Savage on Obama: "We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Michael Savage falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, claiming that "[w]e have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings." The Obama campaign website states that Obama "has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."
On the February 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, claiming that "[w]e have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings." Savage made the comment while discussing a recent New York Times article that reported on Sen. John McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist. Savage dismissed the article and suggested that the media should be more concerned about "the Muslim connection to Obama." He continued: "Barack Hussein Obama. Father Muslim, grandfather Muslim. Nothing wrong with that. But we, the American people, being at war with radical Islam have a -- have a need to know just exactly what kind of Muslim he was exposed to, what kind of Muslim he is, what kind of Muslim teachings he's -- he's friendly to. We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings. That's something the media ought to be concerned about, not whether John McCain had an infatuation with a lobbyist 10 years ago." Savage went on to express concern that an unnamed "major reporter," who he said had spoken with him that morning, knew "nothing about Obama's Muslim background and the scandal that is behind all of that, that is raging on the Internet."
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Obama is not a Muslim. The Obama campaign website states that Obama "has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ." Numerous media figures, including Savage, have repeated the false rumor that Obama attended a madrassa as a child. Savage has frequently attacked Obama, on one occasion falsely referring to him as "Barack Madrassas Obama."
In addition to suggesting that the media should focus on "what kind of Muslim" Obama is, Savage asked: "[H]ow come we don't see you people running and foaming at the mouth about the scandals circulating about the Clintons right now with the uranium mine that Bill Clinton opened the door for and got a hundred-million-dollar gift to his library?" On January 31, The New York Times published an article about former President Bill Clinton's September 2005 trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra, which baselessly suggested that Giustra was able to secure agreements giving his company the right to buy into Kazakh mining projects because of his connection to Clinton. At no point in the article, however, did the Times note that Giustra was reportedly involved in Kazakh mining deals at least as far back as the mid-1990s, undermining the article's suggestion that Giustra needed to tap his Clinton connection to do business in Kazakhstan.
Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, says that Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. 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 February 21 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: When I spoke to a news reporter this morning, and she asked me about the McCain scandal, and I said, wait a minute. It's an allegation, number one. But number two, how come we don't see you people running and foaming at the mouth about the scandals circulating about the Clintons right now with the uranium mine that Bill Clinton opened the door for and got a hundred-million-dollar gift to his library? She said to me, "Oh, I didn't hear about that. Where was that?" I said, where was it? It was five minutes in the news last week or two weeks ago. Huge story. But you people didn't run at it because there was no sex involved and it was about your boy Clinton.
And what about Muslim -- the Muslim connection to Obama? Barack Hussein Obama. Father Muslim, grandfather Muslim. Nothing wrong with that. But we, the American people, being at war with radical Islam have a -- have a need to know just exactly what kind of Muslim he was exposed to, what kind of Muslim he is, what kind of Muslim teachings he's -- he's friendly to. We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings. That's something that the media ought to be concerned about, not whether John McCain had an infatuation with a lobbyist 10 years ago. But then, I'm expecting too much. Much too much. You understand that? When a major reporter who is reasonably educated knows nothing about Obama's Muslim background and the scandal that is behind all of that, that is raging on the Internet, and says she knows nothing about Clinton and the uranium mine and the money from the Canadian businessman, the hundred million dollars given to his library when it was all over the media two weeks ago, and she doesn't know anything about it. You get it?
Ah...you stole my thunder! I was going to ask if Weiner was 'closeted' like Rock Hudson or 'bathroomed' like Senator Craig or George Michael!
Americans have a right to know!
And...throw up a bit in their own mouths!
Throw up? You guys revel in people being gay. The liberal party can't survive without the gay movement being on your side (and you on theirs). Liberals and gays go together like butter on bread; one isn't complete without the other.
So, explain to me why Savage being gay would upset you so much? Maybe liberals really are homophobic and claim Savage is gay in order to denegrate the gay lifestyle. Maybe him being gay would explain the pent up hostilities and moronic beliefs that he has.
I have little experience with these things and don't know the truth about it. I just like calling savage gay.....not because I care at all, but because I know HE and his listeners might get steaming mad about it.
PHIL:
Gays have enemies, and they are not progressives.
Gays' enemies are those who promote hateful and discriminatory policy. And a surprising number of those people have turned out to be "self loathing" gays who are either practicing in secret and denying, or are latent while expressing their self loathing by promoting intolerance.
You attack liberals/progressive here like they are the problem. SAVAGE is the problem. CRAIG is the problem. BUSH is the problem. CHENEY is the problem. Get your priorities "straight".
Philib -
You've made (and repeated) one intelligent statement in this thread:
Maybe him being gay would explain the pent up hostilities and moronic beliefs that he has.
My response to that would be - yes, it could very explain it, but by no means does it excuse it.
The rest of your rambling makes you sound a lot like a 'concern troll'
Mikey's not sure of his "feelings"
This fissure of his sends him reeling
Into gross diatribes
With some predjudiced vibes
That his bigot listeners find appealing
Since I started this argument I suppose I should put my 2 cents in right about here. First off, I’m gay and “out” for 30-some years. By “out” I mean, I don’t care who knows it. I don’t go to bars, parades, or belong to any secret clubs or gay mafia – or whatever other fantasies Mr. Closetcase Weiner has in assuming my “lifestyle” (or “deathstyle” as he likes to call it).
Personally, I don’t much care what words are used – it’s the context and person who uses them that matters. I must admit I was a bit taken back the first few times I started hearing “gay” being used as description for something with a negative connotation, but hey “leftie” and “liberal” are used in a negative manner all the time to describe my political ideology, too. I live in a real world and know that “political correctness” in speech is about as achievable as racial tolerance in my lifetime. It’s a nice concept and makes for a good goal in society, but we’re a long way from reaching that goal. Name-calling is the least of my worries. Now if you start using name-calling as part of hate speech that insinuates or incites violence or social degradation towards gays (like the Weiner has done on numerous occasions), then I’ve got a problem with you.
I’d like to help out but the Southern Stronghold is having a Recruitment Drive this weekend. (Try contacting Toni or Vinnie on the North Coast.)
"When Savage lies to millions of people every day of every week, 52 weeks a year, for years on end,"
There's a challenge I think you all look forward to. Please provide evidence of one LIE that Savage has told. Keep in mind the only rule is if he is offereing an opinion then that cannot be construed as a lie. (I doubt you understand rules, though).
As you wish. It is obvious that his statement (even the little bit mmfa reprinted) is an opinion piece. So, you call his opinion a lie and he's expected to prove his opinion is his opinion??
But, it was nice to see you back down when faced with having to provide facts to your arguement.
Suggesting that an assertion of fact was really an opinion because it happened to occur in an opinion piece isn't a valid argument. Assertions of fact are not opinions.
Obviously, Obama is not a muslim today. There is indisputable evidence that he was exposed to the Islamic faith as a child: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354
All Savage is asking here is that we investigate whether he was exposed to moderate Islamic practices, or more extreme practices. Which I think is fair, given the attack that was launched on Romney's faith and the constant questioning and clarifications he had to keep giving about his mormonism.
Then you should inform the good doctor.
Here is his quote:
"We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings. "
The quote states that Savage believes he is most definitely a muslim. The only thing uncertain to the "eminent" doctor is which type of Muslim he is.
So once again, Savage is talking nonsense and his congregation laps it up.
If any of his personal research was used as evidence, I would admit that it might be prejudiced. But since he based conclusions on facts reported by other sources, his opinion really has no bearing here. The argument is clearly laid out, and the conclusions are logical.
I was thinking about this though, and its really a shame. People are supporting someone for president that was schooled and raised in another country, outrageous! At least Hillary is a home grown American, and we know about her past. I never thought I'd say this...but go Hillary! Knock this dirty Chicago politician off his block. I want to see this so called Clinton political machine get nasty.
That is exactly my point, hman. You stated an opinion. Is there a need to prove you wrong? Only if there is libel involved, (which there is, in your example). Now, to proceed with the court process you need to provide full details of your existance. My lawyer will be contacting you and mmfa for providing a forum that allows you to illegally libel another person.
You DO know that libel is against the law, right? Well, you crossed that line.
"That is exactly my point, hman. You stated an opinion. Is there a need to prove you wrong? Only if there is libel involved, (which there is, in your example). Now, to proceed with the court process you need to provide full details of your existance. My lawyer will be contacting you and mmfa for providing a forum that allows you to illegally libel another person.
You DO know that libel is against the law, right? Well, you crossed that line."
Hey I can't prove anything, I'm just saying it's my opinion that you molest children. Libel? What's that?
"Libel. What's that?"
hman, you may not like it, but your statement could be the driving force behind having mmfa censored by the federal government. If it becomes known that mmfa allows and/or promotes defamatory statements, on their web site, that are illegal it could cost them their non-profit status. Don't worry, I've already printed the statements and the entire article to this point.
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
Whether it's an opinion or not is not required. All that needed is that you say something defamatory towards me which causes an unjustly unfavorable impression, which you did in written form.
You are sooo funny, dude!
If Anne Coulter can call both Bill Clintons, Al Gore, and John Edwards "faqqots" or "gay" - and suggest there is a 50% chance that Hillary "comes out of her closet" - I'm sure no one is worried about calling you a child molester and asking for proof otherwise for the sole purpose of making an analogy for your ridiculous demands of "proof" that Obama isn't a Muslim.
Do you also want a list of false name-calling accusations Weiner has made over the years? (See my "Savage Lies" book link)
You're threats, fear-mongering, and scare tactics only PROVE how much Weiner has affected your pea-brain. Monkey do as monkey see.
"Monkey do as monkey see"
Amen to that! I've never seen a group of people do as they're told as I have at this site. Do each of you go through a program to learn how to lie? Or, is it a gift you all pride yourselves in?
Solon,
*LOL* Well said. Thanks.
All that needed is that you say something defamatory towards me which causes an unjustly unfavorable impression, which you did in written form.
Really? Do you really think you need our help? You're doing an excellent job of creating that "unfavorable impression" all by yourself.
hman, you may not like it, but your statement could be the driving force behind having mmfa censored by the federal government. If it becomes known that mmfa allows and/or promotes defamatory statements, on their web site, that are illegal it could cost them their non-profit status. Don't worry, I've already printed the statements and the entire article to this point.
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
Whether it's an opinion or not is not required. All that needed is that you say something defamatory towards me which causes an unjustly unfavorable impression, which you did in written form."
--
HA. I could not have laughed more when you tried to pull the libel card. Obviously you do not understand the law yourself, because you will understand that libel is absurdly hard to prove, and being two anonymous posters with little more than a screenname, the case would never even make it to court, and the lawyers would probably laugh in your face.
Seriously, it's really hard to prove. Also, the defamatory matter would have to be of public concern, which this is not.
Though I'd really like to see you try to bring a libel suit to any poster here. In fact, catalog it in a blog so we can all read it. It would be really funny.
PHILLIB, if you say you are not a child molester then that should be the end of it, unless you have stopped. I believe that Savage should know that Obama is not a Muslim based on his book and his explanation. How do you develop an opinion that he IS a Muslim after that?
And, shouldn't opinions be based on some kind of facts? We must always have facts to have the ability to garner an opinion. And we cannot create our own facts. Hey, if Savage has factual basis to call Obama a Muslim, just quote them.
And for someone to call you a child molester they should have facts unless you agree that they can form an opinion without those facts.
"PHILLIB, if you say you are not a child molester then that should be the end of it,"
My denial or approval of the statement is not required by law. The law states he cannot say it if it unjustly gives an unfavorable impression. Is being a child molester a favorable thing?? The LAW has been broken.
"And, shouldn't opinions be based on some kind of facts? We must always have facts to have the ability to garner an opinion. And we cannot create our own facts. Hey, if Savage has factual basis to call Obama a Muslim, just quote them."
Not true. Facts are not necassary to form opinion. Circumstances are. Facts only get in the way of correctly forming your opinion (see Duke rape case as an example).
"And for someone to call you a child molester they should have facts unless you agree that they can form an opinion without those facts"
No, one thing needed to call someone a child molester is unjust contempt. Which has happened.
"Facts are not necessary to form an opinion"....but they could surely help.
Duke rape case...see Lying DA
Whose opinion has a better track record of being correct?
I'm not sure. Is it Savage the self-loathing Jew, or Philib the child molester?
So the Savage had an opinion which turned out be be right?? That is a guess my man. Now, if anyone can prove that any other opinion of his is wrong, what does that make Savage, a Guesser or a reasonable man who gathers info before forming an opinion. Let me use an example, it has been proven by the Right and the Left that Obama is not a Muslim...is Savage right or wrong or, just maybe, his opinion is being used to get goofy listeners to think his way. Let us end this right now....
DO YOU THINK THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM?? Base it on opinion or facts, whichever you chose!
"what does that make Savage, a Guesser or a reasonable man who gathers info before forming an opinion"
I guess that case does show who the "reasonable" people are. How many of you waited until all the info was available before you started clamoring for his demise as he called you all idiots for being suckers when you believed a lie campaign offered by a racist? Hmmm, I don't see any hands raised.
"DO YOU THINK THAT OBAMA IS A MUSLIM?? Base it on opinion or facts, whichever you chose!"
I think he is a Christian (with a severe inability to comprehend Christian values). He has claimed to be a Christian for quite a few years. Can I prove he is a Christian? Not any more than you can prove he isn't Muslim. But, let's use facts.
Obama believes abortion is ok up to and after delivery. Muslim+Christian do not.
Obama believes homosexuality is ok. Muslim+Christian do not.
There's your answer! He does not follow teachings of either Muslim or Chistianity. I guess Savage's opinion is wrong this time.
You "think" that he's a Christian...unable to comprehend Christian values?
I'm a former theology grad student and methinks Obama's "Christian values" are so far beyond yours that you're not even in the same ballpark!
Obama believes abortion is ok up to and after delivery. Muslim+Christian do not."
HAHA HAAA *snort* hehe...hehe...
That's all I really needed to read. Where to begin? where to begin...So if abortion is ok up to and after delivery, then you're saying Obama believes murder is okay? because after delivery could mean any time, as in, 60 years old. And of course Muslims and Christians don't believe that...who does?
It's always been my view that abortion should be safe, legal, rare, and before the 1st trimester. Know what would reduce abortions? sexual education. Who opposes sexual education? Christian conservatives. Thereby, one could infer that Christians are pro-abortion.
Oh, and Christianity's basis for its abject stand against homosexuality consists of one verse in the entire Bible. Know how many times winking is condemned? 4. Ever winked? you just sinned. And don't ever let your wife interfere if you get in a fight with another man. You'd have to cut off her hands.
Thats funny because I didnt say it YOU did. I mean it was ignorant which is clearly your MO, and it WAS you who said it and you answer is a weak and silly variation of I know you are but what am I? Man you are weak. That was stupid when I first heard it in second grade. If you cant step up your game and this grade school stupidity is the best you can come up with this just isnt going to be any fun.
See y'all!
Phil, you are an uniformed, un-American troll.
But that's just my opinion.
It may be an "opinion piece," but what Wiener says in it is a lie. Remember o'lielly on Letterman? Letterman said, "60 percent of what you say is crap." o'lielly said, "That's your opinion." No it isn't, Billow, it's fact.
2+2=7. "That's just an opinion." Yeah.
Kevino,
Thanks! That's like Coultergeist referring to Barack as "B. Hussaim Obama." It's a cheap, adolescent scare tactic appealing to the truly ignorant who know nothing of Islam yet condemn it as anti-American.
So Wiener, like his colleagues, is a liar, pure and simple.
"Keep in mind the only rule is if he is offereing an opinion then that cannot be construed as a lie. (I doubt you understand rules, though)."
In my opinion: Michael Savage lies constantly; he acts deranged; he is hateful and encourages violence; and, he has latent sexual issues.
In my opinion: You appear to be dumb as dirt and and as someone trying to pass himself off as an intelligent, educated person.
PHILIB: There's a challenge I think you all look forward to. Please provide evidence of one LIE that Savage has told. Keep in mind the only rule is if he is offereing an opinion then that cannot be construed as a lie. (I doubt you understand rules, though).
Woooooo big challenge! There's a whole book out on the subject...
Savage Lies: The Half-Truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-Wing Blowhard (Paperback)
If it will stop you from wasting our time, maybe we can all chip in the $14.50. (Maybe even the extra $10.00 if you need the talking-book version.)
And why are you so "touchy" about the child-molester analogy? Hmmm
Dude, you are starting to freak me out – u know why? I’m starting to think you ARE Dr. Weiner. You use his “logic”, his arguments, and have his psychotic nature. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you’re trying to us a typical Weiner argument to claim that this award-winning writer isn’t qualified - maybe because he didn’t go to the right college? Did you enjoy reading his whole Amazon blog? LOL.
If you really need more – there are a few other books that expose the lies of the right-wing hate machine (just Google "Michael Savage lies") – and of course don't forget the dozens of articles right here on MMFA under the “Michael Savage” moniker.
If you want to argue about something that is based on your beliefs, stick to arguing religion – at least there aren’t modern public records to prove you wrong there.
All I can say to perhaps dampen this fervor you have for your hero is that for as many “followers” as Dr. Weiner has, there are just as many Americans who would rather see him dead – me included. I could go on, but talking about this guy for more than a few minutes "makes me want to puke" - so excuse me, 'til we meet again.
Clev,
There's also a sort of "summary" I recommend, essays on the whole gamut of right wing blowhards. It's called "I Hate Ann Coulter...." with the title also including a various other windbags.
It's great because you don't have to subject yourself to too much of the noise you hear from the right.
"Please provide evidence of one LIE that Savage has told." -Philib
Savage claimed he didn't receive the position of Dean of the School of Journalism at UC Berkley due to reverse discrimination. That would indicate to me that the applicant they chose was a woman or a minority, but that would not be the case. They chose Orville Schell, who, judging from his photograph, is a white male just like Weiner. Not only did he lie about it, but he initiated a frivolous lawsuit against UC Berkley. He also said Orville Schell's "claim to fame was managing an organic cattle farm" and he "was certainly no more qualified than I was." In fact Orville Schell "is a long time contributor to The New Yorker, The Atlantic, New York Times Magazine, The Nation, Los Angeles Times Magazine, Granta, Newsweek, the China Quarterly, Vanity Fair, and The New York Review of Books. He served as a television commentator for ABC, NBC and CBS, and has worked as a correspondent and consultant for a number PBS 'Frontline' documentaries. Schell graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, and received an M.A. and Ph.D in Chinese History from the University of California, Berkeley." At the time both men sought the position of Dean, the only journalism qualifications Weiner possessed was two years of doing his talk show, which I would hardly think makes him just as qualified as Oliver Schnell to be Dean of Journalism.
You can't even make an acurate claim against Savage. He started his radio career in 1994. By that time he had 20 books written. Schell only wrote 14 total (9 by 1994)! Schell had written 2 by the time Savage started writting the first of his 26. How many of Schell's intricate works earned him "Best Seller" awards? Savage's books earned 4. How does learning about China and being a Taiwan exchange student qualify him to be 'Dean of Journalism' over Savage when both had written books (but Savage books were award winning books). Sounds like some kind of discrimination.
Sara: "At the time both men sought the position of Dean, the only journalism qualifications Weiner possessed was two years of doing his talk show, which I would hardly think makes him just as qualified as Oliver Schnell to be Dean of Journalism."
So, you back up your claim of a lie with lies. Sure, I'll believe that. All you have is opinion, just like all the rest.
Where did I lie? I said Weiner was no more qualified than Schell, and it is true. Weiner wrote most of his books on Botony, which would fall within the realm of
scientific research, not journalism. Weiner had nowhere near the journalism qualifications Schell possessed. Learning about China and Taiwan does not make one a journalist, but you seem to have conveniently ignored his long list of accomplishments, compared to Weiners books on botony and a few of years on the radio. He filed his reverse discrimination lawsuit in 1997, 3 years after he began his radio show, and at the time he applied for the position he had only been on the radio a couple of years. Again, where did I lie? My post was not based on opinion. Let me make it clear for you- it is a fact that Weiner claimed reverse discrimination, and it is a fact that the man they hired instead of him is white. Schell is a white male, Weiner is a white male which means no reverse discrimination which means Weiner lied. It is really quite simple.
What has Obama done to garner this kind of support/hero worship/kool-aid drinkers/cult followers? Nada! Notwithstanding that he's not Bush, mind you.
<><><> Other than that, he's a hollow example of what a Prez should be.
<>Obama has a Muslim father so Savage has every right to wonder what he might, that's right MIGHT be capable of in the future. I don't say I agree with Savage altogether on this but it's at least a topic worth discussing.
I hear his granddaddy was a Buddhist, his grandma was Jewish, great-grandfather was a Mormon with 5 wives, and his cousin is a Scientologist. Oh geeze – Armageden! – He’s sure to spawn the Anti-Christ, if he isn’t really him already!
You do know that there is a proven genetic link between him and McCain?
Oh my God fellow Democrats, what if Obama turns into a MAVERICK????
Weiner is a fear-mongering hateful bigoted ba$tard delusional nutcase who has fools like you buying into his insanity! So sad that Americans could be so gullible!
"Obama has a Muslim father so Savage has every right to wonder what he might, that's right MIGHT be capable of in the future."
Savage has every right to wonder, but he does not have any more rights beyond that, since it would amount to a religious test, which is expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
I
I
AMI
I am not an Obama supporter at all much less a koolaid drinker lesisamoron. It is plain stupid to think that just because his father, who has been described as agnostic, MAY be a Muslim that means Obama is anthing other than he claims. FLAT OUT DUMB. My father was a 20 year Marine does that mean someone ought to assume I am or was a Marine? My Mother was Lutheran, I never was, that isnt logic at all its just stupid.
"My father was a 20 year Marine does that mean someone ought to assume I am or was a Marine?"
Don't worry, NO ONE will confuse you with a marine! Marines are smart, brave and proud of their nation.
Yeah, especially two-time Medal of Honor winner Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler. Over 75 years ago, from his own personal experiences, he understood and explained how the military is inherently bound to the interests of the power elite.
Phil,
Then get down to the recruiter and SIGN UP. I'm soooo tired of rightie hawks who praise the military but aren't the first one in line at the recruiter. (This from a guy who had a friend who was a USMC gunnery sgt. who alway said, "You'd make a great Marine." I laughed, "Nick, you don't know me...")
Les,
That ranks among the most loaded statements I've ever seen. We're all cultists because we may support Obama? Or is that another scare tactic?
I CHOSE to support Obama after losing out on a few whom I would have chosen if they were still in the running.
Do I claim Obama is a God-sent? Certainly not! And unfortunately, the way the system is set up, there's always a little of "the lesser of two evils" to contend with. However, referring to me and the many others who attended the primary victory party of a local progressive to the US House of Representatives as "kool aid drinkers," cultists, etc. it to insult us. And we're MANY--union activists, cancer victims, people who believe in the USA despite Dubya. Oh, by the way, the day before that primary, I walked 20 minutes to get to the end of the line of an Obama rally at the University of Maryland near which I live. Then we walked 1 1/2 hours to get in. Are all the 18,000 who attended that rally a bunch of lunatic kool aid drinkers? Methinks not.
Now those who believe Wiener's diatribes when most can be proven wrong, what flavor of Jones-Aid are they sipping vigorously?
After all sins of the father, you know?
"[w]e have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings."
Actually, we don't, because the U.S. Constitution says we don't.
Savage, why don't you just straight-out say that Barack Obama should be assasinated if you're so worried about a "Muslim" becoming the next President? We know how you feel about Muslims and people that are accused of being Muslim.
"Accused of being Muslim" - Jesus, that sounds like something from Germany in the 1930's.
Wanted: Photo Shopper...
Just for fun, someone should Photo Shop an image of a teen-age Obama's head on to a guy in a group of kneeling men in a mosque.
Then, send it with an Indonesian postmark to the Weiner man.
Actually, hilary needs that picture more! lol Her campaign is about over and she will head home unless clinton/co can come up with some more to smear Obama with. Kinda funny about hilary...she tried as hard as she could to be liberal and found that isn't the way to go.... eventually, you have to stop whining to win.
Considering she used kindergarten essays on "what you want to be" as proof he was lying about his desires to be president, she will do anything to become the most powerful man in the free world.
That's hilarious. Obaama is laying waste to the Clinton campaign for the very fact that he communicates his liberal values much better than Hillary. Sorry, but it's true.
"the very fact that he communicates his liberal values much better than Hillary"
Oh, he absolutely is extremely liberal. More than anyone I've seen. But, he doesn't have the experience to run a nation. IMHO, in his presidency he will be no more than a puppet on a string for all the democrats that "helped" him become president. Whether he communicates his liberal views "better" to the nation is irrelevant, his views won't matter. The views of the Kennedy's, Clinton's, Kerry's, Byrd's will be the driving forces behind any procedure changes during Obama's presidency. Think about it...it will be just like the '50's again. President Obama will be told what to do by ex-leader Byrd. The old saying may prove true again; if you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it.
It looks like the election will now come down to 'who' the vice president will be. McCain is a lock and Obama has the lead and momentum to be the other candidate.
Now we have to wait and see who they choose to be vp, whether it's who "the party" wants them to choose or if they go with a personal choice. I think the winner will be the one who chooses his personal choice and doesn't fall to 'party' demands. I don't think the American people want status quo from government and the candidate that 'appears' to promote status quo will lose.
Bush Sr. had plenty of experience as a politician but it translated into not much at all of a presidency. Nixon had plenty of experience, too. Clinton had some experience, he even had the Jimi Hendrix experience. He was decent. Lincoln had little experience. FDR was rather vague in his campaign and had a little experience. But just what the hell kind of experience makes one ready to be president? Your term is annoyingly vague.
You wish Obama's message were irrelevant. But in fact, I think you know, due in large part to Obama's ability to inspire people with a liberal message that politics and the way people perceive government is about to transform. I think you can see that anti-government, radical capitalist Republicanism has played itself out to it's logical conclusion of low wages, job insecurity, national insecurity, crumbling infrastructure and general public discontent over being disconnected from each another while being pitted against one another in bitter competition.
Obama's not the most liberal I have seen. Nor is he the most liberal I could hope for, but his is but the first major step in long walk back to the fundamental liberal principles of effective government, broad prosperity and mutual responsibility.
Just like the 50's again?
We had the strongest middle class in history, a strong social safety net and an infrastructure that was th envy of the world. We also had an empowered workforce, we were reaping the benefits of Roosevelt's New Deal. It was, in many ways a great era. It was also an era of racism and fear.
But those days are done homey. Time to move on. Time to progress. Time to build an all inclusive activist government.
See, your fatal flaw is that you believe the Republican swill that our government is a business. It ain't. It's a non-profit organization that we fund in order to put our money to work for us on the things that are bigger than the individual. It is open and accountable to us.
Conservatism is an anachronism.
Exactly – coward is the best adjective. How often do you see the likes of Weiner, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al as part of a round-table political discussion? They are either hiding behind a microphone in their studio, spilling their drivel and lies, or occasionally brought on as a “guest” for a one-on-one with another wingnut pundit who is willing to let them parrot their hate and lies unabated. They KNOW the result would be total humiliation should they ever be exposed and held up to the scrutiny of the very people and groups they attack. I’d love to see any of these cowards in a publicly televised debate where the person across from them is not someone trying to push their agenda.
Clev,
And none--I repeat NONE--has a minute of military experience.
Tough to be a hawk, huh? They wouldn't know a rifle from a microphone...
Is it any wonder that a reporter did not know about Obama being a Muslim since he never was one. The rest of the right wing are raving about Obama attending a "black only" church in Chicago.
Apparently whatever your father and grandfather were is what you have to be. That means I only think I am a Unitarian Universaliast, which I assume Savage thinks is a bunch of liberal flakes. I must really be a Methodist since that is what my partents and grandparents were. The fact that I have never belonged to any church except Unitarian Universalist churches means nothing. Poor me, why did I spend four years attending a Unitarian Universalist seminary?
Since Savage's, real name Weiner, parents were Jewish that means he is Jewish. Does anyone know if he keeps kosher? What synagogue does he attend? Does his rabbi approve of his racist rants?
Does the same logic apply in other areas? Since Weiner has written about what was clearly a homosexual relationship with Alan Ginsburg back in the sixties that must mean Weiner, now Savage, is a homosexual.
When you start with false information, have no standards, and apply no logical principles you can prove anything. Most people give up the fantasy that just because you want something to be true makes it true about the time they start elementary school. Such magical thinking in adults is usually a sign of mental illness. Mike Savage would have fit right in at the two psychiatric hospitals where I served as a chaplain.
Sgtcedar,
Well put. Thanks. But those who adore Wiener, o'lielly, etc. seem to like those demagogues to tell 'em what to think, even though the "thought" is little more than spouting off right-wing diatribes. Note that such platitiudes require no evidence.
And THAT'S frightening.
Savage-Weeny is the unsung hero of all closeted anti-Semetic, gay bashing, hate-America, hate thy self, truth hating, lying kind of gays....
I don't know which is worse: to know that there is a segment of my fellow citizens that actually waste their time listening to this guy or that there are people like Weiner on the radio spewing this garbage for those citizens to listen too?
And nevermind that Obama has stated repeatedly that he is, in fact, a Christian.
Kevino: Then you're crazy!
Philib: I know you are but what am I?
Kevino: You're a nerd!
Philib: I know you are but what am I?
Kevino: You're an idiot!
Philib: I know you are but what am I?
Philib, Kevino: I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? I know you are but what am I? Philib: Infinity!
Kevino: No, I'm not.
Kevino, Philib: You are! No way! Knock it off! Cut it out!
Kevino: Shut up, Philib!
Philib: Why don't you make me.
Kevino: You make me!
Philib: Because. I don't make monkeys, I just train 'em.
Kevino: Philib listen to reason.
[Philib cuffs his hand around his ear in a listening motion]
Kevino: Philib!
Philib: Sh! I'm listening to reason.
Kevino: Philib!
Philib: That's my name, don't wear it out.
Kevino: Remember the first time I saw your bike? You came riding past my house and I came running out to tell you how much I liked it even way back then?
Philib: I love that story.
[jumps on bike and pedals away]
Kevino: You'll be sorry, Philib Herman!
The one with the digits was a wingnut whacko, not Kevino. I'm pretty sure he got thrown out.
Kevino is one of us.
My God, this guy really is an ignorant idiot. He's following in the o'lielly track: state stuff with such conviction that right-wingers assume it must be true.
Actually, I think Weiner is just a media harlort, though, like Coulter and o'lielly, not a complete sociopath like Horowitz--for what that observation is worth...
Then you'll see the level of genius you're dealing with.
Phil is much more intelligent than any of us or any scientist. He gets his knowledge from Dr. Weiner.
Ask king where he gets his origin of HIV theory info from. You'll see we're not dealing with a full deck at the moment.
I see you had the whole conversation censored. Good job.
I have no theory. I just said that Dr. Weiner's theory, that the AIDS virus jumped the species from eating monkeys, wasn't what the scientists are saying.
I said that the digestive system was not an easy way to transmit the virus. I added that for the good doctor to state his theory based on digesting the virus was not very scientific.
Next, I'm going to make a lightning bolt hit your car.
I will make sure that no one will get hurt though.
(I'm not a monster.)
"The whole conversation, gone, poof, just like that!"
Just like that. All your backpedaling because you found out that your theory did not agree with scientific theory. And to think you whined about me not believing a scientific theory when you are doing the same thing. Even going so far as to invent scientific fact by saying it isn't possible to transfer the disease by eating contanimated meat, when most scientists believe that's how it started.
You and Dr. Weiner are the one's who claimed that the AIDS virus first spread to humans by EATING infected monkey meat.
I stated that transmission through the digestive system is unlikely. Most scientists agree.
Where Dr. Weiner and you get your FACTS mixed up is that he specifically said eating transmitted the first case to humans. Science proposes it may have been the BUTCHERING of infected primates, but not EATING them.
And I'd stay out of your car tonight between the hours of 2 AM and 4 AM if I were you. That's when the lightning bolts will come
Butchering a chimpanzee or perhaps being bitten by one is the most common explanation I have read.
Since when do opinions not require consideration of the facts. Without such consideration of both sides (or more) of an issue then what is left is an attitude not an opinion. (This info from freshman English Comp--Ray Kytle.
"Clear Thinking For Composition"