Savage on Obama: "Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim"
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Michael Savage falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim and attended a madrassa, stating: "Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim."
On the April 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim and attended a madrassa, stating: "Look who we inherited in this country, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Hussein Obama, in one generation. A war hero to -- a war hero who commanded the Allied operations against Nazi Germany was running for the presidency then. Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim despite what Straw Hair will tell you on "Softball." Yes, check it out."
In fact, 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." As Media Matters for America documented, the false allegation that Obama was educated in a madrassa has been debunked by CNN, the Associated Press, and the Chicago Tribune. On January 23, 2007, CNN reported that "[a]llegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate." The AP reported on January 24, 2007, that the elementary school Obama attended as a child in Jakarta, Indonesia, was "a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s."
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 referring to him as "Barack Madrassas Obama" and on another occasion as "Saddam Hussein -- I mean, Barack Hussein Obama." 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" and on another occasion asserted that 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 of the middle of the 19th century."
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 April 3 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Could you play "A White Sport Coat (and a Pink Carnation)"? Because the flowers are in bloom out here. It's my favorite time of the year. I suffer, like, from allergies, but the blooms are gorgeous, the apple -- the apple tree. They are -- pink.
["A White Sport Coat (and a Pink Carnation)" plays]
SAVAGE: Doesn't it bring back beautiful feelings, compared to the filth that they play now? They're simple. Who would put on a white sportscoat today? He'd get his head stomped. Look who we inherited in this country, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Hussein Obama, in one generation. A war hero to -- a war hero who commanded the Allied operations against Nazi Germany was running for the presidency then. Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim despite what Straw Hair will tell you on Softball. Yes, check it out.
Maybe he thinks enough time has passed that people forgot the whole Muslim thing was debunked completly. Or maybe he is just retarded.
Either that or Early Onser Alzheimer's disease. he may have forgotten that everyhting he said has been debunked.
"I live in a fantasy land that can never be." Savage
Maybe in his fantasy land things are true just because he says them.
"Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim." --Savage Weeener
"Now we have an unknown stealth AM-talker who was in love with another man in California, and in fact, is a closeted homosexual."--Rick
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying . . .
Savage on Obama: "Now we have an unknown stealth candidate who went to a madrassas in Indonesia and, in fact, was a Muslim"
captfoster on Savage: "Now we have a well known stealth homosexual radio guy who went to a 'hate everyone racist at all cost school' and, in fact, was a human!"
Good catch by MMFA. That indeed is right wing misinformation.
I don't think it'll have much effect because most who listen to Savage most likely will not be voting for Obama anyway.
(It would be interesting to get the demographic breakdown by party affilliation of his listeners.)
(It would be interesting to get the demographic breakdown by party affilliation of his listeners.)
I think the majority of Savage's listeners would prefer to go to a cross-burning party or a lynching party....
The truth about Obama is irrelevant and inconsequential since everyone has already made up their mind?
Thats fine, and I repeat, what does the truth have to do with anything that Savage has said about Obama? Listening to someone repeat a lie over and over doesn't help you know the truth.
I was attempting to address the notion that the words of Savage have no effect on Obama, since anyone who listens to him have already decided what the truth is.
So Savage's listeners aren't voting for Obama because, among other reasons, they believe the truth to be that that he is a Muslim? And from what source did they get their first idea of what they believe to be the truth about Obama? Who could it be???
I havent posted here in a while, and I can see why...same old complaining and weak defenses from mmfa. Witness accounts and family history prove that at the very least, "Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque." To say an Obama-muslim connection is a complete falsehood, is only denying the truth.
MMFA's previous analysis of this connection are debunked and shown to be simply false propaganda here: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5354
Think what you want about the man, but he is not offering an opinion here. He makes a very reasonable conclusion based on eyewitness accounts (that he did not gather), and reports from the LA Times (which he does not work for). He examines every key point in the article, and after reviewing the facts, arrives the the most reasonable/least-accusing conclusion possible: "Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim who rarely or occasionally prayed with his step-father in a mosque."
Do you disagree with the message or the messenger?
So, I ask you as well solon, do you just disagree with the messenger or the message?
I didn't say repeating a lie wasn't an effective tool to spread propoganda, I'm just saying these lies don't help anyone understand the truth.
Brab,
My guess is your ssgf and her friends don't listen to Savage but I could be wrong. Will she or her friends even vote?
"My guess is your ssgf and her friends don't listen to Savage but I could be wrong. Will she or her friends even vote?"
What difference does it make if they listen to Savage? That obviously wasn't the point, the point was that they spread the same nonsense Savage is spreading. Are you saying that people who hear these lies spread them, unless they hear it from Savage?
She's registered to vote. Whether she is or not, we have no way of knowing how many people are hearing these rumors and how many of them are registered to vote. Savage is creating a problem whether those that listen to him were going to vote for Obama or not.
Brab,
It could be that your ssgf heard it from a Hillary supporter or that famous internet hoax floating around. We don't know. But you make a good point.
Talk Radio is a unique medium. It's on all day, requires little effort to access, and can be absorbed while working or driving. That makes it potentially more persuasive than any competing media. The Talk Radio Troglodytes repeat their lies over and over and over, to a sycophantic and gullible audience. If they have the millions of listeners that we've been told, they have the ability to sway elections.
Nerzog,
I think the "influence" that talk radio has is debatable, and each side that both touts and downplays it make valid points. The only way to really gauge it's measurement is to look at recent elections, I suppose. Perhaps in 2000 and 2004, right wing radio did have some influence - but I definitely think lately, in 2006, and with the nomination of John McCain, it has waned.
The Democrats crushed Republicans in 2006, and McCain is hardly a rightwing radio darling, and he ended up sewing up the nomination fairly early.
The point is, it is what it is. The most effective way to combat misinformation from both sides, and it exists both on the left and the right, is for political parties to nominate and put forth candidates that are equipped to cut through the spin and misinformation clearly and forcefully, not be afraid to confront head on unfriendly and biased news outlets where much of the misinformation finds it roots and spreads.
You can't sidestep venues that don't cater to your ideology and then complain you are the victim of misinformation from that very news organization.
"You can't sidestep venues that don't cater to your ideology and then complain you are the victim of misinformation from that very news organization. "
But it's perfectly OK for a venue to complain when they can't get interviews from those they misinform about.
Nerzog,
Why is it then that approximately 50% vote for the Democratic candidate and 50% Republican since talk radio started?
Are you saying 50% who vote Republican are weak minded, sycophantic, and gullible and only the Democrats are the intelligent ones?
Your theory does not match reality. If conservative talk show radio had that much influence, McCain would not be the nominee.
However, It is an interesting phenomenon that the liberals have not found a talk show host that has been able to move into the upper echelon of talk.
Dazed,
We are in agreement.
Would you also agree with the following: Not all Democrats are weak minded, sycophantic, and gullible. Just the ones who believe left wing web crapholes are a news source.
;-)
3 min. difference between the same good point. ;)
dazed,
I would not say it is always wrong but agree with the gist of your point in this context.
You know, this is a good rational argument and one that both sides should consider when inflaming the rhetoric. Just switch Republican and Democrat because it works both ways.
Why can't the Liberals compete in Talk Radio? Good Question. I'm sure the answer is complex. It could have something to do with the different mindsets of Liberals and Conservatives... it could also have something to do with the willingness of rich investors to back a medium that works against their political interests. Also, you can't overlook the fact that Liberals are late to the game. The market is saturated with Conservative Talk, and maybe there's not much room for newcomers.
Anecdotally, I know that the two Nashville talk stations briefly featured "liberal" talk hosts years ago, but they were driven off the air by mountains of hate mail from the Conservative audience. Since then, both stations have featured wall to wall Conservatives, and the local hosts are nothing more than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck wannabees, who slavishly regurgitate Republican talking points.
I find it hard to believe that a market as large as Nashville wouldn't support at least one or two liberal programs. Market Forces? I just don't buy it.
Not trying to sound condescending here (even though I am ;)), but liberalism and discussions of liberal politics is more complex than the populistic right-wing propaganda that Rush and others spew. It's easy to be one-sided and get listeners, because you get listeners of all kinds - those that love you and those that love to hate you.
But when you go into liberal discussions of policy... you'll get the ones that would love to talk to you about it, and nobody else. That's why it works on the internet, but not so well in the one-way radio format.
IMO.
It's clear to any objective party that there are reasons for the failure of liberal talk radio beyond content. Most of the Air America stations that have carried them have usually been relatively low power. Most people are going to tune to a station they can stay with, not one that will frequently fade out as they travel around their city. Their ratings actually do well compared with stations of similar power, but the ratings we see are usually presented against the entire market, including larger stations with several times the coverage.
However, I think there's another factor. I get the impression that most liberals simply have less desire to listen to talk radio, whatever the content. I'll admit that this impression is based almost entirely on personal contact, but it's been pretty lopsided. I've been a talk radio listener for about 20 years now, and liberals I've known in Phoenix and Mpls-St. Paul just don't seem to want to listen even to content with which they agree. This is the case with those who are well-informed on issues as well as those who are less so.
Has anyone else observed anything similar?
And I forgot to mention that I wouldn't WANT liberal talk radio to be the polemical, skewed, lie-infested bile that right-wing talk-radio is. I guess that's why I don't like Michael Moore and Randi Rhodes very much.
So basically, I don't want to listen to liberal talk radio because it's too sensible and boring, yet I don't want it to be sensationalist dreck like right-wing radio. I guess that spells doom for it. :)
There are a few out there who are able to do a show in an interesting and amusing manner, but they're rare. I thought Marc Maron was very funny, with only a mild amount of over-the-top. Frankly, I don't know why Bill Press of Jones Radio isn't more popular than he is. I like his show better than Stephanie Miller's or Ed Schultz's.
I might be a little biased, but I can't help but wonder if liberals simply don't want their side presented with the same amount of one-sided bombast as many conservatives do.
Bill,
If that's the case, (liberals don't want the bombast, so don't listen,) then you are arguing that liberal talk doesn't succeed because it doesn't have the liberal listeners who would form the base audience of a liberal talk show.
If that is the case, that means they libs/progressives have no reason to put forth this conspiracy theory against corporate radio moguls pushing an agenda. Instead you are arguing that the radio big-wigs are instead profit driven and aiming their programming choices on who actually tunes in.
We conservatives have known that all along. Thanks for agreeing.
:-)
Perhaps you missed the part where I cited that as ONE factor. I've never claimed it was a simple matter. Access to the air waves is definitely another factor. There are anecdotal reports suggesting that advertisers on liberal shows are more likely to be targeted by conservative groups. There is the broadcast reach factor I mentioned.
You seem to be looking for exclusivity in reasons where there is none.
You seem to be looking for exclusivity in reasons where there is none.
In itself a brilliant observation about the difference between conservative and liberal talk radio.
Are you suggesting that
Let's discuss the various factors that led to this problem and the multiple steps that will be necessary to fix it
is less riveting radio than
Liberals bad. Cause all problems.
?
"However, It is an interesting phenomenon that the liberals have not found a talk show host that has been able to move into the upper echelon of talk."
There's nothing phenomenal about it. I presume you subscribe to the myth that's all been because of the "free market."
The reality is, station ownership has continually stacked the deck against progressive talk. Combine this with the limited number of FCC licenses, and it's plain to see that the market has been anything but free. Ed Schultz sums it better than I can.
Who's propping him up, and why?
Yes, talk radio is the only industry and business in America that thumbs its noses at its stockholders, who have sat there year after year and taken it, and basically tells them that their investments are secondary to promoting the owner's ideology.
And even if the Democrats end up taking control of Congress and the White House, the radio station owners are still putting all their eggs in the basket of the minority party for regulatory control, etc. because that too, makes such great business sense.
Drop the last line, sorry. Read the first line again. You were making a general argument about what's in their best business interest. They wouldn't do it because it's bad business sense. Now you're making a specific argument about whether those people lose money or not.
Why is it that people are willing to lose money on a newspaper but not on a radio program? That refutes the general point you were making.
First off, I have no idea how much the Washington Times loses? Do you? And there is always an exception even if that is the case.
I still haven't seen evidence that stations running rightwing radio are losing money because of their decision, have you?
Is it relevant how much it loses? It wouldn't be good business sense.
If there can be an "exception", then why were you scoffing at the idea that anyone would do something against good business sense out of partisan interest? Why couldn't that be an "exception" as well?
Again, the argument that they wouldn't do something and the argument that they aren't doing something are different. You shifted from one to the other.
Other than wanting to argue from a completely different perspective, I still have no clue what your point is? And you say I shifted? Show me evidence that rightwing radio loses money? That is the crux of the argument and you have no such evidence, so far, do you? You keep ignoring that and focusing on the Washington Times as proof of what, exactly?
Someone posts that some media outlet that leans right is losing money and that is relevant in some way?
"Show me evidence that rightwing radio loses money? That is the crux of the argument and you have no such evidence, so far, do you?"
No, that is a different argument. They probably don't lose money.
"You keep ignoring that and focusing on the Washington Times as proof of what, exactly? Someone posts that some media outlet that leans right is losing money and that is relevant in some way?"
This is your original argument:"Yes, talk radio is the only industry and business in America that thumbs its noses at its stockholders, who have sat there year after year and taken it, and basically tells them that their investments are secondary to promoting the owner's ideology."
Your point obviously is that it's ridiculous to imagine that any business would do such a thing. The Washington Times losing money out of partisan interest contradicts that point.
If your argument was merely that Limbaugh and Hannity specifically aren't losing money, then you should have just said that to start with. It's the general argument that you posted originally that I'm addressing.
Is it clear now? I don't know how much simpler I can make it.
Yes, forgive me for saying "the only" business in America......I should have said 99.99%, because I didn't mention the Washington Times.
You sure made your point.
For an interesting take on the dearth of liberal talk radio:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-drobny/ego-power-money-and-pro_b_10816.html
David should know since he was a deeply imbedded part of it until he saw the light.
If you read Brock's book you'll learn how talk radio shows. financed heavily by Richard Mellon Scaife, Olin, Coors dynstasties and other wealthy right wing donors bought up radio stations to put Limbaugh on. He found his shtick afte a number of initial failuresr they installed him as their conduit; the free market was not at work here.
Pete,
The link you offered look to me like Ed was simply complaining. (I don't have any problems with this.) Ed said he beat Hannity in San Diego, Denver, Portland, and Seattle. What does Ed mean by "beating Hannity" in those markets. Are they on opposite of each other? Which stations carry the programs, What are the lead ins, etc. How many markets does Hannity beat Schultz?
It took me two additional clicks to finally get the report that Ed was basing his complaint upon. I did not check out the group that published it but I realize it is a progressive group which leads me to believe it is not impartial.
However tThe report make a couple of good points. One of them being for more local control of radio. I'm all for that. On the flip side, it said minority owned radio for the most part does not broadcast right-wing talk. It looks to me they are guilty of the same thing Ed is criticizing the bigger outlets. They are all subjective in who they air based on the demographics of the listeners. I wonder if local control would end up hurting progressive talk more than helping it?
I love talk radio, (I listen about 30 minutes a day commuting.) I have listened to Air-America and even though I disagree, find I liked some of the talk, notably Al Franken and Ed Schultz. I'd rather listen to them than Savage any day.
AA, I get the feeling you'd really like Thom Hartmann. He's rather progressive, but the man is a walking encyclopedia of U.S. History, and at least every other day he has a guest on with whom he vehemently disagrees.
It's broadcast between 12 and 3 on weekdays, but you can download the shows on AirAmerica.com
Ahh no wonder I haven't heard him. He's on the same time slot as el-Rushbo. :-)
Currently I do not download music and/or talk to mp3. One of these days...
Ed's point was that if he can capture more listeners just in the few markets he mentions, why doesn't station ownership give him more opportunity? Ed's only been national since 2005, but he gained a million weekly listeners between 06 and 07, and yet the "free market forces" dictate that he only gets 100 markets while the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh get 300+ each.
You can't convince me that this has nothing to do with the FCC relaxing the rules to allow unlimited radio station ownership by huge corporations. The trouble is that while you have unlimited sole ownership, you don't have the unlimited number of FCC licenses to go with it. THAT'S WHY THE RADIO MARKET IS NOT FREE.
BTW, Ed is not part of Air America. He is on a few of the same stations that carry Air America, but Ed has uttered his share of less-than-kind words about Air America, particularly their financial management.
Huge corporations will always cozy up to the party in power, the party that has clout to move legislation and regulation in their favor. As I said, if the Democrats are that party, and they even have been since 2006, then it only stands to reason that leftwing talk will flourish as a result, correct?
Check back in a couple years after the Democrats control everything and the Rushs and Seans still dominate and then tell me what your excuse for leftwing radio's pathetic state of affairs is then.
You accuse me of shifting arguments. We are not talking about the media in general, despite your broad generalization about the "media" beating up on Clinton. We are talking specifically about rightwing radio and corporations that own the stations and the influence they purport to have over elected officials. If one says that because the rightwing has given them the green light to buy up stations, that is why they are more sympathetic to their ideology, thus putting their talk show hosts on the air. I am saying if that is true, then it stands to reason Democratic control will lend them to put forth liberal talk radio.........so will they?
"We are not talking about the media in general..."
"Huge corporations will always cozy up to the party in power, the party that has clout to move legislation and regulation in their favor."
"Huge corporations" includes media corporations. Your point above is a general one, as evidenced by the word "always".
If Republicans are more likely to enact policies that favor corporations, I don't see why they'd give Democrats the time of day even if they are in power. What regulations would they expect them to change in their favor? I don't see the basis for expecting a shift in attitude should a Dem become president.
So because there's an exception you weren't arguing a general point? Of course you were.
What makes the exception, in your mind? Is it an inexplicable fluke that a company defies good business sense, or that they attack Clinton when principle dictates they should prop him up? What is it that causes those things to happen, contrary to your arguments?
No, it's just that liberals are constantly whining about their ineffectiveness in the talk radio arena, and never, ever, take any responsibility for it. Throw out some example like the Washington Times as some backup for a money losing rightwing enterprises as a diversion for their inability to confront and deal with the very simple fact that conservative talk is still financially successful and a very viable business model.
Or say it's these huge corporations and the rightwing politicians in their pockets that is the real reason for its success, deny the huge listernership they have so Ed Schultz can complain he has more listeners than Hannity, or something and why he's getting the shaft.
And you continue to divert the main point to argue my misuse of the word "only", or "always", ridiculous.
The point is conservatives listen to talk radio and support it, liberals for whatever reason do not, or at least not in the same number, and I say so what? And it drives liberals nuts, just like Fox News drives liberals nuts, and any successful conservative enterprise........and that pompous attitude that it can't be because it's popular, it must be some nefarious corporate plan to silence liberals over the airwaves.
God, can liberals ever stop whining when they can't compete at something......that's all it is, sorry.
Yes, Tommy, I'm familiar with your "a complaint by a liberal is just whining" argument. Stolen elections, illegal wars, stop whining and just live with it. It's less than compelling, to say the least.
You're not answering the questions. What is it that creates these exceptions? You talk about a viable business model, but then when Schultz has a rapidly growing audience he doesn't get the same rewards that someone like Hannity gets. You want to insist that it's all market-driven, but obviously there's another factor in that scenario. There has to be. What do you think it is?
I don't deny that there's a market for right-wing radio, but it's a question of proportion. Is the ratio of right-wing to left-wing radio really in proportion to the ratio of willing listeners on each side? It seems hard to believe, even if you give the right an advantage there. And it is possible that it can be popular and for there to be forces at work besides the free market at the same time.
I have no idea why conservative talk radio has so many more listeners, but they do. Perhaps it's because they got Rush initially 20 years ago, and he flourished during Clinton by being provocative, and the appetite swelled form there and spawned many like him, I don't know. Or maybe it's because these conservative talkers are just more insulting and crass, and their listeners eat it up where liberals just think it's all silly mindless entertainment. I don't deny that may very well be the case at all.
I don't look at as some failure for liberals, it's just different mediums that they may excel in, or maybe they don't need talk radio, I don't know what it is.
All I know, if I was a liberal, I could care less if leftwing radio is it for me and my ideology or not, I'd say who cares? If cons want to keep lowering the bar with some of their trash and silly one-sided arguments by loudmouthed hosts, then have at it. Maybe their egos need it.
At least you're agreeing that the radio market isn't free, with the difference being our arguments as to why. I'll stick with mine since it's proven. Yours is merely a theory, which banks entirely on radio conglomerates suddenly changing their long-standing tune and cozying up to Democrats, just because they hold the majority. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unproven and unlikely. I think it's more likely that they'll ride out a Democratic majority until the next Newt Gingrich comes along with a symbolic contract.
What I'm saying is that when you say it isn't free when it works against you, then it isn't free when it works in your favor, because if your theory is correct, it has too. You can't have it just one way.
Will liberals complain then? Or is it just when they lose, like Florida?
Now you're trying to switch cause and effect.
My assertion is that the market works against progressive talk because it isn't truly free AND because of what happened after the Telecom Act, one of the things that Bill Clinton resides in the progressive doghouse for. I did not assert that the market isn't free just because it works against progressive talk.
After the Telecom Act, the mass buyout came from those who refuse to give progressive talk more opportunity, resulting in the conglomeration and homogenization of radio that we see today.
Since the number of FCC radio licenses is limited, only with a limit on conglomeration can we truly see right-wing radio win on a level playing field.
Pete,
Rightwing radio wins because it has more listeners and is financially successful, that is it. Liberals can b*tch, moan and whine all day long, but until they can figure out how to get the listeners and win their time slots to get advertisers and ratings, they will forever be making excuses for their futility in this arena. My advice, move on, who cares if the rightwing has more talk radion listeners? There are plenty of other media venues to beat conservatives in.
As I said, show me where rightwing radio loses money and proof that it's there for ideological reasons and not financial, then you will have a point.
Otherwise, it's just more of the same.
"Rightwing radio wins because it has more listeners and is financially successful"
Because it's been given the opportunity on a silver platter to be successful by the media conglomerates, that's why. Progressives haven't even been allowed the chance to earn the opportunity.
I have no proof that right-wing radio loses money, but I never asserted that in the first place. I've been giving you the evidence conglomeration's role in right-wing dominance but you keep reverting back to the same free market bull****.
Familiarize yourself with the stories of Lowry Mays and Tom Hicks, and you'll find plenty of ideological motivation. For the record, I dont' find what they've done to talk radio nearly as alarming as the mark they've left on the music business.
Actually, there's an example I forgot about, and that's the story behind Melanie Morgan's demise.
Pete,
If the corporate titans are pushing talk radio from a ideological perspective, why aren't those same group of executives limiting liberal thought on broadcast TV, movies, music, newspapers, news magazines, etc.? Seems to me in those areas, the liberal point of view is pushed far and wide.
Eddie,
Savage is on the local talk dial so I sometimes listen to him if I'm driving at night. Usually it is short hops around town so I only catch a few minutes at a time. On the whole, I think he's way, way over the top.
fawlty,
I've thought the same thing. God bless America and the promise it holds that a person with Obama's name and background can stand a good chance to be President. He should embrace his name and make it a selling point.
p.s. I still think he'll win. :-)
This jerk should have said "stealth U.S. Senator", because whatever treasonous insidious nation-destroying scheme Sen. Obama has in store for us all, he has already fooled the U.S. Senate I guess, as they not only seated, but hold in good standing, the "stealth U.S. Senator".
As far as the leap we might make, as a nation, if Sen. Obama is elected our next President, I'd have thought the dramatic leap not to be from Gen. Eisenhower to Mr. Obama, but from President Lincoln to Mr. Obama... more specifically, from President Jefferson Davis of the C.S.A., to (perhaps) President Obama of the U.S.A.
That's the leap that truly boggles the mind. Just a mere (in terms of history) 150 years ago, the nation was torn apart in perhaps the bloodiest civil war the world has ever seen, and it was largely based on this fact:
That the United States had not only the legal institution of human slavery, but that that slavery was purely "race-based"... again, "race-based", as in the fact that in any of those States that had this legal institution of human slavery, every single slave without exception, was of African descent, or otherwise what you would call "colored", or black.
True.
There was no such a thing ever in the United States, not in a "slave State" or anywhere else, of any white person being legally enslaved.
True. Only African descended, or black people, were human slaves in the U.S. back then. Also, there was no such a thing in any of those "slave States" as a free African or "colored" person.
True. Without any exception at all, if you were African descended or "colored" or black, and you were in a "slave State", you were not a Citizen or a free person... you were either a human slave, or a human slave on the run, or you were otherwise in the wrong State at the wrong time (in U.S. History) because guess what my "colored" African friend? You can't just walk around free like this, on the loose, as though you were a Citizen or something, you're a slave pal, because of the color of you skin!
That's what "race-based" slavery is, and was, in the U.S.
And maybe we're gonna have a President descended from African blood (and maybe slave blood too, who can say, the way they screwed up all records of who were former slaves back then, once the war was over)... just 150 years (short in historical terms) after the war over "race-based" human slavery, and maybe the U.S. has a black man for a President.
It boggles the mind, it does.
As far as Gen. Eisenhower goes, I'm not sure of how he'd feel about it... as far as Mr. Lincoln, there are probably no words he could think of to say, that would properly describe what he might think of an African-American U.S. President... but if he did, he'd speak a couple dozen words on the matter I'm sure, off the top of his head and from his heart, and the nation and the world would've rememberd them, forever.
As far as Old Jefferson Davis goes?
He must spinning... like a top, he must be spinning in his grave.
Dem,
Nice post. I have some small points to make.
1.I think you said our Civil War has been the bloodiest civil war. You forget the war between the whites and reds after the bolshevik revolution. I think that claimed millions. I could be wrong, but I think the same holds true of the civil war in China between Chang Ki Shek's Nationalists and Mao's Communists. Ditto for Viet Nam, Cambodia, the Sudan, etc. Far bloodier by far in my humble opinion.
2. Slavery was a world wide institution and a historical one too. From earliest times, peoples had been conquered and made slaves. Many considered it normal and saw nothing wrong with it. There is dispute, but I read that France, after it's revolution, was the first Country to abolish Slavery. Maybe it was Denmark? Saudi Arabia the last, in 1962. Many people who rail against the U.S. forget that half the country (the North) abolished slavery around the time the country was formed. International slave trading was outlawed around that time.
3. A researcher at The Ohio State, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htmWell, I've finally found something Weiner and I have in common. When Prom time comes around, that old Marty Robbins chestnut pops into both our heads. I've never actually wanted to hear it again, however.
If I find we have anything else in common I'll be seeking professional help.
My understanding is that a "generation" is 15-25 years. "Generation X" supposedly covered those born between 1965 and 1982.
But going from Eisenhower running in 1952 to Obama today would be 56 years. That's a hell of a long generation.
Wouldn't you be afraid you "would get your head stomped"?
I doubt it, Savage probably refused to watch that movie, considered it liberal propaganda against on of his favorite civil rights groups, white supremecists.
The gay mafia, that always cracks me up. I always picture the scene from the Godfather with all the heads of the families sitting around the table. Except instead of Marlon Brando you have Elton John at the head of the table surrounded by Perez Hilton and the cast of queer eye for the straight guy.
Savage spews nonsense.
God I wish I could get up the energy to add something substantial or clever here.
I can't.
The same folks who hang on to & believe Savage's lies about Obama are the same ones still sending the stupid e-mail on the same subject.
www.nosavage.org
Write to his sponsors before Savage provokes one of his listeners to assasinate Obama. "Because he's a Muslim extremist - Savage told me so!" This jealousy that Savage is showing over his own failed bid, that now extends into fear propaganda and promoting violence - this has to be stopped.
Mega,
Do you have any evidence Savage is promoting violence? Any evidence he is specifically calling for assassination of Obama?
Actually, the Savage Weiner was promoting the idea of the Clintons sabotaging Obama's airplane.
Could you at least provide examples of "racial hatred?" He went to the school in Indonesia from ages 6-10. Have any of your elementary school classmates proven to be bad people? If so, can we extrapolate their actions to you?
He is not "pals" with Ayers, but I guess, SC you are the example of the people we have been talking about in this thread.
Show me evidence of the racial hatred, his step-father being a radical Muslim, and provide reasons why you think his elementary school associations are germane.
An example of racial hatred is the filth his lunatic reverend has been spewing for 20 years. Obama still today will not throw him under the bus. Rather, he exposes his young children to this invective filth. "God Damn America" "White men created the AIDS virus" This man is clearly unstable at best and probably disturbed. Obama has his little girls listen to this. I think this calls into question his judgment.
If my kids were listening to Klan tapes, after destroying the tapes, I would want to know exactly how they got them and that person would be banned.
Has Obama ever met Farakhan? I don't know. Nobody will ask him.
I get the sense that Obama is an angry man. I actually read both his books. It is a listing of racial grievances. He really isn't any different from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I won't go so far to say that Obama is as racist as the two aforementioned, but I do think he has a chip on his shoulder. His wife clearly does. I think it is from listening to the crazy reverend. I hope his kids don't grow up to hate their country,.
"An example of racial hatred is the filth his lunatic reverend has been spewing for 20 years. Obama still today will not throw him under the bus. Rather, he exposes his young children to this invective filth. "God Damn America" "White men created the AIDS virus" This man is clearly unstable at best and probably disturbed. Obama has his little girls listen to this. I think this calls into question his judgment."
Sorry, that doesn't qualify as "racial hatred." Could you source the exact "white men" created the AIDS virus? I have heard him say things about the U.S. government, but not white people specifically.
You didn't address any of my other points (i.e. Obama going to a school in Indonesia from ages 6-10 and how that has to do with anything, no specific quotes about Obama's racial anger, and anything about Obama's step-father being a radical Muslim).
Since you are worried about judgment issues, what do you make of McCain's lie about his rationale for voting against the Bush tax cuts initially?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/31/mccain_changes_story_on_tax_cut_stance/
He pulled a complete 180. McCain has pulled this behavior with the Religious Right and others as well. You say you are worried that Obama could be a "Manchurian Candidate," do McCain's complete reversals worry you as much as Obama's possible judgment issues?
You posted with a straight face that you are worried that some of Obama's elementary school classmates might be involved with terror. Are you worried that some of McCain's classmates may be racists because of the time they grew up? Are you worried that McCain is a racist because he voted against MLK day in 1983?
I am guessing Obama couldn't say anything to make you change your mind. Can McCain?
Finarfin wrote:
>>[doesn't matter]
Please don't respond to Finarfin. He is a Neo-Nazi, literally. Here are his posts from the past:
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
August heat, a part black person is considered Black because 1. they
most likely look "black" because of the genetic dominance of dark
pigments, 2. IT is very likely that they themselves consider
themselves "black" (perhaps because they resemble other Negroids).
He was raised by white guardians, and to this i attribute his cultured
mannerisms that resemble those of the "white devil." He is as a
'typical black person' might say; a "white man's Negro."
* - finarfin / Saturday March 22, 2008 2:26:47 PM EDT
PBG, You will reach down to give them a handshake, and they will
revert to some ritualistic acceptance dance that involves much inane
hand motions and grunting. This will eventually lead to you being
locked in some insane perversion of the handshake with said hoodlum.
* - finarfin / Saturday March 22, 2008 4:04:22 PM EDT
Putting the ultimate Jewish Curse on the savage:
"May you grow like an onion- with your head in the ground!"
Typical that the Silly Savage would think "White Sport Coat..." is a great song - a guy gets stood up. 'Beautiful feelings..." indeed. I'll bet he does know what that feels like.
More to the point, this "unknown stealth candidate" crap is being pushed hard by the right wingnutz. Sheer Insannity makes this "point" every day. Not that it is necessarily the greatest example in the world, but what the heck did we really know about either of the Bushes before they became President?
M
SAVAGE: Could you play "A White Sport Coat (and a Pink Carnation)"? Because the flowers are in bloom out here. It's my favorite time of the year. I suffer, like, from allergies, but the blooms are gorgeous, the apple -- the apple tree. They are -- pink.
Jesus is it just me but does weiner sound like Amanda Wingfield in The Glass Menagerie???
Why does MM waste so much time on Michael Savage? He's never going to stop making these outrageous statements and even many fellow members of his party consider him on the way far right fringes.
How about more on Sean Hannity? #2 conservative radio talk show in the country (yea..I know Savage is #3 but he may as well be tied for it with all sorts of nutjobs) and Hannity has the #2 rated "news" show in primetime.
Every single night he pounds this Jeremiah Wright thing and now railing on about some Weather Underground member that Obama spoke on stage with years ago. Hannity is vicious and extremely persistent in pushing this stuff and he's getting hits. Newshounds has a lot of information about Hannity's link to neo-Nazi Hal Turner, a much more tight link than these Obama ones.
MM - please pick that up. You have a bigger audience than Newshounds. The evidence is airtight.
Folks, don't ask me to defend McCain. Out of 1,000,000 candidates he is choice # 999,998. The only two people worse are Hillary and Barack Hussein Obama.
I gave sweat and toil (plus $4600) to Mitt Romney. I don't exactly have the warm and fuzzies for Sen. McAmnesty.
I am supporting McCain only in the hopes that he names a proper running mate -- in which case we can begin impeachment procedings on 12:00.01pm 1/20/09.
McCain's one and only redeeming grace is that he supports our soldiers and wants to achieve victory against the terrorists. Beyond that, he is no better than any other run of the mill liberal.
I absolutely question the patriotism of Hillary and Barack Hussein.
I erstwhile thought I preferred Hillary as the nominee because she is so polarizing. However, I now think B Hussein is more "swift-boatable".
Worry not, in 2012 Bobby Jindal will be our President, and he will pack the Judiciary with Thomas-Roberts-Scalia-Altio types and babies will be allowed to live.