Savage: Obama was "hand-picked by some very powerful forces ... to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War"
SUMMARY: Michael Savage stated of Sen. Barack Obama: "I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United State of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century."
On the March 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated of Sen. Barack Obama: "I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United State of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century." Savage was discussing controversial statements by Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, the recently retired pastor of Obama's church, when he made the comments.
In the past, Savage has said of Obama, "We have a right to know if he's a so-called friendly Muslim or one who aspires to more radical teachings." He has also referred to Obama as "Barack Madrassas Obama," and falsely claimed that he was "indoctrinated" in a "Muslim madrassa in Indonesia."
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 March 13 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: And I'm warning you that Barack Obama's pastor is the soul of Barack Obama's movement. And if you want a man who says not "God bless America," but "God damn America," if you want a man who takes the side of the imperial Japanese army, an army that killed not only hundreds of thousands in the Bataan Death March, but hundreds of thousand of Koreans, an army that operated on people while they were alive in Manchuria, a man who takes the side, in essence, of the Japanese Nazis of World War II, if you want a man who takes the side, in essence, of the Hitlers of the world, then you've got it in Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, of the Trinity United Church of Christ.
And I'm warning you here -- I am sitting here and warning you that Barack Obama himself -- I don't know whether he's good, bad or indifferent -- I think he's just an ordinary apparatchik of the Democrat machine in Chicago, personally. I don't think he's particularly smart; I don't think he's particularly stupid. I think he was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United States of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century.
And I warn you, ladies and gentlemen, what I'm playing for you is not edited speech, it is not corrected speech, it is not invented speech, it is unadulterated speech of the lowest order, and it's not coming from a conservative -- it's coming from a liberal, like yourself. And so, in case you missed it, I'm gonna play it all day. I suggest you call a few of your friends. If you're in a synagogue, give a call to your rabbi who has a Barack Obama on his lawn. Let us say you're a church-goer and a white person, and you think, "Hey, the Messiah has arrived! Obama's gonna lead us and save us!" I want you to call a few members of your church to listen to where he's gonna lead you and what he's gonna say, because this man, by the way, has not been disconnected from Obama. Why, he makes Louis Farrakhan sound like a nice man.
Well, assuming 18% of our country still thinks that Bushie is doing a heckuva job, that's about 45 million people who choose to bury their heads in the sand. It would be easy to pull 8 million listeners out of that (cess)pool.
The remaining 30 million or so are probably the 'Fox News' Republicans who think that the cause of all their problems are evil lib-ruls.
"Well, assuming 18% of our country still thinks that Bushie is doing a heckuva job"-Kyle
Well as we are speaking of Bush and his ratings, lets take a look at the other side, those who do not support bush. There is a sufficent politically concious part of this group that dislikes bush for political and ideological reasons. I believe that most posters on this site fall into this category.
yet mostly among young people I have noticed they have this inexplicable hatred of this guy they call Bush, but they do not know exactly why except that it has something to do with some war. These people have abondoned all semblance of thinking for themselves, and have let public opinion dictate what they believe. When questioned as to why they dislike G.B. such people are unable to come up with a single original answer.
I am not saying that ol' George was the dandyest president, but really, lets try not to drag all of the politically ignorant into Bush hate-mania. The political beliefs of the ignorant are as an effect of their condition are quite susceptible to influence.
Oh, lord.
Okay, Fins, try and keep up here. Young people do not despise Bush because of 'some war.' They know what war we are conducting. It speaks of your own desperate level of denial that you would even assume that this is something that they are unfamiliar with. No, it is because he (and Cheney, etc) lied repeatedly to the American people in order to get them on board with their hair-brained neo-con scheme to invade and occupy a sovereign nation THAT POSED NO THREAT TO THE US in order to seize their massive oil reserves. It was a move that has cost us nearly 4000 dead service men and women, several thousand more in maimed and shattered wounded, tens to hundreds of thousands in Iraqi casualties, and has drained our financial resources to the point that our progeny will be paying down our debts for decades.
He did this while providing massive tax cuts for America's economic elites, waging an economically and theologically inspired war against science, suppressing enforcement of laws against pollution and predatory financial practices, packed the Federal courts with right wing activist judges, stripped the Constitution of much of its meaning and authority, engaged in warrantless wire tapping against American citizens, allowed through deliberate and contrived inaction a large number American citizens to suffer and even die as a result of a natural disaster, pursued fatuous economic policies that have caused the economy to falter, stumble, and sink, and overseen a colossal transference of the nation's wealth from the poor, the working class, and the middle class into the over-stuffed coffers of the power elite.
George Dubya' Bush is inarguably the worst president in the history of the republic. He is an unelected huckster who has cheerfully busied himself about the business of stealing us blind, whether it the subject of his unquenchable avarice is our money, our rights, or even our lives. He is the president of greed, and knows that there is an abundance of willing fools (though this figure has now dropped well below the 30% mark) who will cheerfully grab their ankles and thank him for his rapacious attentions.
Remember, this is 8 million people not daily, but on average what he draws in per week. Which, if we do our maths properly, we have approximately 1.6 million people tuning in per day, which is still fairly scary (if the ratings are correct, and I have no reason to believe why they wouldn't be correct).
I know some of these people, and I work with some of these people who talk like Savage does, and who loyally listen to his show, and talk about how he "just tells it like it is" and so on and so forth. I, fortunately, had never heard of Michael Savage before moving to NC, and I wish now that I had never heard of him in that time. Ah well... Now I listen mostly for pure entertainment, and head shaking moments, and to hear what looney thing he's going to espouse next. I have to admit, I missed this one. But, it's right in line with his other tirades about how the country is going to go down the crapper if we elect a democrat to the White House in November. Of course, taking into account that we're not so well off right now, which he always seems to forget to address, and who was in charge for most of those years? Republicans. Yeah, keep on it Mikey. You're a loon of the highest order, but I have no doubt his Jingometer is pegged 10 days out of 10.
Actually, many good things happened to America after the end of the Civil War and reconstruction. Too bad for Mikey Savage, his side lost!
For the record, it was not a "civil war". The two sides were not both fighting to gain control of the federal government. The confederate states chose to break from the union due to the power play that the northern states were utilizing in order to gain and maintain more power and control than the confederate states had at the federal level. The northern state representatives wanted the southern slaves to NOT be counted as part of the southern population, which would have an adverse affect on the amount of representation the southern states would wield at the federal level. The southerners, who wanted slaves to be counted as part of the population, were forced by the northern representatives to compromise such that slaves were counted as a mere three-fifths their actual population. That gave the northern politicians substantially more federal power than the southern politicians by diminishing the actual sounthern population census. (Remember, this occured during the time when slavery was legal. Also, let's bear in mind the fact that slavery existed widely in Africa, Europe, Middle East, etc. for thousands of years before it was introduced to our little neck of the woods, wherein it was first legally abolished, although it still exists today in the Middle East. Also, the Barbay Coast pirates of Africa captured and sold into African slavery more white Europeans than the numbers of African slaves who were brought to America.)
Another point that caused the confederates to break from the union was the Missouri Compromise wherein the northern politicians decided that no US territory could legally incorporate slavery. This was also illegal as the federal government had no legal rights to impose any laws on a territory because a territory had not yet become a state, and thereby would fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
These two acts prompted the confederates to break away from the union. It was not so much about slavery as it was a reaction to the unfair and illegal acts being purpetrated by northern politicians. The confederates did not start the "civil war". The actual war began when Prez. Lincoln ordered the union army to attack Fort Sumtner, SC.
I was only six at the time but as soon as they told me this I denounced and repudiated their hate speech and refused to go back to their school.
The crazy nuns used to tell us that the reason Honest Abe got shot was that he went to the theater on Good Friday.
I was only six at the time but as soon as they told me this I denounced and repudiated their hate speech and refused to go back to their school.
I remember being around that age when I went to Sunday School for the first time. The following is the very first thing the nun said to my class that day (and even though I heard her say this in 1959, I remember it as if it were yesterday):
"Everyone in this room is a Catholic, and if you're good all your life, you can go to Heaven when you die. Jews can't get into heaven - Protestants can't get into Heaven. Only good Catholics are allowed into Heaven."
And thus began my religious indoctrination.....
This is a shocking accusation that you've made, King.
If this is indeed true, it would mean that God entered into a conspiracy to assasinate the President of the United States. Clearly, this is a case of celestial terrorism. There is, of course, no statute of limitations when it comes to murder, and so its not to late to bring this killer to justice. The Department of homeland Security should immediately be notified, and a warrant for His arrest should then be issued forth with. God, if you ask me, will no longer go about acting quite so high and allmighty once he's gotten a little taste of Gitmo.
The abolitionists hate us for our freedom, Lynn. If they can deny us such a fundamental liberty as the right of one human being to own others, then what other rights can they deny us? You mark my words, these radicals won't stop until we're no longer permitted to rape the Earth, pollute the air, or even to poison the oceans. They'll force us to allow others to speak freely, which would make a mockery out of our own sacred rights of free speech. They'll give lawyers to accused criminals. They'll abandon the revealed word of the true God and let people worship any damned way they please, no matter how foreign and weird we find their beliefs. They'll even look the other way when boys kiss other boys... and I mean right on the mouth!
No wonder God shot Lincoln.
Oh brother!
Show me one person in our country who is rallying for the cause of one human's right to own another human. That is not on anyone's plate!
At the time slavery was legal. It was also highly immoral (as well it is!) American's realization of the immorality of slavery juxtaposed to our national creed making note of the fact that ALL men are created equal was the beginning of the end of slavery in the western hemisphere.
Also Lincoln was a republican.
Not only are your points of argument drenched in sarcasm they're utterly preposterous.
I'm not sure you understand the concept.
Lincoln was a Republican?
Short, historically accurate answer: YES, Lincoln was a Republican.
FactPACKER? LOL!!!!
Col, once again, dude, you crack me up. huh huh huh... You still got it, dude! Too bad you ripped your pants, dude...
This kind of disconnect is what I find so amusing about cons. Their worldview is predicated on stasis, tradition and other static dogma. Yet they celebrate the societal transformations, evolutions of intellect of the past like they would have been champions of change, instead of executors of the status quo in that historical moment.
Utterly ridiculous but what can we expect from people who say things like, "how me one person in our country who is rallying for the cause of one human's right to own another human."
Tom Delay. The sex slave sweatshop on the Marrianas Islands he holds high as the example of what is right with conservative style capitalism is the obvious answer.
Republicans like you disgust me. The total lack of awareness and moral torpitude is a shining example of your unsuitability for leadership.
Hey Moonbat,
Your so-call "War of Northern Agression" theory is actually a historically accuate set of circumstances.
And thanks for offering your toilet bowl commentary, thereby adding to the validity of my original statement. If a liberal anal sphincter muscle, such as yourself, were ever to disagree with modern liberal democrapic ideology, then said sphincter would no longer ascribe to said ideology, would you?
Oh yeah, I forgot you're the winner with the fecal obsession whose idea of intellectual discourse is to string together jumbles of five dollar words into nonsensical ramblings.
The act of the confederate states in seceding from the union was a declaration of war. In any nation throughout history the decision of a part of that nation to leave and declare independence, whether they be a colony, territory, state or any other segment of the nation, is a declaration of war against the parent nation. It is revolution, whether it be the American colonies rebelling against Britain or the Soviet satellite nations declaring their own sovereignty after the fall of the USSR. It doesn't always lead to war but it is an act of agression nonetheless. Secession was the first shot in the Civil War.
As for the argument over whether slaves should have been counted in the population for matters of political representation, why should they have been? They had no rights and no ability to exercise independent political thought. They were considered property the same as cattle or a plow. If someone is not considered a citizen, or for that matter, not really a human being, why would they be counted for matters of representation.
The South gave up on settling this argument over political power peacably and chose to rebel against the country. The Civil War was not completely about slavery, it can be argued that many whites on either side of the Mason-Dixon line had similar attitudes regarding blacks, but slavery was a root issue and the linchpin in causing it.
Now go ahead and make some more poop jokes before getting out your thesaurus.
The act of the confederate states in seceding from the union was a declaration of war.
No it wasn't. It was an act of independence, a rescinding of their previous decision to ratify the constitution and join the union. They found fault with how the centralized power structure was beginning to play out, and they bowed out. That is not the same thing as an official declaration of war.
In any nation throughout history the decision of a part of that nation to leave and declare independence, whether they be a colony, territory, state or any other segment of the nation, is a declaration of war against the parent nation.
Pragmatism. However, this scenario does not fully apply to the start of our Union. Throughout history such nations, colonies, provinces, etc. were overtaken and claimed by the parent nation. In our case the territories had the option of making the choice to join the parent nation. That right of choice was also taken as a right to change one's mind, i.e. to unchoose.
It is revolution, whether it be the American colonies rebelling against Britain or the Soviet satellite nations declaring their own sovereignty after the fall of the USSR.
Do you mean to suggest the Soviet satellite nations' post USSR sovereignty was an act of war against mother Russia?
It doesn't always lead to war but it is an act of agression nonetheless.
You maneurered from calling this an "declaration of war" to a mere "act of agression". Not the same thing. However I hold with my observation that this is not what occurred at the beginning of the war between the states.
Secession was the first shot in the Civil War.
Incorrect. Secession alerted our Mr. Lincoln's better sensibilities regarding the then very likely possibility that our newly formed country and government were on the verge of callapsing. Lincoln's vision was that should not be allowed to happen. His vision was worth fighting for. Good thing he beleived so, I say.
As for the argument over whether slaves should have been counted in the population for matters of political representation, why should they have been? They had no rights and no ability to exercise independent political thought. They were considered property the same as cattle or a plow. If someone is not considered a citizen, or for that matter, not really a human being, why would they be counted for matters of representation.
I'll not argue the morality and ethics of their position on this issue. That was a completely different time and set of circumstances. Slavery was legal in our country at the time. Today the idea of legalized slavery is unrealistic and outrageous to the point of being a universal sin on the level of murder. I merely pointed to the reality that that particular position existed among Southern politicians during that particular time.
The South gave up on settling this argument over political power peacably and chose to rebel against the country. The Civil War was not completely about slavery, it can be argued that many whites on either side of the Mason-Dixon line had similar attitudes regarding blacks, but slavery was a root issue and the linchpin in causing it.
The southern politicians had their own set of beliefs and standards regarding the machinations of the antebellum southern culture which involved the use of slaves in agricultural indeavors. Their livelyhoods depended upon that particular element of their society. Right or wrong -- ethically speaking -- that is a fact that is often ignored today.
Finally your silly remark alluding to my need to use a thesarus is utterly nescient.
One day in Telletubby Land Schlong said: "Is this explosion of incredible ignorance the best you have? Do you hang out at elementary schools to take notes on how to debate. You ignorance and moronity are just tired and boring."
....and interesting. Hey, Schlong, you left out "interesting". It's obviously of interest to you! This is obvious to person with even moderately accute powers of observsation who must take note of your consistent attention paid to things so "tired and boring"....
One day in Telletubby Land, Schlong said, "You didnt have a point. Considering you are a moron conservative I will let it slide."
To which Dipsy replied, "Hey Schlong, how 'bout you and Tinky Winky get out of the bathroom and give someone else a turn..."
Isn't it AMAZING that someone who calls himself "Fact Finder" hasn't found a fact yet????
:-)
Isn't it AMAZING that someone who calls himself "Fact Finder" hasn't found a fact yet????
Tee hee heee! That was cute, Worstwriter. Now get back to selling girlscout cookies and leave the adult conversation to the adults...
When you regurgitate said ignorance however expect to be called on it.
Hey Schlong, how about you back up your PMS induced verbal abbarration that is so prevalently sewn into your so-called rebuttals. What "said ignorance" say ye, my good wench?
You missed my point.
We couldn't see it. It was hidden by your hat.
We couldn't see it. It was hidden by your hat.
Your use of the first person plural reveals either: 1. your multiple personality disorder; 2. your delusional belief that you speak for all like-minded individuals; 3. your lack of confidence in your ability to formulate an original thought; or 4. all of the above.
The fort was built by the US Government and not a part of the secessionists territory since it was Federal Property before the war began.
Just because south Carolina succeeded, they didn't own the Fort.
Ft. Sumpter was built soon after The War of 1812. It was never really finished but it never was the property of the State of South Carolina. Just like Ft. Benning today is not part of the State of Georgia or Ft. Dix part of the State of NJ.
I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but it's not the version in any history book.
It's wingnut revisionist history at best
It doesn't matter which state the fort was in. Every federal and military installation in the US is property of the US Federal Government.
Just because south Carolina succeeded, they didn't own the Fort.
True but in the minds of the good citizens of SC, that which was on their land was theirs.
Ft. Sumpter was built soon after The War of 1812. It was never really finished but it never was the property of the State of South Carolina. Just like Ft. Benning today is not part of the State of Georgia or Ft. Dix part of the State of NJ.
That's the Reader's Digest version, right?
I'm not sure where you're getting this information, but it's not the version in any history book.
SC citizens considered Ft Sumter as their own property (right or wrong that was their perspective.) They took on the fort. Lincoln ordered the union army to remain at the fort. Lincoln saw this as a turning point in the conflict. He expected this conflict to result in gun fire the subsequent reaction of which he expected the other states to join the union battle against SC. This did not occur as hoped, resulting in war. I think you'll find that in all history books.
My only point of question is due to the fact that I've read two slightly differing versions regarding which side fired the first shot. According to one version, Lincoln ordered the union troops at Ft. Sumter to fire on the SC rebels. According to the other version... (see above.) As I stated in a previous post, I am unsure which version is completely accurate regarding that particular point. However, it bears repeating that these points are well documented in history books. And if they're not so in the history books you're reading, then perhaps you'll look into a different set of resources. (Perhaps...)
It's wingnut revisionist history at best
And that was a prime example of the extent of modern liberal sub-intellectual, bumper-sticker silliness, i.e. democrat mentality.
So the answer is NO you dont have a link that says the North attacked its own at Ft Sumpter. That was BS
Wrong again, Schlong! (You're going for a new record, aren't you!) I never said the north attacked its own at Sumter. I said the location at which the first shots were fired was, in fact, Ft. Sumter. I've further explained my noted recollection of the two slightly differing versions that I've read about this particular point in time: 1. Union fired first upon the Rebels; 2. Rebels fired first upon Union. Again, I'll repeat myself just for you and that bad attitude you so lovingly cultivate within your compassionate liberal heart. 'Not sure which version is accurate.'
Solon
Now, THAT was a beat down that was both beautiful and terrible to behold.
My compliments.
Solon Now, THAT was a beat down that was both beautiful and terrible to behold. My compliments.
Maybe not so much a beat down as a beat off, i.e. Ms Schlong in the act of verbal masturbation.
Actually they are called FACTS, Factlessidiot. Being you are too stupid to recognize them you dont even know what they ARE. We get how stupid you are you dont have to try so hard to prove it that is done.
I am NOT wrong that was the question asked. I assumed it was from a post that was deleted since stupidity like yours often DOES get deleted.
Earth to Schlong: My original post is still there, not deleted, hence, by your own ridiculous definition and logic, NOT stupid.
Your grade school tripe is really ignorant.
I assume you are using the definition 2 of the word tripe. Hey this means you can actually count to 2! WOW! Impressive!!!
Firing on a Federal Fort WAS an act of war. There isnt any way around that. IF the South thought there was a legal way to suceed then they should have taken a legal route.
Yea, duh! Gee, you mean to suggest that hindsight really is 20-20, especially for the armchair revolutionaries among us?!?
I am betting had we lost the revolutionary war they would have considered us traitors. The South LOST the war of Southern TREASON.
Now you're treading beyond the waters of untestable, unprovable speculation. That would make your statement "opinion", which in this case would justify the recurrent use of the term "TRIPE"; would it not?
Take a gander at the Constitution taking up arms against the United States is by DEFINITION an act of treason.
I didn't know we were discussing "treason". By the way, gander at Constitution reveals the fact that said document sets the limits of the definition; congress is charged with establishing the crime. Show me where this occurred during the southern succession, and then you will have learnt me a little something.
Adult education, look into it.
By that do you mean the Hall and Oates song? Or were you just trying to impression your fan?
First of all, Fort Sumter was occupied by the Union. The confederates opened fire first on April 12th, 1861 at 4:30 AM and it lasted for 33 hours.
Second, the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. It was a "compromise" by both the pro and anti-slavery.
Oh, wow, other countries had slavery too. Did that make it right?
"Fact" Finder, you seem to have a lack of understanding of the Civil War.
Not really, but you believe what you wanna believe.
First of all, Fort Sumter was occupied by the Union. The confederates opened fire first on April 12th, 1861 at 4:30 AM and it lasted for 33 hours.
And....?
Second, the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. It was a "compromise" by both the pro and anti-slavery.
Note use of words "territory" and "proposed state"! This is precisely my point. The northern politicians were attempting to invoke federal legal jurisdiction onto territories, a.k.a. propsed states. That was illegal; unconstitutional. The laws of the fed did not apply to territories!!!
Oh, wow, other countries had slavery too. Did that make it right?
Nope; and you'll never hear me stating otherwise. Also, that was not my precise point in mentioning that historical fact.
fact finder, wasn't it a little hypocritical of southerners to expect the north to give representation to the southern states based on their slaves?
From our perspective today? ABSOLUTELY! From theirs then? I'm not so sure. That's a very difficult question to answer -- from their perspective -- in not virtually impossible. Beliefs, culture, legalities, etc. were far different from those of today.
Well put. I can not tell you how many times I have to correct the teachings of the public schools system on this matter. The civil war was NOT about freeing slaves. It was over how to count the population (the North said black slaves did not count as part of the population) and on the point of states rights. Yes, the freeing of slaves was part of the outcome of the civil war, but it was not the reason it was fought.
Having had family that fought on both sides, I do understand what that war did to our country, but to equate it in the context that Mr. Savage has, is just way out there.
Mystic.
Correct!!! If the CW were fought to FREE slaves, then the union would have been responsible for starting it. Slavery was legal, therefore the SOUTH would have gained absolutely NOTHING in starting a war for the purpose of continuing their right to hold slaves. That would have been utterly ridiculous! As likened to our determining to start a war to fight for our right to purchase gasoline with US currency.
From www.dictionary.com:
civil war –noun a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
Therefore, the fighting that tool place in this country from 1861 to 1865 fits the definition of a civil war.
One day in Tellytubby Land schlong said to Finarfin: "Right. We already KNOW you wieghed in. Did you have a point?"
Yes, he had a point, a well-made and obvious one, at that, you antagonistic ankle biter, he was agreeing with me. You obviously have a hard time relating to such a concept as "agreeability", an obvious fact to which your consistently insidiously disagreeable comments attest.
Solon, i know that it tugs at your heartstrings knowing that this terrible war was fought against those evil racist southerners to free the poor enslaved black populace. But lets take aside what your bleeding heart may tell you, and take into account what the facts indicate.
Fact_finder did rather well in describing what were the true causes of the war, i have nothing more to add than what he so eloquently presented.
it has happened often that great events caused by perhaps not so noble aspirations are excused by some more attractive reasoning. The reason for American involvement in WWI is a good example.
Schlong: "I KNOW what the civil war was about."
Begs the following question: Then why are you so insistant with your continuous antagonistic gum flapping? Oh wait, I just remembered, severe cases of penile envy does manifest itself in odd ways among some folks...
Nevermind, I get cha'.
Fins
That was a mighty impressive display of gibberish on your part.
Imagine what you could do if you actually had a coherent point!
Mescal,
How about taking care of your urinary incompetence before coming out of the bathroom; unless, that is, you prefer standng in puddles of your of verbal worthless intellectual piss.
Here let me help you out.
Stand back, everybody; schlong has finally offered to leave the room prior to flatulating.
You mean thank you for giving you the hivemind revisionist history version of reality.
Hey goofball! Lest thine own pride causeth thine own delusional induced mental dorkishness to become highly obvious, please take note to stay on topic, i.e. What is a HIVEMIND? And when asking a question, Ms Correctal, note your punctuation, i.e. questions end in a question mark. HIVEMIND? Must be another one of those socio-facist left-wing progressive democrudic party terms that has yet to trickle its way down to us ignorant conservatives whose revolution was fought and won in the late 18th century.
Finarfin,
Thank you!
Always a pleasure.
It is extremely amusing to see a fellow conservative wiping the floor with the liberals here in such an extraordinary manner. I must salute your terrific wit and ability.
You're a very confused 'man', Fins.
You clearly don't know what's up and what's down. It's the back of YOUR skull that is buffing the hard woods. Its the CEILING that is jerking in and out of your sight line. You delusionally think that you're mopping up the floor with your opponents when it is the nape of your neck that is wiping the dirt off of the varnish.
You don't even know up from down, you poor blithering bastard.
As I have said before, you have the crazed white preachers/priests/pastors actually advising our current President on things that are important, really important, such as say, Supreme Court nominations. Judicial nominations. AG. Foreign policy. And other things like.
Here we have Obama, who has a pastor, who gets a little passionate and controversial himself. Obama who has said that the pastor Wright plays no role in his campaign, other than spiritual advisor, and that he won't be playing a role if he is elected to the White House.
Compare and contrast. Crazy right wing religious nuts actually advising our current President, and current republican nominee about everything, or a religious nut who rails against what he perceives as social injustices.
I'll take the latter.
"If you're in a synagogue, give a call to your rabbi who has a Barack Obama on his lawn."
Even for Savage that is a new low.
Why, he (Rev. Wright) makes Louis Farrakhan sound like a nice man.
And at times like this, Michael Weiner makes Bill O'Reilly sound sane.
Well, so glad Michael Savage finally weighed in. After all, if there was ever a more inclusive, inspirational figure in America today that denounces division and hateful rhetoric, it's Michael Savage.
Why is God covering his ears tight and babbling nananananana when words spill from Michael Savage's ears?
"words spill from michael savage's ears"
huh?
Or orifice even.
*grin*
You mean "hole"?
<duhhhhh...>
Why is God covering his ears tight and babbling nananananana when words spill from Michael Savage's ears?
The only thing spilling from Michael Savage's ears are brain cells making a break for freedom.....
Reminds me of a Simpson's Halloween episode where there were zombies coming for Homer, and they went to eat his brain, knocked on his head, heard a hollow sound, and moved on down the road.
I'm thinking the same thing would happen with Mike.
Righties: "No, it's just restin'. We'll bring it back later.........."
Who is the "left" to you?-Mickd
THe let is a group of fellows subscribing to similar ideologies opposite to whatever the ideologies held by the "right." Currently the left is composed of idiots and typified by irrationality.
... and one might add, the left's ideology is founded in marxist socialism, fascism, class envy, atheism, diety of the state, white guilt, and tautological myths regarding the 60's civil rights era and post-same era.... to name a few of the more obvious items.
Did you know that from 1940s through the early 1960s blacks in America rose from poverty levels of 84% to 42(?)%? Note this occurred BEFORE the so-called great society. After the first civil rights laws were passed the rate of black poverty inproved to just below 40%; and then during the 1970s (with the advent of "affirmative action") the poverty rate among blacks in America improved by a mere ONE percentage point. Empirical evidence of the failings of modern liberalist government policies.
Who is the "left" to you?-Mickd
THe let is a group of fellows subscribing to similar ideologies opposite to whatever the ideologies held by the "right." Currently the left is composed of idiots and is typified by irrationality.
Pardon the redundancy, my internet was having some problems.
On the subject of coherence, I do realize that the accidental double presence of my commentary may have confused you, Thus i have explained the cause of the resulting disharmony.
The double post wasnt confusing. YOU are just really stupid.
schlong, you might wish to find a different word from "stupid" with which to insult people. Your self proclaimed intellectual superiority demands of you a much broader vocabulary.
I suggest for starters you read "Let Us Talk of Many Things" by William F. Buckley, Jr. You'll note my point is well-made therein...
Honigs,
Savage says that baloney all the time, however any salient points he makes gets lost in his vitriolic shockery that permeates his entire schtick. He is too full of himself to be taken seriously anymore. If his ego were so incredibly inflated he wouldn't be a cartoon to many.
Why do all of you nutjobs have all the numbers after your name?
Those numbers are assigned to them by the staff at the mental hospitals where they live..... :-)
my name has those numbers...it's something about when you sign up, and it will assign numbers to the end of your name. It's been so long since I signed up now I forgot exactly what made it do that, but I think it may be if the name is already taken, it gives you the numbers
I didn't mean to imply that everyone with numbers is a knuckle dragger.
Yeah, it's like they have something to prove, and they seem to believe they accomplish that through their moniker.
If I make a new name, I want it to be "FactTruthJusticeBillyStrangerFin." Put on a lapel pin, and I'll be the most patriotic motherf**ker on the planet.
They were so far out there, nothing in the world will ever bring them back. They've really gone where no man has gone before.
I think SAVAGEROCKS!!!! even had a radio show somewhere. Or maybe he had listened to the radio at one time. It was a long time ago.
According to Barney's stats, over half of poor people own a stereo. Does that help? I think I bought my first stereo when I was about 10, technically below the poverty line, and freeloading off my old man.
I hope you find all of this info. useful.
Hey, DBeden- was it you who was remarking on the wingnuts tendency to use words like "fact" and "truth" in their screen names? (Just reminded by the appearance of Fact Finder, who apparently has been working on finding an acceptable definition for Black Liberation).
Very reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh, who lies like a rug every day and refers to himself as "The Great American Truth Detector".....
And the left can't stand it.
What the left can't stand is ignorant people on the right demonstrating how clueless they truly are.
Defined Finally:
Black Liberation Theology -
"Black [liberation] theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
-- James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
Thomas Sowell on Obama's speech.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/19/obamas_speech
Facty - since you like Thomas Howell so much:
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances."
-Thomas Sowell
And to paraphrase James Cone (whom I've never heard of):
"Any movement that's pro-black is inherently anti-white"
And to paraphrase James Cone (whom I've never heard of):
Tell us, is it true that ignorance is bliss!
Thomas Sowell (with an "S") knows his stuff. I've read several of his books and speeches. About the quote you posted I'd make two points: 1. What's the source? I'll read that book as well and interpret Dr. Sowell's actual point. And 2. Note his use of the word "notion"!
Speaking of Dr. Sowell's quotes: "The fraudulence of the left’s concern about poverty is exposed by their utter lack of interest in ways of increasing the nation’s wealth. Wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty. The reason there is less poverty today is not because the poor got a bigger slice of the pie but because the whole pie got a lot bigger—no thanks to the left."
So the rights obsession with aquiring mass amounts of wealth helps the poor?
Now you're getting the idea! Good for you.
Imagine when this right to acquire massive amounts of wealth is practiced by a person who happens to be poor at the time. Result is poor person is no longer poor.
Also, economics is NOT a zero sum gain. A person who gains more wealth does not thereby cause another person to lose any amount of wealth.
Also, rich business owners and not so rich business owners EMPLOY people which results those people (some who are poor) increasing their respective levels of personal wealth.
You REALLY ought to put down the books by Marx and Lenin and take up reading Thomas Sowell's books on economics. Then you'd actually be able to add something of substance to a converation whose topic is economics.
That's adorable, Fact Finder.
Glad you liked it.
Now can you repeat what the Timeshare guy told you about it being the best investment you'll ever make (that would be the stuff he said right before he had you sign the papers).
Now YOU'RE being adorable. Actually, I've never considered even talking with a timeshare salesperson. So, Mr. Col, you is wrong again, brudda.
I retract my statement about the timeshare. I have no evidence that you have ever even been to a seminar, and I will admit that I may be wrong.
I will agree with you with no reservations, however, that I am adorable.
So because I think the economic ideals you hold are a form of class warfare with all the breaks going to the upper class that makes me a communist? And your calling me ignorant. We have had 7 years of the trickle down economic policy you seem to think is such a wonderfull idea. So tell me how is the economy doing? Are we in a better place now than we were under Clinton? Not hardly. Enjoy living in your bubble of self delusion.
Dazedandconfused, You have a very appropriate handle.
So because I think the economic ideals you hold are a form of class warfare with all the breaks going to the upper class that makes me a communist?
No, and that's not precisely what I said. But, hey, spin on; maybe Rosie will hire you as her PR exec.
And your calling me ignorant.
And your point is...?
We have had 7 years of the trickle down economic policy you seem to think is such a wonderfull idea.
It's real name is "supply side economics".
So tell me how is the economy doing?
You must realize that our economy is made up of: 1. Personal economy, 2. Local economy, and 3. National economy. All three are affected by many many variables, such as the current price of a barrel of oil, not to mention the government's willingness to cut taxes. The former has an adverse affect; the latter has a desireable impact. There are countless other variables that are at work in our economy. Don't fall for the political BS of believing that tax cuts are bad for our economy. That is simply untrue.
Are we in a better place now than we were under Clinton? Not hardly. Enjoy living in your bubble of self delusion.
Obviously not a student of history I see, but hey who am I to pop your bubble. I prefer trickle down economics, it's a more fitting title since supply side economics is nothing but the Neo Cons pissing on the middle class and lower.
Obviously not a student of history I see, but hey who am I to pop your bubble.
You couldn't pop a wet fart with a sledgehammar if your ignorant assessment of me were the metaphorical tool of choice.
I prefer trickle down economics, it's a more fitting title since supply side economics is nothing but the Neo Cons pissing on the middle class and lower.
Liberal ignorant claptrap with a side of economic know-nothingness.
Just for your sorry edification, Fact_Packer: Trickle Down Economics was the term used by its original purveyors back in the Twenties, and is thusly the correct term for describing this perverse attempt to transfer the nation's wealth upwards. It was an economic theory that contributed heavily to the the Crash of 1929 and therefore lost a bit of cache with the vast majority of the American public. When the Reagan Administration attempted to revive the fetid corpse of this con game, it simply applied a Madison Avenue-style pseudonym by calling it Supply Side Economics. The results were the same, though, as working and middle class people were deeply stressed by their falling inflation-adjusted wages and purchasing powers. The single earner family degenerated even more quickly into a thing of the past, and homelessness exploded in this country... all the while America's economic elites partied hardy into a new golden age of excess and self absorbtion.
After eight years of middle class economic progress, prosperity, and unparalleled national debt reduction under the Democrats, Trickle Down Economics was again foisted upon us. The disfunctional and crumbling economy that we are all currently witnessing is the predictable result of this latest effort at so savagely and so zestfully corn-holing the sadly trusting American people. It has become increasingly clear that the power elites that most benefit from this financial gang-banging of the broad majority of struggling Americans identify themselves by class rather than by nationality.
You, sir, are nothing more than a Judas Goat.
Since you already know everything there is to know, I'll likely be wasting my time with this post. However, I will advise reading the following two books afterwhich you'll be better informed. (You'll still be able to disagree with conservatives in public; but privately you'll have a better understanding of these two topics):
1. The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes for info on the "great" depression.
2. Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell for info on economics.
3. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell for info on economics.
So the rights obsession with aquiring mass amounts of wealth helps the poor?
Perhaps you'd like to take an honest, empirical assessment of the left's ill-informed obsession with the right's obsession with acquiring mass amounts of wealth. There are gobs of leftists who share that so-called obsession, the following short list comes to mind: Al Gore, John Kerry, George Soros, Barbara Streisand, George Cloony, Al Franken, Rosie O, Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, The Kennedy Klan, Nancy Pelosi.
Not that there's anything wrong with making money, mind you...
I love how none of the conservative-haters on here have a response to a statement like that FactFinder. When they blab their mouths about the rich neo-cons and class wars, they constantly forget the fact that the leftist politicians they vote for are just as rich and privilaged as any republican. Take hussein's wife for example, shortly after he was sworn into the Senate she magically became the VP of community and external affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals (A REALLY tough/demanding job, i'm sure <sarcasm>). How is that fair to all the poor people (that the dem's pledge to "help") out there that hussein's wife's salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962?
I cannot comprehend how the left chastises republicans and conservatives for being pro-wealth, when this goes on within their own party.
numbered John wrat:
>>Take hussein's wife for example,
What does Saddam Hussein's wife have to do with America, other than reminding us that Bush attacked the wrong country?
What? What does the slang term for the hair around people's genitals have to do with attacking a country?
Could you possibly be a bit stupider and more incoherent. I can always use a laugh
"So stupid you dont even know Baraks NAME"
Thank you for that one Solon, but it appears you are the one who cannot spell BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S name correct. I use hussein because 1.) it is his name 2.) it's quicker to type than the full name 3.) it allows people to quickly make the assumption that I do not like him or his stances on the issues 4.) It makes liberals go crazy every time
"No you do it because you are an ignorant, propagandistic moron."Solon
No, I really do think that he does this for the reasons previously stated. For me personally the last two greatly explain why i would use B. Hussein's middle name, which is Hussein in case you've forgotten.
I read about half of one of Sowells books and found him to be an idiot. A larger pie doesnt assure any attack on poverty if every bigger portions of the larger pie go to the already well off. In the 80s the top one percent owned about 20% of the wealth of the nation and now they own about 40%. Sowell is full of it that the left doesnt try to increase overall wealth. NOT conforming to rightwing economic dogma doesnt mean we arent trying to incease overall wealth. Looking at the LONGTERM interests doesnt mean we arent trying to increase wealth. It is a baseless assertion without merit. The equivelent of that shiny thing that so entrances the simpleminded. I see why you like Sowell. Doesnt mean he is right or has any idea what he is talking about. Just because it is an attack on the left doesnt automatically make it gospel.
One day in Telletubby Land, Schlong said: "I read about half of one of Sowells books and found him to be an idiot. I see why you like Sowell.... Just because it is an attack on the left doesnt automatically make it gospel"
Question1: What rhymes with schlong? Answer: WRONG!
Question2: What rhymes with schlong again? Answer: WRONG AGAIN!
db, That's a nice bit of empty-headed gum flapping. However you'll need to take note of the following facts: 1. Thomas Sowell's ideas in no manner, shape, or form even remotely resemble "a solidly neo-conserative point of view". 2. The particular website(s) on which Dr. Sowell's insightful and informative commentary happen to be posted offer little if any evidence of the man's ideas. And 3. if you truly wish for thinking people to respect your literary analyses of Dr. Thomas Sowell, then perhaps you should first begin by reading his books. Then you could at least claim to be well informed to a certain degree. I recommend starting with his latest book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies" and work your way backwards to his first book. That way during your self-induced education you will be able to maintain your current "backwards" approach to current social issues and intellectual topics, such as economics.
Dr. Thomas Sowell "Crushed in the market place of ideas"? What a completely idiotic thing to say!
The particular website(s) on which Dr. Sowell's insightful and informative commentary happen to be posted offer little if any evidence of the man's ideas (Factpacker)
I'd rather read somebody whose commentary shows some evidence of ideas.
Col Spastic's mindless attempt at insightful conclusionary pigeon-holing of our Dr. Thomas Sowell: "I'd rather read somebody whose commentary shows some evidence of ideas."
If you actually believe that Dr. Sowell's work lacks any evidence of an idea, then, sir, you demonstrate evidence that you lack a brain.
Read the man's work or stuff your ignorant comments squarely up your brownulus-globulus.
Col Spastic's mindless attempt at insightful conclusionary pigeon-holing of our Dr. Thomas Sowell: "I'd rather read somebody whose commentary shows some evidence of ideas."
If you actually believe that Dr. Sowell's work lacks any evidence of an idea, then, sir, you demonstrate evidence that you lack a brain.
Read the man's work or stuff your ignorant comments squarely up your brownulus-globulus.
One day in Telletubby Land schlong said, "I have read enough of both him and you to know the both of you are morons."
Inorrect representation of the facts, shlong. You noted previously that you have not actually read even ONE of Sowell's books. So quit trying to pretend that you are offering a well-informed, educated literary analysis of the man's work.
Yea right. You can read less than one half of one among the many many books written and gain a complete understanding of the author as being "stupid", which is obviously one of your favorite words, one of the obviously few readily available stores of your vocabulary.
Maybe you should go change your pad.
Col Spastic's mindless attempt at insightful conclusionary pigeon-holing of our Dr. Thomas Sowell: "I'd rather read somebody whose commentary shows some evidence of ideas."
If you actually believe that Dr. Sowell's work lacks any evidence of an idea, then, sir, you demonstrate evidence that you lack a brain.
Read the man's work or stuff your ignorant comments squarely up your brownulus-globulus.
In fact, he told you three times.
This for you must be a very humbling experience.
Or three separate humbling experiences.
Especially since it was based on his own words- that, on the websites that post Sowell's commentary, there is no evidence of his ideas.
I think the triple-post was just a nervous tic from some blood accidentally being diverted to his brain.
It seems factfinder is pulling most of his "facts" straight from his "brownulus-globulus."
Note the emboldened words that were copied and pasted... How's that foot taste, Mr. Confused?
I think the triple-post was just a nervous tic from some blood accidentally being diverted to his brain
You're cute when you're angry.
The triple post was a result of a server malfunction error notification that indicated my post had not occured. I hit "post" twice. Have no idea why it posted three times.... Oh well; it's mediamatters.com, liberal through and through. What's a man to expect.
I'm out of here for the day. Enjoy.
Blame the server.
I'll bet you blame the dog for a lot of things too, don't you.
I beg to differ, when hussein refused to where the lapel flag pin, that was stupid...and the idea of patriotism was the last thing on my mind. I mean, hussein, you're a senator, you should at least put up the illusion that you are patriotic. At the very least, the pin looks nice, like a nice tie.
Stupidity is sitting in the pew for 20 years at this black separatist church, when you are supposed to be an America-loving servant of the people. I didn't mistake that act of stupidity for patriotism.
"You dont know what Wright was saying week in and week out." - maybe not word for word, but any marginally educated individual can make a pretty educated guess that the general message over the years was not about a unified America that loves all people as brothers and sisters under God. Matter of fact, an educated guess isn't even needed, one can make factual judgement...just look at the mission statement of the church (Oh wait, you can't anymore because they took that separatist hatred off their website now that the spotlight is on them).
While people can be as radical as they like in what they accept as truth (thanks to freedom of speech and religion), elected officials that represent ALL people of ALL beliefs need to be a bit more careful about what ideologies they subscribe to...otherwise, they must face severe scrutiny, like hussein obama is right now.
You can tell what was being said week in and week out as an educted person because of a few cherry picked quotes one of which turned out to be a quotation from a Reagan administration official? YOU call THAT education? I guess to someone who is used to haveing screechmonkey radio do his thinking for him that might make sense. To those of us with actual functioning cerebral cortexes its ludicrous.
"one can make factual judgement...just look at the mission statement of the church (Oh wait, you can't anymore because they took that separatist hatred off their website now that the spotlight is on them)."
And because you made a point to address the fact that a number of single audio clips are in no way a truthful indicator of a man's overall message....which he has preached over thousands of hours...I expect that you will apply the same standard to the out of context/cherry-picked Savage audio clips this site posts. What's fair is fair, right my good liberal friend?
FactlessMoron go back to the third grade playground and gets some new material. Yours was tired when I first heard it at Seven.
So that puts you in the fourth grade! Now I am impressed!
Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee are not on the ballot.
I have yet to see evidence of any conduct by Obama or McCain from either of their respective tenures as state and federal legislators that reflects in any way the rhetoric and remarks of Wright and Hagee. Please, spare us the crap about lapel pins and a hand on your chest.
Has Barack Obama ever stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate or the Illinois legislature and exclaimed, "God Damn America"? Have you ever heard it in a speech? Have you seen it in any legislation that has his name on it?
Not Wearing Flag Pin = "God Damn America"
In the neo cons twisted view of the world. I guess.
But getting back to the Oracle of Orifices, Dr. Savage: wonderful quote-"hand-picked by some very powerful forces...to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War". Humm, wonder if he means...no, couldn't be, GWB?
"He was hand-picked by some very powerful forces both within and outside the United States of America to drag this country into a hell that it has not seen since the Civil War of the middle of the 19th century."
Coming from the person who has made an entire career of attacking liberals in the worst way possible. Is Savage that pissed about his failed, PR stunt presidential "bid" that he must incite violence against Barack Obama?
If anything happens to Obama (God forbid), I'm going to hold Savage responsible.
Finarfin wrote:
>>megabot, Savage is neither a Neo-Nazi nor a Klansman, there is absolutely no evidence backing such claims.
But you are a Neo-Nazi, literally:
***
Well clevantine, A saying that has just nascented (by my design) from the white nationalist movement is; we are here, we are strong, we shall prevail.
* - finarfin / Saturday March 1, 2008 9:17:42 PM EST
You my friend seem to be one of those who think that the right wing is of a McCain type model. You are wrong, your outrage at savages "hate speech" is nothing more than a reflexive regurgitation of the liberal propaganda fed to you since childhood. I think that those days of white dominion were grand old times, its what could be the golden age of white civilization.
* - finarfin / Tuesday February 5, 2008 1:23:49 AM EST
John i salute you for defending conservative America along with men like Savage. I see and it pains me greatly that Europe has gone the way of authoritarian oppressive democracies draped in the burqa of equality. The cradle of civilization has been lost to the radical progressive Utopians and we can now see their ilk spouting socialism on the democratic side. But there is hope, the nationalist hard-right is re surging in Europe in the face of the injustice dealt upon it's people, it may be a bloody political change yet no less weak a movement would be able to overtake the deeply rooted progressive liberalism.
* - finarfin / Tuesday February 5, 2008 1:18:18 AM EST
Well, inter racial mairrages are indeed an abomination, and equal segregation would be beneficial for all parties involved.
* - finarfin / Thursday January 24, 2008 10:55:44 AM EST
For there are liberals i know, who like me believe that for whatever reason the black race is on average lower in intellectual performance levels than whites or Asians. Does this make them supremacists? technically it does, and so even if such a thing where proved, it would be denied by society. For it is similar to the reluctance of people to accept that the earth was round, even though there was evidence that it indeed was.
- finarfin / Friday January 25, 2008 5:59:33 PM EST
Nonetheless t'was about states rights. Slavery is in fact just a base economic method, but a viable method nonetheless. Do not make southerners out to be some unlearned bunch of crackers, You know the negro likewise inhabits this region. Are you saying that ALL southerners including black folks are stoopid??
* - finarfin / Monday January 21, 2008 1:22:45 AM EST
"If you're talking about a day like today, Martin Luther King Junior Day, and you're gonna understand what civil rights has become, the con it's become in this country. It's a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it."
"Sieg Heil, Georgie [Soros]!" (George Soros is Jewish)
He says that civil rights is aimed against white people, and yells Nazi slogans to George Soros, a Jew. There you go.
There's a defnese Mega - his audience is smaller. So that is an excuse for the vile stuff that Malloy spews? No, Malloy is a mirror image of Savage - in fact he is far more vulgar than the stuff I hear Savage say (though the fact that I hear him on satellite could account for more coarse language that Savage is not at liberty to use over-the-air.)
As for an apology, not a chance. The fact that Malloy gets defended for being just as nasty as Savage exposes yet again that MMfD is not about exposing bias, it is about being a mouthpiece for the left and the Democrats.
I haven't heard Malloy but could you send info on him...he may be my new hero.
P.S. Listen carefully CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION
Mike Malloy is syndicated on Nova M Radio nowadays, you can find more info about him there (www.novamradio.com); he's sort of the main attraction there.
I think what the Savage lap-dog was complaining about was when Malloy said that he had "violent fantasies" about T.M.C. Perino. (Even Malloy has stated that they're just fantasies.) Compare that to Savage directly telling his listeners to yell at Muslims on the supermarket line (www.nosavage.org).
Once again: Anyone who compares Malloy to this KKK rat bastard Savage needs to see a doctor.
numbered John wrat:
>>Must I even mention the fantasy of man-made global warming after we just had one of the coldest winters on record in the past 100 years, and coupled with the arctic ice cover being 10-20 centimeters thicker than at this time last year?
Oh yes, here we go with the anti-scientific nonsense. There have been 696 papers supporting global warming. There have been 0 refuting it:
link
Get back to me when you can show me real science that refutes global warming instead of your fallacious reasoning.
Additionally, the facts that I had stated earlier came from a report on recent data released by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center. Specifically, "According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." Also, "Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year."
This is hardly the thread to debate climate change; I just felt it necessary to prove my facts and debunk your claim of zero published papers refuting man-made global warming. I want to make my point very clear right now though: After investigating both sides of the "science" of global warming (human-induced, and non human induced), I choose to side with the fact that it exists naturally. The earth has experienced cooling/warming periods many many times without humans around to play a factor, that should be proof enough. Additionally, all these computer models of projected greenhouse gas impact on the environment are just that...unproven computer models (how many times has the weatherman relied on computer models and predicted incorrectly?). The bottom line to my feelings on this is that for governments around the world to pass legislation that in turn affects economy, is complete lunacy. We cannot simply regulate ourselves and expect to magically change what nature is set to do. Unfortunately, only as more time passes, will our politicians, politically influenced scientists, and large numbers of the general public realize the truth of this.
We often argue about putting things into "context" in these threads. I think it's time we all sat down and put our current miniscule warming trend in context...it is insignificant to the overall evolution of our earth. If this current warming trend is even still considered to be a "warming" period 200 years from now, future humans will laugh at our insane attempts at stopping it, much like I am laughing now.
So what you're saying is: They were wrong back then, but now they definitely aren't wrong.
schlong,
On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine published an article showing the science behind the then scienfic belief that we were then headed into the next ICE AGE.
They were wrong then; and they're wrong today!!!
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
You're saying that global warming is fake just because you saw a report about a snow storm in the South Pole. That's how you right-wingers work - "if it's snowing somewhere, global warming is a lie."
"Cough up the quote where Moore says terrorism doesnt exist." - OK, I think I know where you want to take me with this, so here is the quote I am referring to from NBC's Today show (Oct. 7, 2003): "there is no terrorist threat. Somebody needs to just say this: There—there is not terrorist threat." I realize he does not explicitly say terrorism does not exist here, but regardless, his opinion here is absurd and incorrect. Need proof it is absurd and incorrect? London Subway.
"If it is a fantasy that government can provide healthcare for every person why is it EVERY INDUSTRIAL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD except the US DOES EXACTLY THAT?" - You failed to read my original post, where I included the KEY word "quality" healthcare. Castro didn't fly in doctors from spain because Cuba has quality healthcare. 2 year waits to see an NHS dentist in the U.K. isn't quality healthcare. I have no doubt that the US government could provide it, it just wont be as good as we are receiving now. And I'm sorry, I'm no rich guy by any stretch, and I afford my own healthcare. People need to stop whining about their meds and bills...man up and pay like your hard working ancestors did.
"Facts make you break out in a rash." - this is the one thing you got right. I broke out in a huge rash after my post where I presented data from the US national climatic data center and earthtimes.org. Weird.
So as I said he DIDNT say terrorism doesnt exist so you ARE a liar. That isnt trash talking it is plain truth. If you dont LIKE being called a liar, I have a simple solution, STOP LYING. As for what he meant by a threat that is open to interpretation. Is there a threat to lives? I think there is. Is there a threat to our way of lives from terrorism? A valid argument. LYING about what he said just isnt valid. So then you are saying NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD except the US has quality healthcare? Your biased take on the UK doesnt cut it. What about Japan? France? Canada? Belgium? Your post is nonsensical and no one in their right mind could POSSIBLY take it seriously. Especially since the world rankings of quality of healthcare doesnt have the US even in the top ten. The fact is of COURSE the US could provide quality healthcare to all its citizens it is only a resource allocation decision. You just dont think American lives are worth the investment, thats fine, I disagree.
"The fact is of COURSE the US could provide quality healthcare to all its citizens it is only a resource allocation decision." - oh man, so much good stuff to respond to. When you say "the fact is..." you are lying. I want to point this out to you since you do the same for me whenever I fail to use the best wording. You see, since the US has not yet provided any health care package to all citizens, we have absolutely no way of knowing if it would be quality or not. Projecting your opinion as fact is a lie.
Second, I thought this kind of double talk could only spew from the mouths of politicians: "...only a resource allocation decision." So in other words, utilize more of my tax dollars in a sick attempt to equalize everyone's healthcare. Socialism. We both know that if implemented, socialized healthcare will raise our taxes (especially if the healthcare is to remain "quality"). Why would you want to be FORCED by big brother to pay for someone else's sick relative's medical bills or medicine? Save me your sob story about helping the downtrodden...Americans do not have to be taxed in order to do that, they do it every day out of their own charity and goodwill, making us the most charitable nation in the world. Personally, if my mother or father ever gets sick in old age, I do not want any help from anyone. I especially do not want the help of tax dollars that have been pulled out of YOUR salary. I want to handle my own family's burden, because it's not your problem or the governments. This is the only correct mindset for men of a free country to have. Unfortunately, those with socialist ideals are taking over our government and infecting the minds of the public...turning us into a country of handouts. This is literally embarrassing that people like you point to other countries (which have never and will never experience the fortune and success that America has) as some golden standard that America must mimmick. Get me an airline discomfort bag, stat.
Actually, for just about the first time in his radio career The Silly Savage is correct. Sen. Obama was hand-selected by some very powerful people - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!
IT'S OBAMA TIME!
"Sen. Obama was hand-selected by some very powerful people - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!"
Wait, i thought that the mega-corporations held all the power?? If not them then is it not bush and the republicans?!!?? You're shattering all of my most solid convictions!!
OBAMANIBLE!!
we are empire and the camps are being prepared fpr the likes of all you anti-American seditionists!!
long live the empire!!@
Syn
You are a fool who doesn't comprehend even the MOST BASIC definitions.
Now, go away.
And the Cliintons are in the process of finishing Obama off. Obama, despite leading in the delegate count os toast and he knows it. He had a nice run, but it's time to put a fork in him.
Queen Hillary has finally arrived. And she will go down in flames in November. Democrats will disown the Clintons thereafter, and rue the day that they killed off Obama in 2008.