you've posted before, it wasn't anything sly, or nice.
I remember the comment. Yes, the General was gay (Kerr) and the comment was pretty harmless.
I don't agree with 99% of John's posts, but he's actually right here. There is a double-standard.
haha, well at least one person sees it. Double standards are rampant in all areas of our life...i'm not complaining, just wanted to point it out.
My apologies on that one, since I dind't see the comment you had made, I should not have made such an assumption. That's just as bad as like when someone yaks about how "evil and liberal" a certain movie is, only to come out later and say that he's never seen it.
My bad.
JOHN: "everyone laughs?" I got 2 comments - and I think only 1 even "got" the joke. And yes, I though the disclaimer was necessary.
I mean how could I pass on a San Francsco joke when the city it is used so often by wingnuts? (It was done more tounge-in-cheek than anything.)
It's common for some gays to enjoy gay jokes amongst themselves. But that's some gays. Sort of like the n word phenomenon between blacks. Most are ok with it, some not.
So to answer your last question, yes - you might have a harder time getting away with it than I. And I don't have a raging hatred for "everyone conservative", just some of the things they say - especially if based on spin over substance of fact.
I'm not always 100% agreeable with all "Democratic" issues and I'm not always "politically correct". I'm just being me - and if offend anyone, Oh well - tommorrow is another day.
Nothing is rotten in the Bay Area other than Savage's nonsense and Bernie Ward's proclivity for children. It's wrong, no matter what side of the aisle you're on. I wouldn't attribute child molesters and obnoxious shock jocks as only a Bay Area problem.
Man, that sux. Well, I've alwasy believed that political leaning does not index charectar. I don't care what the conservatives try to say to the contrary...
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Surely there is slander here, that can result in legal action of some sort. There are legitimate discussions to be had regarding the selections of said commitee, but this insulting shock jock act is repulsive to me.
My favorite part of this quote is "according to the latest scientific studies." Not only does he make this ridiculous batshit charge; he says he's got the studies to prove it! If he was saying this (and everything else he says) on the A train (I guess it would be the BART train for him), then I'd kind of expect that. But this guy has a radio show. Broadcast nationally.Why anyone takes him seriously enough to pay him to speak into a microphone for national broadcast is way beyond me. What a ridiculous, sad man, and a ridiculous, sad situation.
I'd absolutely sue Savage if I was on the Nobel committee and was slandered like that.
That being said, a lot of you sure do get angry about mere words that aren't even directed at you.
Dex -
There's a poem somewhere. I'm not sure of the exact wording but it starts:
"First they came for..."
It's important to stick up for others.
Savage would say the same if they took him off the air, and i agree, if he is removed others will follow and we will be in a world where "slander" shan't be spoken. The end of free speech. You liberals will find that Slander laws can be used against freedom of speech very successfully.
There is no free speech issue that guarantees the Weinerdog a job. That is dumb. Slander laws cannot be used to destroy free speech unless they are seditious libel or slander laws. Since in regular laws TRUTH is a defense. Think the insane Weinerdog can show what he said is TRUE? I know you wingnuts have a vested interest in protecting your ability to LIE and Slander but it is NOT a free speech issue.
Who ever said that he may be insane is correct. He is the one of many conservative talk show hosts who I just ignore like I do the crazy guy on the downtown street corner. He is yelling and screaming and gesturing to prove to himself that he exists.
"Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones."
"God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all"
And let us not forget that water fluoridation is a Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
Sorry everyone but Savage Weiner just inspires such insights in me. Or was it all a movie I saw once? Five minutes of listening to talk radio and I just can't keep my thoughts together any more. Remind me again--which are the real thoughts?
General Ripper, Col. Kong and even Dr. S were relatively sane compared to Dr. Weiner.
You do realize that knowing this dates you...and will probably get your name entered into a database somewhere?
At my age, I've been in that data base since Nixon's first term.
And proud of it.
At my age, I've been in that data base since Nixon's first term. And proud of it.
King, my kids always tell me that I'm going to get arrested cause I write letters and e-mails to, well almost everyone but I say SO WHAT! I'm 73 and I'm going to die, BUT I'm NOT going quietly.
You're my hero, Pearlene!
And my nemesis. =J
Might be a tie with Col.* "Bat" Guano.
Colonel?
Thanks for the Slim Pickins quote!
The funny thing is I think Savage ranks third only behind Rush and Hannity. (Overall listners in the country)
All three have one major thing in common. HATE.
In my opinion these three are just examples of whats wrong with America.
You're right. I've been saying that for years now. Savage lives here in my fair city, and has been a boil on the butt of humanity since he started spouting his BS.
Hey, I resent that! There ain't NOTHING wrong with America except you anti-American far-left socialist tree-hugging homoerotic mamby-pamby librul traitors who run around bad mouthing our president, denigrating our troops, and always expecting something for nothing.
(Just figured I'd post that before <put your favorite MM wingnut here> has the chance)
It is soooo so simple, the president MUST be followed and obeyed. We MUST be patriotic no matter what our leaders do. If anyone questions the political correct consertative program must be put in their place.
Obviously they are child molesters by definition, since they contradict the Wiener right world view. Please please tell me I got this all right. I look forward to the day when we all fall inline behind the Savage wiener banner as we smite our enemy's minds with our devestatingly scientifically proven verbal attacks
Oh Savage, always the intellectual...... the quote he's looking for is "capo di tutti capi". Is Savage trying to make Bush look smart?! Luckily for him, most of us know we can expect total BS from Savage 90% of the time. Well, even a broken clockwork will still have the time correct twice a day. In Savage's case, that's more like twice a year, in a good year.
One of the best Savage quotes I heard while listening in to his show one night was during his discussion about how women in America don't want to have kids anymore, and that women not wanting to have kids is the result of the evil liberals, his quote was:
"Liberals. They've made women not want to have children anymore. Women in America, all they care about these days is pointy shoes and having sex."
First, how does he know about pointy shoes? Been watching too many fashion shows Mikey old boy? Second, there isn't a woman in this country who'd want to have sex with him, so how would he know about his second point?
Its kind of like the idea that you can be talked into being gay. Maybe you believe that if you you not sure about yourself to begin with.
"wear pointy shoes and have sex."
This has got to be the first time I have ever heard a man complain that all women want is to wear nice clothes and have sex.
I will certainly admit I like sex and clothes, I'm just saying my husband prefers that to barefoot and pregnant, which I think is clearly what savage means, otherwise why did he mention foot attire if not to contrast with barefoot.
Savage Nation is like an audio Reader's Digest for racist, homophobic, hate-mongering dummies.
Sine I almost never listen to the radio, I am not aware of this nut-case. He seems to be typical of the trash-talk "personalities" that have a LOT of fans. Look at (or listen to) Bully-O. Why would any media outfit hire such a fool if not to capture the hearts and (Ha!) minds of that section of the population who need to see and hear their kind of c**p. I understand that WE liberals watch and listen also because we can't BELIEVE ANY OF IT IS REALLY HAPPENING. So Bully-O and Savage and the rest not only get 100% of the crazies who think like THEM, but the rest of us who sit with our jaws dropped. Faux and the rest get the best ratings because EVERYBODY listens to them. How many people watch Bill Moyers? Then again, how many people watch Glenn Beck? Don Imus is the Thomas Hobbes of the airways by comparison.
OMG! This Savage is *really* out there now. Who can take him seriously? What sickens me is that I think he actually believes what he spews. :-(
this old coot can say just about anything and his retarded brain-dead "fans" will lap it up. He's about as intelligent as an sixth-grade valedictorian, this idiot, with a far more insidious agenda.
Well said.
His "agenda", if you've been listening to the show, is to "change people", "have an effect on others" etc. In other words, to get other people to do his dirty work. What is that dirty work? Any and all action taken against the groups he hates. He doesn't have either the guts or the integrity to actually do anything himself - he want the redneck listeners to do it for him. And they seem to be willing. One may have made a death threat against one of the CAIR employees. And I was listening one night when a caller told him he had just assaulted a bicyclist after getting into an argument about the caller having Savage on his car radio. Of course, he got accolades from Savage. And a really sick trend is the people calling up to say that the US should carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran. This has been going on since his "Bomb Iran" rant. God, these people are nut cases. Weiner's ability to whip up the redneck masses is what makes his show's suitability for the airwaves so questionable. Does anyone know where the line is drawn on inciting violence on radio? I mean, exactly how far can a person go on air whipping up hate before it is actually a crime?
Lastly, does anyone know at which institution he got his PhD?
"He's the tutto di capo tutto -- whatever, tutto ruto ruto. The tutto di capo di tutto, or whatever."
WTF? Weiner, are you high?
He is only angry with frustration. a fact that many disregard. You take his rantings seriously when they are just that, rantings. I often disregard what people say in their fury, people tend not to think straight in anger and Savage is no exception.
You dont take insane people seriously at ALL. I dont take the guy who comes to the park and rants (when he is off his medicine) seriously and for the SAME REASON I dont take the Weinerdog seriously. He needs serious medical assistance.
Finarfin, Weiner is ALWAYS angry at someone who is the slightest left of his regressive views. He never makes sense.
I find when people are angry, their mask falls away and they share true (if magnified or exaggerated) sentiment. This may mean he isn't truly so hateful, but it likely is an indicator that he does have irrational dislike for whatever he is railing against during the entirety of his show.
Then again, it's also possible that he's repeated his words so many times, convinced of his own righteousness (rather than simple self-righteousness which is far more likely) that he believes them, and huddles under the umbrella of outrageousness, secure that most rational people are simply POSITIVE he's joking / joshing / whatever because they simply can't believe that he is actually convinced he is speaking truth.
Or, it's possible he's actually the same liberal hippie medicine man he's always been and one day he's going to reveal to all his robots that he's only doing this for the money or to show off what he perceives as their mindset.
Or most sad, that he was actually a nice hippie medicine man that was simply seduced by the monies he was offered, and his constant stream of hatred has just twisted him into belief in what he's shovelling.
Wow. 300 million (general population of America)-8 million (Weiner's audience), that leaves about 292 million child molesters out there because they don't listen to him nor agree with his point of view!
OMG! "To Catch a Predator" (or is it called "Predator Raw" now?) is going to be BUSY!
Do you think Al Gore has any knowledge regarding Global Warming?
If you say yes tell me how please
Yes, and no thank you.
;)
Reading and research. You should try it sometime!
It's nice to see that Savage riles up the left wing so much. The majority of you have never listened to his show, you just read partial transcripts on sites like this.
You apparently don't understand things like satire and sarcasm. It's sad but amusing.
I laugh everytime I read about "hate radio." You just don't get it.
If you'd like to continue the fight against Savage, please feel free to donate to CAIR, or just cut out the middle man and send cash directly to Hamas.
The Weinerdog is INSANE. I dont have to listen for three hours to recognize insanity. Nor do I have to read more than your posts to recognize STUPIDITY. Acting like not liking the insane Wienerdog means we want to support Hamas shows an AMAZING ignorance. OK, your mission is accomplished you dont have to try so hard to show what a MORON you are, its a done deal.
Ripper, here's something for you to ponder.(If your brain isn't too exhausted from the intellectual rigors of listening to the Weiner show);
There are several posts on this thread by weiner fans. You've described his remarks as satire ans sarcasm, another excused them as a joke, and yet another weinerboy explained that his remarks were made out of frustration and fury.
Do you think the fact that even Weiner's supporters can't seem to agree on their understanding of his act might suggest that, if it's comedy, it's not very good?
Then continue to not listen to his show.
The problem I have is that alot of people who don't like Savage are actively trying to get him off the air, to silence him.
Freedom of speech is not dangerous, no matter how much you disagree with the content.
The 1st ammendment was not just intended to protect popular speech. If that was the case it wouldn't be needed. It is needed to protect unpopular speech.
[link to archives.cnn.com]
By making that comparison you are saying that what Savage says could lead to the genocide of hundreds of thousands. That's an extreme leap, and proves that you haven't listened to, let alone understood, his program.
If, and I hope WHEN he loses his radio show, it's not a freedom of speech issue. It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. I wish that you guys would stop saying that. The 1st amendment doesn't entitle you to have a radio show with a potential for millions of listeners, and if he loses his show, and or gets fired, then something he did, or said, may have contributed to that. Also, if his advertisers leave, and he's not making money for whoever he works for, again, fired.
It's not a freedom of speech issue. There are no laws limiting what he can, and can't say, and the government is not trying to silence him.
Ripper: I'll admit I never listened to his radio show. Not even sure it is on in my area and I'm not scanning the airwaves to try to find it. I did, however, watch his short-lived TV show and know all about his "satire and sarcasm" - and understand why he was taken off the air. I'm sure the guy hasn't mellowed with age, if anything he's become emboldened by his longevity.
Guys like this (Savage, O'Reilly, Rush, Imus, Stern,...) are all the same - they spend their careers trying to see just how much they can get away with, escalating their venomous attacks on a near daily basis, until they are knocked back down or go over the edge when someone or something makes it clear to them that they went a little too far. Then they simply get back on the ride and start all over again. It's like a roller coaster ride for them and their audience.
While you're out getting your cheap thrills, people whose lives and reputations have been damaged by their "humor" are left having to waste precious time defending themselves against these exaggerations or lies - when they'd much rather be concentrating on the positive productive aspects of their lives or careers. That's the conservative game, but we'd really rather not play - it's not that we don't "get it", its' just that we have better things to do.
Some people think Michael Savage is stark, raving mad. I used to, but I wonder...It may be that the only way you can "sell" a talk show (or keep your ratings up) is to pretend to be stark, raving mad. It's a trick Savage learned from Limbaugh.
I am not saying that Savage is insincere in his expressed beliefs, but all the Limbaugh wannabees, including Ann Coulter -- no, especially Ms. Coulter -- think that because Limbaugh made millions by being hateful, rude, nasty, and uncouth, and since there's only one Limbaugh (if I weren't an atheist I would put in a "Thank God!" at this point), the wannabees have to go him a step further and not only be off the wall but really, totally, phenomenally off the wall.
I like the way Olbermann refers to Rushie-pooh as "the comedian, Rush Limbaugh." That's as good as Arbusto calling the Dems "the Democrat Party." (And by the way, I must suppose Olbermann writes most of his own stuff, while Arbusto relies on people like Frank Luntz.) But calling Savage a comedian just won't do. His pronouncements are so hyperbolically off the wall, it isn't even enough to call him "racist," "homophobic," "sexist," &c. He's all that and a whole lot more. Actually, though, Savage is not worthy even of belief. In this world of savage pundits spreading the right wingnut gospel of hate, he stands out as the silliest, shrillest, sorriest sap of them all.
I've got it! We should start referring to him as "the clown, Michael Savage."
that is hilarious that savage said 90%. if there are only five people on the panel then there cant possibly be 90% of them thinking anything. 4 divided by 5 is 80% and that is the highest percentage that could exist below 100%. God that man is such a dumbass
poor man he does not realize that people are laughing at him and not with him. Give him back his meds.
Give him his MEDS?
Nah, just sign that rightwing paycheck.
Pornography is estimated at about $14 billion a year as a "business".
Sex and sexual perversion, big business. Hate, insanity, and "saying what rightwingers are thinking" is ALSO big business.
In truth, it's the SAME business, the same lost audience, the same pandering to sicknesses. For cash.
Hey, he's "successful" ... just like regular porn, he's got a big and specialized audience. So let'er rip!
Three things I can be sure of every day. Some crap on the news concerning Britney or Paris! And Michael Savage spouting some BS for all the world to see. Maybe I'll stay in bed tomorrow...
Savage Weiner is the end result of repugs. The repugs hatred of everything is carried to the end by the Savage Weiner.
It shouldn't be a surprise that Hollywood continues to cover the self-destruction of Britney Spears when 8 million people follow the rantings of mentally ill talk show host. I would never be able to bring myself to listen to a whole show of of Savage's but I have to wonder what national brand would see fit to sponsor him.
Those people I come in contact with who are too apathetic to seriously follow media or politics or find it 'too unpleasant', think I am overstating the effect of people like Savage. I consider 8 million possible voters (plus all those listening to the hate speech of other conservative hosts) a pretty serious problem. It's like a training ground for social terrorists. The intellectuals better wake up and quit dismissing these guys...they've dragged this country down a rat hole.
"The intellectuals better wake up and quit dismissing these guys...they've dragged this country down a rat hole."
SKIPPERSMOM: I don’t think anyone is dismissing them. MMFA, and similar websites - and the posts to this story alone -show how “awake” we are. They may have the passive sheep-parrot hybrid audience out there, but conservatives are only recently discovering the powers of the internet - and are scared s---less about it. My guess is most of them are just now mastering the use of a mouse, and the whole keyboard thing is just too difficult? It's easier to sit there like a spounge and listen to the raido or watch TV. There are far more left leaning websites than right – at least certainly when it comes to those that allow free uncensored speech. Read the posts of conservatives vs. progressives’ visitors to any website and you will see who has the wrap on intellectual thought and expression vs. hyperbole and parroting of “talking-points”.
I am far less pessimistic than your comments seem to be and am confident that intellect, truth, and reason will win out over ignorance and fear – and that we can win the fight without stooping to their level.
I was listening in on Savage last night while driving home from work, and his latest tirade was about the following:
He was talking about how a bunch of friends and himself went out into the Bay to watch Fleet Week roll into San Francisco, and how it was impressive to see the aircraft carrier coming into the bay, and the sailors all lined up on the deck, and things like that. Which, I can agree with him on that, it is an impressive sight. Then he went on to say how the carrier launched a few aircraft while they were coming in, which was also impressive. Got to agree again, that would be impressive to see live and in person. And now, we get to the crazy part.
He started ranting and raving about how Mr. Bush needs to send this aircraft carrier battle group to the South China Sea, and launch aircraft, and destroy the nation of North Korea. And that Mr. Bush needs to grow some balls, and just do it. He doesn't need the permission of anyone to carry out these attacks. Take down Kim Jong Il, and destroy North Korea. Send in the Marines, the Army, and Air Force and the Navy and kill them all.
It was truly scary.
Long live Savage. You may not like what he has to say, however, no one has the right to put a stop to his first amendment right to say it.