Savage on Media Matters: "They're the brownshirts of our time"
On the January 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage referred to Media Matters for America as "a homosexual, fascist website." He continued: "Let me explain who Media Matters is. ... It's run by a bunch of fascist homosexuals. They're the brownshirts of our time." The brownshirts were Nazi storm troopers who aided Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Savage made his comments while discussing a lawsuit he has filed against the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Savage also claimed that Media Matters was "founded by [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY]." As it has repeatedly noted, Media Matters is a progressive nonprofit organization unaffiliated with any candidate or political party.
Savage has attacked Media Matters on several occasions, calling the organization a "hate group"; a "group of gay Mafioso"; "the homosexual Mafia"; and "a gay smear sheet." Additionally, on the June 12, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, Savage compared the "progressive movement" to the Nazi storm troopers, saying, "[T]hey are the brownshirts of today."
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. And according to Talkers Magazine, The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, 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 January 11 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: It fell in my hands. I didn't choose this fight. I never liked CAIR, but I never figured they were going to be my enemy, but, like everyone else, it's not my problem. Well, then, they made themselves my problem. They attacked me. They went after all my advertisers. They learned good from their friends at Media Matters, that rat-bum -- it's a homosexual, fascist website. Let me explain who Media Matters is. It was founded by Hillary Clinton. It's run by a bunch of fascist homosexuals. They're the brownshirts of our time.
When are you gonna wake up to the fact that liberals are not liberal? When are you gonna wake up to the fact that the liberals are the new fascists. They are the brownshirts! And they're gonna take this country over the cliff if you don't stand up to them and stop them. That's why I'm putting myself on the line. And if you think it's a joke, it's not a joke.
I walk with my head swiveling. I look over my shoulder. I live as though I am the hunted one. And that's because you are not the hunted one. That's because you are a coward. And that's because your government doesn't protect its citizens.
Except Savage in the long run!
8 million of our fellow citizens give a "sweet sh*t." That is pretty sad.
She had a scheduling conflict; she forgot that she had a Klan rally to attend at the same time....
feed://www.620kpoj.com/podcast/hartmann_nationwide.xml
This is a cache of tons of Hartmann programs:
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Hartmann.html
He also has this really clever way of changing people's names into funny-sounding Jewish names.
He is, however, a very religious man and said last week that he would like to do a Sunday morning show where he would read Scripture and pepper his reading with his vast intellectual observations about the state of the world. Sounds like that would be the worst. freaking. show. ever.
Dear Rat-Bums:
Congrats.
Every time Savage rants like this it is further proof that you are doing something to get under his skin. It is greatly appreciated!
Best to stay on the other side of the street.
Michael Weiner is the equivalent of a brown underwear stain. They both contain the same material.....
True eloquence would be wasted on a low-life like Michael Weiner.
And since I know you (or one of your lackeys) is monitoring this site, Michael, here's a special message just for you:
Bite me.
own
show on one of the corporate cable networks?
How low have we sunk?
Either we have sunk extremely low or you are not part of the American majority. Hence you are a radical, your views are not commonplace. Personally i do not think we have sunk any, are not liberals usually the optimistic ones?
...says the white supremacist.
On a serious note, what is he really saying about MMFA? The posts here offer very little in the way of opinion and commentary. MMFA simply documents the words of the rightwing blowhards. So who is he talking about? Is he calling we the posters brownshirts?
My shirts are mainly orange or black.
And before I get jumped on by some of the more conservative posters, no, this isn't an infringement on Savage's freedom of speech. Drop that charade at the door folks.
Thanks Mag.
"When are you gonna wake up to the fact that the liberals are the new fascists. They are the brownshirts!"
"'Oh, there's a billion of them.' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them.' I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."
"I can guarantee you , you wouldn't be in business too long. I can guarantee you you'd be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power. I'd have you people licking lead paint, what you did to this country."
Who's the fascist brownshirt here, Michael Hitler-Savage?
MMFA = Brownshirts....... according to the WeinerSavage...... yeah.... ok
As opposed to the Republican brownshirts that stormed the hallways during a certain recount in Florida 2000
My prayers are with Trevor Zimmer, who has obviously been recruited to listen to Savage on a regular basis. I feel your pain.
I wonder if having to monitor Michael Savage is a form of punishment for doing something wrong. Care to comment, Trevor???
:-)
So.....sniveling Savage is sueing someone. Savage has to swivel side to side so snitches and seditious somebodys don't sabotage the sadistic sewer scamp. So sad.
The sullen, sexist Savage then surreptitiously superimposes his satanic superstitions on his susceptible and sensitive surrogates. Surly surrogates surface on seditious sites and sound off. The sureal and stupid sycophants sustain, support and suck satantic succor from their sweet svengali. It's sickening.
Sorry, I had to bail on that thread and couldn't be there to back you up before it was archived.
I just love annoying that guy.
It is really amusing that you get off by thinking you annoy someone you have never met through your senseless posts. Passive agressive behavior is so unbecoming. If you feel the need to address me be a man and do so. Stop using your cohorts to engage in passive discussions about others to make yourself feel better.
In any event, perhaps you do annoy me or perhaps you don't. Quite honestly I have never really thought about it. Obviously you have spent time thinking of me, so who's annoying who? Maybe I am contrary to your points just because I know it gets to you. You keep going, it's hilarious to watch you stumble over yourself as you so vainly attempt to gratify yourself by talking about me in an indirect manner. If you have a beef with me then let's discuss it; or you can keep hiding behind Julia with your gratuitous mannerisms. You choose.
Hey if you'll reveiw the context of that exchange the other day you may realize that I wasn't necessarily referring to you as the pig headed know-it-all. I was talking about Fin. However, in your response to Julia and myself after the pig comment you definitely showed yourself to be just as pig headed as Fin.
Look you gotta get over the fact that I bested you once, on one thread. Somedays folks get the best of me, sometimes I get the best of them. I accept it and move on whatever the outcome. I know you have a monster ego, but you can't be right all the time. Deal with it.
"Sweet, I don't care what that contrarian says about you, I think your posts are fabulous" (Roundhouse)
"Sorry I had to bail on that thread and couldn't be there to back you up before it was archived, I love annoying that guy" (Roundhouse)
"I wasn't necessarily referring to you as a pig headed know it all, I was talking about Fin" (Roundhouse)
You are a liar. You directly responded to MY post referring to ME as a pig headed know it all. This is evidenced by the fact that later you agree ith Julia in her description of me as a contrarian. If you were referring to FIN then why didn't you clarify that in your response to me or JULIA? You are a liar.
Where did you best me? Are you referring to the thread in which you enlightened us about your extensive experience with the VA.? Puleeze!! Anyway, I have been wrong several times at this site. I ate a large amount of crow not too long ago in a thread about the United States contribution to the U.N. I took it in stride and apologized to FUNNYMAN PANTS for using bad information I garnered from the internet. I then took the time to find good information and prove that the United States does in fact give more to the U.N. than all other countries combined. I also tore apart his inane argument about the cause of the collapse in the 1954 elections in Vietnam. My point is that I have been wrong plenty of times and have never indicated differently. You on the other hand, just yesterday, again engaged in school girl sniveling by passively referring to me in an insulting manner to another poster. Grow up and quit casting dispersions about others. If you want to move past this and discuss some issues in an adult manner I will oblige, if not we can continue to insult each other. You choose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then do not foul up debate with your pathetic dismissals, it is really just a waste of time. I do realize that the chances of you taking my advice are next to nothing.
- finarfin / Sunday January 13, 2008 9:52:25 PM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Thank you. Christ Jesus, I thought I would die laughing as she continually told you that she cares not what you think while continually asking you for a response. Petty dismissals is all she normally offers anyway. She takes the role of class clown very seriously.
- achrispage6992 / Monday January 14, 2008 8:17:52 AM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
I'd take a class clown over a pig-headed know-it-all any day of the week.
- roundhouse / Monday January 14, 2008 10:44:38 AM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Thanks Roundhouse. Crispage IS a pigheaded contrarian. Dare I call him/her the class contrarian? I guess he likes the white supremecist more than I do. I don't like letting a racist have the last word. Call me quirky.
- juliajayne / Monday January 14, 2008 12:48:57 PM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110013?f=s_search
-------------------------------------------------------------
Like I said I didn't call you a pig headed know it all, but you certainly put that shoe on all by yourself.
As for the Oreilly thread where you made fallacy after fallacy in logic, I knew your ego couldn't admit being shown wrong. Let folks ( if they give a crap, I wouldn't since our tiff is way off topic) let folks decide for themselves. PPgs 180-200 http://mediamatters.org/items/200801070001?f=s_search
Anyway, I have been a jerk to you. I have been trolling you and I'm sorry. Just don't act so innocent.
As for the projection stuff, with all due respect, I would rather get psychoanalyzed by someone face to face. The armchair psychoanalysis you have given is somewhat lacking. In any event, you referred to me as old and gumpy so I returned the favor (so to speak) I will continue to do so if attacked. So, if you don't want to see that type of response then don't intiate it. If you can do those things there is no reason we can't get along. I'll do my part.
I will do my best to do likewise with you.
That would be called "trolling".
If that is how you see this then fine. Please be consistent in your judgments. Roundhouse wrote "I just love annoying that guy". My reference was that MAYBE I am contrary to him just to annoy him. That was in direct response to his initial assertion that he loves to annoy me. I'll expect you to admonish him for trolling as well, but I won't hold my breath simply because you guys have not shown any openess to different viewpoints. Seems to me that you are espousing the ideology of "It's all or nothing, your either with us or against us", right?
Like I said above, don't act so innocent.
The difference between "I love annoying..." and "I disagree because it annoys..." is that the former doesn't necessarily indicate dishonesty. You can make a valid, intellectually honest point and annoy someone (and enjoy doing so). That's different from disagreeing with someone for the purpose of annoying them. That's shaping your stated views with that end result in mind, which is trolling.
If that's what Roundhouse is doing with you, then I would say that's trolling as well. I don't have a problem with that, I just haven't seen the same sort of comment from him.
Furthermore, if you actally read the post from which you garnered my statement you should be able to see the context in which I used the adverb "maybe". Of course you know the word means possibly or perhaps. Then again, maybe you don't. Maybe, you have no clue what the hell you are writing about. No, you don't have a clue.
What am I wrong about? Did I definitively say he wasn't? Try reading it again.
"Your rationalization is clearly a transparent attempt to denigrate someone who holds a different political philosophy than yourself. You didn't see trolling from Roundhouse because you are blinded by your preconceived notions of me and your knowledge of Roundhouse's agreement with you in most areas. In fact, have you ever disagreed with him?"
Usually I've found he makes pretty good points. I may have disagreed with him at some time, I'm not sure. I do know I've disagreed with mefirst, Clams, Tex, Samscomputer, not sure who else off the top of my head. Again, you're assuming things about me that aren't true.
It's not a rationalization. The two comments are distinctly different from each other. If someone is making valid points and stating their true position, that's not trolling. If you want to argue otherwise, do so, but blanket dismissal based on supposed favoritism is a cheap maneuver.
"Furthermore, if you actally read the post from which you garnered my statement you should be able to see the context in which I used the adverb "maybe". Of course you know the word means possibly or perhaps. Then again, maybe you don't. Maybe, you have no clue what the hell you are writing about. No, you don't have a clue."
Of course, you do know that I pasted the word "maybe" as part of your quote. If you actually read all the way through the one-sentence post I made, you would have noticed that I said "that WOULD be called trolling". I didn't say "that's trolling" or "you're a troll", I said what it would be if that's what you were doing.
Please, go ahead and tell me that's not what I meant when I said that. That would be hilarious.
The problem is that you are spending so much time covering yourself here it is really hard to discern what you are talking about. Here is what you wrote: "The difference between "I love annoying..." and "I disagree because it annoys..." is that the former doesn't necessarily indicate dishonesty. You can make a valid, intellectually honest point and annoy someone (and enjoy doing so). That's different from disagreeing with someone for the purpose of annoying them. That's shaping your stated views with that end result in mind, which is trolling."
Then you wrote "I didn't say "that's trolling" or "you're a troll", I said what it would be if that's what you were doing." O.K. which is it? Was I trolling or not?
You wrote: "If that's what Roundhouse is doing with you, then I would say that's trolling as well. I don't have a problem with that, I just haven't seen the same sort of comment from him." Then you wrote: What am I wrong about? Did I definitively say he wasn't? Try reading it again." Now you first say that you "just haven't seen the same sort of comment from him" which would mean that you haven't seen him engage in trolling. Then you try to manuever around that and say that you never definitely said he wasn't trolling. Are you at least beginning to see the pattern of inconsistencies here? I should hope so. Perhaps you are not as smart as you like to think you are.
Your posts exude a tone of elitism. For example your previously used quote sums it up quite nicely: "The difference between "I love annoying..." and "I disagree because it annoys..." is that the former doesn't necessarily indicate dishonesty. You can make a valid, intellectually honest point and annoy someone (and enjoy doing so). That's different from disagreeing with someone for the purpose of annoying them. That's shaping your stated views with that end result in mind, which is trolling." You should really stick to discussing the subjects at hand and stop with the pseudo intellectuall lectures. They remind me of a drunk professor I had years ago.
So the reality here is that you have been caught being inconsistent and trying to cover it up with garbled rationalizations. You do this by denying that you are rationalizing. You then proceed to give me a poorly surmised lecture on what a rationalization is. Your right, it is hilarious.
"Maybe, you should try this facade on someone else." He says, as he promptly closes the door on the bewildered door to door vacuum cleaner salesman. Brabantio=door to door vaccum cleaner salesman.
"Then you wrote "I didn't say "that's trolling" or "you're a troll", I said what it would be if that's what you were doing." O.K. which is it? Was I trolling or not?"
You tell me. You said "maybe" that's what you were doing, remember? If you were changing your views just to create a reaction, then that would be trolling. Just because I defined what that behavior would be doesn't mean I said you were doing it.
"You wrote: "If that's what Roundhouse is doing with you, then I would say that's trolling as well. I don't have a problem with that, I just haven't seen the same sort of comment from him." Then you wrote: What am I wrong about? Did I definitively say he wasn't? Try reading it again." Now you first say that you "just haven't seen the same sort of comment from him" which would mean that you haven't seen him engage in trolling. Then you try to manuever around that and say that you never definitely said he wasn't trolling. Are you at least beginning to see the pattern of inconsistencies here? I should hope so. Perhaps you are not as smart as you like to think you are."
What the hell are you talking about? So because I haven't seen him trolling, then I'm supposed to say that he's never done it? That would be a hell of a ridiculous assertion for me to make, unless I read every single comment on every single thread. What's more, my comment was open to the possibility that he had been trolling! "If that's what Roundhouse is doing..." Obviously if I accept that possibility, it's not inconsistent for me to then say that he might have been trolling. Maybe you should take another shot at this one, because it makes no sense whatsoever. From your behavior so far, all I can expect is "if you don't get it, then I can't help you" or some other Tommy-esque cop-out.
"Your posts exude a tone of elitism. For example your previously used quote sums it up quite nicely...You should really stick to discussing the subjects at hand and stop with the pseudo intellectuall lectures. They remind me of a drunk professor I had years ago."
So should I misspell and misuse words, or what? There was a difference to be explained, so that's what I did. If you can't address it in some rational way, then obviously my point stands. If that makes you feel stupid, then that's not something I'm going to feel bad about.
"So the reality here is that you have been caught being inconsistent and trying to cover it up with garbled rationalizations. You do this by denying that you are rationalizing. You then proceed to give me a poorly surmised lecture on what a rationalization is. Your right, it is hilarious."
First off, your assertion of inconsistency does not stand by itself, and you haven't shown anything of the sort. Second, you're not making any argument to show how my point doesn't hold up, so there's no basis for you to say that anything is a rationalization. Third, I didn't make any lecture about what a rationalization is. I simply restated the difference between the situations.
I think the reality here is that you have self-control issues. I haven't made any ad hominem attacks, but you're comparing me to a drunk and questioning my intelligence. You're the one ascribing all sorts of motivations and attitudes for which you have no basis whatsoever. Why? You made the comment, all I did was point it out.
It's really very simple. Your comment suggested you were trolling, and so I pointed that out. If you weren't doing that, then all you had to do was say so. You were just blowing off steam, you didn't mean it, whatever. Instead you went and made all sorts of assumptions and bizarre accusations of inconsistency. Please stop trying to make more out of it than what there really is.
In the broader view this exchange has little to do with me, but I think I wanna say thanks for the consideration and discussion that this spillover from my and Chris' tiff gave life to. As always, it's been instructional.
Sorry my sweet Julia ya know I'm only kidding around. Your post just reminded me of when my kids were tots & watched Sesame Street which featured a different letter each day.
Your posts are clever as always :-)
Let me just add one more thing to your screed...Savage is a sh#thead.
So...conservatives are liberal? Therefore, you like liberals?
Lack of...logic. I feel dumber listening to this fool.
Perhaps this has been mentioned by somebody already, but around New Year’s Day sometime Savage implied he was going to go after MMFA in a similar way to how he is CAIR. I took it that he meant he was going to sue. He cut it short, saying that this wasn’t the time to get into it.
Give us a little credit. Sheesh.
So, here we have a blackshirt accusing liberals of being brownshirts. We also have a bitter, closeted gay man accusing other people of being part of some sort of homosexual conspiracy.
The term that comes immediately to mind is PROJECTION!
This is the best way I can describe Mr. Savage....
Wouldn't it be better to -share a crumb with a bum than a steak with a fake.
Michael, you are as phony as a three dollar bill. Your time must come to an end. And I believe that your advertisiers will soon make suggestions to you. I have heard that you are asking your listeners to send money to help with your lawsuit. So let me get this straight, YOU are suing but want everyone else to pay. You sir, are a FAKE. And I will ask the IRS to keep track.
"I walk with my head swiveling. I look over my shoulder. I live as though I am the hunted one." I wonder why?
Proverbs 28:1
See...with a post like that it's hard to understand you side in the matter. Now...since I seem to be the only right winger in the place...I would doubt you are actually on DR. Savage's side...Have you actually read Proverbs 28 all the way through? It helps Savage's point more than hurts. It is a whole lot more relevant to his case.
1)You can't "refresh" without going back to comment one
2)You can't change your web address to find a different page of comments - every page has the same address
3)You can't tell if there's a new comment without refreshing, going from one page of comments to the next doesn't reflect new posts.
So if we had a 300 comment thread, then you would have to click through 14 pages of comments every single time you posted near the end of that thread. Plus we're back to HTML tags. I'm not sure if it was MMfA's intent or not, but it definitely discourages posting.
It's really ridiculous
I have no idea what was wrong with the old system. If they're going to do it this way they should just go back to where all the comments were on the same page.
If Media Matters is the brownshirt of our time, The Silly Savage is the brown pants.
It says a great deal about him that he considers calling someone gay or whatever to be an insult. Particuarly given his personal history.
I've told the story here before: When The Silly Savage was on his first radio station in the San Francisco Bay Area, he was such a jerk one of his co-workers peed into his stupid leather hat.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/how-win-conservative
"After which, he he gathers the evidence to conclude that the "convention for the 'families values' Party was, in the end, really just a sweaty, slippery boozefest that put some of your less temperate frats to shame."
Let me begin by saying this:
I am what you all would consider a “right-wing nut job”. I love my God, my guns and my country! I believe all men are created equal and no one has the right to take away my freedom to life, freedom to God, and freedom of Speech. Dr. Savage feels the same way as I do. I know because I listen to and support his radio program. Dr. Savage is one of the few, even in the “Right” wing media who has the nerve to say much of anything against Islam or any other “Left” wing agendas. O’Reilly and Rush are nothing more than puppets to the Bush Administration. Don’t confuse them with conservatives like myself and Savage. In closing you don’t have to agree with what Savage says, just don’t listen and respect his right to say it. I don’t agree with about 99.9% of what is posted above, but I’d fight tooth and nail for any one of you to say it and post it. That is what TRUE freedom of speech is. If any of you have the gall to have a true debate on the issue please feel free to send me an email… jason_haildamage@yahoo.com. Subject: Savage Speech.
I applaud you for having the gall to be so blunt. Although it is probably not that wise to post your email on the Internet, there are morons in this world who would do someone evil just for the sake of it.
What are your opinions on race, as a "true" conservative? Savage gets ripped here every time, expect that the same be done to his supporters.