Michael Savage plays Dead Kennedys song "in some respect for" Sen. Kennedy
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On the day it was announced that Sen. Ted Kennedy had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage opened his show by interspersing audio of Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes" with clips of news reporters discussing Kennedy's diagnosis and audio from Kindergarten Cop in which Arnold Schwarzenegger's character says, "It's not a tumor." Later, Savage played the Dead Kennedys song "California Über Alles" after stating: "The poor guy's been suffering for years, you know? Unfairly he's been accused of alcoholism, but we see now that it was something much more deep-seated. And so, to cut this out in some respect for Ted Kennedy, here's a tune coming at you from the Dead Kennedys. Go ahead and play it, please."
Following the announcement that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage opened his May 20 show by interspersing audio of Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes" with clips of news reporters discussing Kennedy's diagnosis and audio from the 1990 film Kindergarten Cop in which Arnold Schwarzenegger's character says, "It's not a tumor." Later, Savage played the Dead Kennedys song "California Über Alles" after stating: "The poor guy's been suffering for years, you know? Unfairly he's been accused of alcoholism, but we see now that it was something much more deep-seated. And so, to cut this out in some respect for Ted Kennedy, here's a tune coming at you from the Dead Kennedys. Go ahead and play it, please."
After reading from the lyrics of "California Über Alles," Savage said, "No gloating today, no laughter, all serious. You don't joke about a man's cancer. I do it, but I won't do it today; it's something I will not do." At one point in the program, he told a caller, "You know I'm playing the Dead Kennedys not to mock Ted Kennedy. It's just appropriate, that's all."
Later in the program, Savage aired a clip of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) offering a tribute to Kennedy on the Senate floor before describing Byrd as "a senile senator" and "a walking psycho." Savage went on to assert, "For years now, Byrd has been blubbering on the floor of the Senate. For years, I mean, to be honest, Kennedy didn't seem sane to me." He continued, "Forget about the drunk stories and all that -- anybody can drink. The guy sounded like he was off for years, I'm sorry."
Savage subsequently aired a clip of Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes" before he asserted, "This is running America. No wonder [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad's racing ahead with a nuclear weapon. He's afraid of these old men? He's afraid of these men who don't know what they're talking about? They don't know what they're talking about. No wonder Al Gore can receive a prize -- a Nobel Prize for something that doesn't exist. No wonder. Nobody knows what's going on." Savage added, "Either they're senile, or they're bought out, or they're corrupt, or they're crazy, or they're on medication. And we the people are sitting here saying, 'The king has no clothes,' and the king says, 'Off with your head.' Play 'California Über Alles' by the Dead Kennedys for me. I'm not going to get too worked up right now -- lunch is coming up for me anyway."
In February, discussing the death of Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the only member of Congress to have survived the Holocaust, Savage stated, "You're not supposed to talk badly about the dead. I generally wouldn't do it. But in the case of Tom Lantos, I'll make an exception. I think he was one of the most -- he was a scoundrel. And I'll tell you why I detested Tom Lantos. The man survived the Holocaust of World War II and used it as a weapon the rest of his life."
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 8.25 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 May 20 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
[begin audio clip]
[Ted Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes"]
VARIOUS REPORTERS: Our breaking news this afternoon: Ted Kennedy ... Tumor in the left lobe of his brain ... Malignant brain tumor ... This is a malignant brain tumor ... Let me, let me pick your brain -- on probably the area you know best ... He's showing great energy --
SCHWARZENEGGER: It's not a tumor.
KENNEDY: Mucho mas gracias a todos. Estoy muy contento estar aqui en Los Angeles con ustedes.
SCHWARZENEGGER: It's not a tumor, at all.
REPORTER: His mental faculties are obviously not impaired in any fashion.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Brain tumor.
VARIOUS REPORTERS: Often don't spread very quickly ... Seizure ... A malignant brain tumor.
SCHWARZENEGGER: It's not a tumor.
VARIOUS REPORTERS: Malignant brain tumor ... Breaking news today that Senator Ted Kennedy is suffering from a malignant brain tumor.
[Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes"]
[end audio clip]
SAVAGE: All right, guys, you know, this is not funny. You know, it's sad that Kennedy was showing signs for years. I knew it when he almost stumbled in the Senate gallery once and Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] had to finish a sentence for him. Remember that? I -- it was frightening. It was right out of The Manchurian Candidate -- he lost himself in the middle.
The poor guy's been suffering for years, you know? Unfairly he's been accused of alcoholism, but we see now that it was something much more deep-seated. And so, to cut this out in some respect for Ted Kennedy, here's a tune coming at you from the Dead Kennedys. Go ahead and play it, please.
[music clip of the Dead Kennedys' "California Über Alles"]
SAVAGE [speaking over music clip]: "Big bro on white horse is near. The hippies won't come back, you say, mellow out or you will pay. Now it is 1984. California, California."
It is The Savage Nation. No gloating today, no laughter, all serious. You don't joke about a man's cancer. I do it, but I won't do it today; it's something I will not do. That song, by the way, by the Dead Kennedys is called "California Über Alles," dates from 1979, and the words are amazing. Just start it again; I want to read you some of the words after we bring them up to speed.
["California Über Alles" plays]
SAVAGE: OK, now, let me explain. The lyrics are "California Über Alles" by the Dead Kennedys from 1979 -- all right, turn off the music.
"I am Governor Jerry Brown," it says. "My aura smiles and never frowns. Soon I will be president, Carter power will soon go away. I will be führer one day. I will command all of you, your kids will meditate in school. Your kids will meditate in school." Then they go into the chorus, California Über Alles, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Über Alles, California.
Now listen to the lyrics: "Zen fascists will control you" -- ooh. "100 percent natural, you will jog for the master race and always wear the happy face. Close your eyes, can't happen here, big bro on white horse is near. The hippies won't come back, you say, mellow out or you will pay, mellow out or you will pay."
Chorus: "Now it is 1984, knock-knock at your front door. It's the suede denim secret police, they have come for your uncool niece. Come quietly to the camp, you'd look nice as a drawstring lamp. Don't you worry, it's only a shower, for your clothes here is a pretty flower. Die on organic poison gas, serpent's eggs already hatched. You will croak, you little clown, when you mess with President Brown, when you mess with President Brown." Play the refrain all over again. It's The Savage Nation and -- that's it, play it, already, play California --
["California Über Alles" plays]
SAVAGE: Boom, boom. Bah. Bing. Sad, very sad day. Very sad day. No more Jalisco songs, nothing. No more discordant hectoring from the Senate floor. Very sad. Want to hear the stories to go with this?
All right, then. I mean, I don't know. I'd rather listen to the Dead Kennedys all day than tell you the following story. McCain courts left-wing bloggers. That's right.
[...]
SAVAGE: Play "California Über Alles" by the Dead Kennedys, dedicated to the one I love. "I am governor."
["California Über Alles" plays]
I'm sorry. I like it. I'm having fun today. I'm not celebrating. I feel good. I've always liked punk rock music. I consider The Savage Nation sort of the punkers of the -- the punk rock of talk radio.
When you think of -- turn it off already, I said -- read my mind. When I think turn it off, it should go off without my even saying it. You're supposed to be inside my brain already.
"California Über" -- you know, when you think about it -- here they are. The lyrics are very funny. They're saying, "I'm Governor Jerry Brown. Soon I'll be president; I'll be führer one day." Now, he was a left-winger, Jerry Brown [current attorney general of California], and here they're saying he'll be führer, and you're gonna have to jog for the master race. Zen fascists will control you. Mellow out or you'll pay. Listen to this: "It's the suede denim secret police, they've come for your uncool niece."
So he's, like, saying, the Zen left wing is going to become the fascists, and like I'm saying to you on The Savage Nation for the last 15 years, I carved out the independent arena here on talk radio. I warned you I'm not a Republican. I've told you I'm not a Democrat. I've told you I'm not a liberal. I told you I'm not a Republican. I told you I'm not a liberal. I told you I'm not a liberal. I told you I'm not a liberal. I told you I'm not a Republican. I told you I'm not a Republican.
So in essence, that leaves me here for you. I'll be The Savage Nation for the rest of my life, irrespective of what John McCain's bartender thinks.
Phone number 1-800-449-8255. MichaelSavage.com is the website. Let's go to the first caller of the day, Rick in Las Vegas, welcome to the program. What's on your mind?
CALLER: Michael, you're the man. I'm a corrections officer over here in Las Vegas, and I've been listening to you for about 15 years, and I always knew you were a closet punk rocker. Keep it up, man. DKs all the way.
SAVAGE: Oh, God. I was terrified when you said, "I knew you were a closet." I said, "Oh, God, I have to cut this one off."
CALLER: [laughs] No.
SAVAGE: [laughs] Oh, man. I was ready on that cough-drop press. I would've cut myself off. No, I was all ready. So you're a corrections officer, and you listen to punk music in your headphones?
CALLER: Oh, no, not at work. I'm just saying, I've been -- you know, I've been into punk rock since I was -- in 1980. And, you know, I'm from L.A. originally, but I've been listening to you for a long time. Like I said, this is the third time I've talked to you. You're my hero.
SAVAGE: You know I'm playing the Dead Kennedys not to mock Ted Kennedy. It's just appropriate, that's all.
CALLER: It was perfect, it was perfect. You're the man.
SAVAGE: All right. You understand it. You see, the straight people can't get it. People who are too straight don't understand anything. They don't understand sarcasm, they don't understand satire, they don't understand humor. They have no idea what's going on around them. But I do. So my job is to do what I do.
There are other stories out there. McCain courts left-wing bloggers.
[...]
SAVAGE: That's the country we live in. The same series of federal courts that are so out of touch with reality now says to us that money discriminates against the blind. Where will it end, ladies and gentlemen? It will end with us playing, before this break, "California Über Alles" by the Dead Kennedys. That's where it will end.
["California Über Alles" plays]
SAVAGE: It will end, my friends, with the suede denim secret police, coming to your home for your uncool niece.
For your clothes, there'll be a pretty flower. Dying on organic poison gas, when you mess with the good liberals.
It doesn't get better than this. Nobody could do this in radio. Nobody could do this in radio. Nobody could do this in radio.
Seventy thousand feet. Nobody could do this in radio. Eighty-five thousand feet. Altitude, altitude, altitude. Watch your ceiling, watch your ceiling. Ninety thousand feet. Watch your altitude. Beep, beep, beep. Altitude: 98,000 feet. Watch your altitude, watch your altitude. Warning lights are going off. Watch your altitude. A hundred thousand feet. Beep, beep, beep. Airframe designed only for 99,000 feet. Watch your altitude, watch your altitude, watch your altitude.
I'll be back. Be here. You know where.
[...]
SAVAGE: Now, if you think that the America that you once loved is dying, I won't argue with you. And if you think that we have a bunch of senile old coots running Congress, what I'm about to play for you will confirm your worst fears. Here is the whack job, ex-Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd, Democrat, reacting to the Ted Kennedy brain tumor report today. Listen to clip 11. It's not made up. Listen.
BYRD [audio clip]: Ted. Ted. My dear friend, I love you and I miss you. And Erma, Erma, Erma, my darling wife, Erma, would want to say thank God for you, Ted. Thank God for you.
SAVAGE: I'm asking you, would a sane nation permit a senile senator to hold his seat? You gently send in orderlies in white coats, and they gently remove the old man, and they put him in a chair -- strap him in -- in the Senate retirement home, and wheel him over next to a curtain facing a nice outdoor window, and three times a day they feed it. And that's the end of it. This man has a vote? This man can decide whether or not Iran is a threat? This man can decide whether or not global warming is real? This man can decide anything? Listen to this. This is a sitting senator, you fools. Listen to clip 11.
BYRD [audio clip]: My dear friend, I love you and I miss you. And Erma --
SAVAGE: Oh, my God. Get him off. Get this old -- get him off my show. This is unbelievable to me. Now, you want -- you try to understand why the country's in the shape it's in. They've got literally a walking psycho there. And we've known it for years by the things he does. For years now, Byrd has been blubbering on the floor of the Senate. For years, I mean, to be honest, Kennedy didn't seem sane to me. Forget about the drunk stories and all that -- anybody can drink. The guy sounded like he was off for years, I'm sorry. When he would give that -- he gave a speech about a year ago, I forget the topic. He could not finish the speech, Kennedy couldn't. Feinstein had to come from the side and speak to him like from the wings, like the queen of diamonds. And he's, "Oh, oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah." And then this Jalisco song -- play Jalisco for a minute. Play Jalisco.
KENNEDY [singing]: Jalisco, Jalisco, Jalisco.
SAVAGE: Or Jalisco, excuse me.
KENNEDY [singing]: Tu tienes tu novia. Me Guadalajara.
SAVAGE: Come on. OK, you get the picture? This is running America. No wonder Ahmadinejad's racing ahead with a nuclear weapon. He's afraid of these old men? He's afraid of these men who don't know what they're talking about? They don't know what they're talking about. No wonder Al Gore can receive a prize -- a Nobel Prize for something that doesn't exist. No wonder. Nobody knows what's going on. Either they're senile, or they're bought out, or they're corrupt, or they're crazy, or they're on medication. And we the people are sitting here saying, "The king has no clothes," and the king says, "Off with your head." Play "California Über Alles" by the Dead Kennedys for me. I'm not going to get too worked up right now -- lunch is coming up for me anyway.
["California Über Alles" plays]
SAVAGE: I'm asking you, would a sane nation permit a senile senator to hold his seat?
I'm asking you, would a sane nation allow Michael Savage his own radio show?
Would a sane nation have elected George W. Bush president, twice?
Would a sane nation belive that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?
Would a sane nation believe that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim?
The list is endless. Savage is correct, there is an insane America...and he's part of it.
Here's the "irony" for you, irony. All the good liberals are on this site complaining about Savage speaking badly of a drunkard who has cancer. Let's read some of the quotes from the "sane" liberals who would NEVER think of denegrating another fellow human:
"vile, disgusting piece of human refuse deserves his own circle in hell."
"I hope this man rots in hell. And when he's done rotting, his head needs to be stuffed in a toilet"
"This despicable human being has sh*t on America again"
"Savage is a pig. His listeners are pigs."
Oh, yeah. And savage is the evil one?? Liberals are hypocrits!
The point of this article is to promote the fact that a conservative did something that liberals don't like. That's all MMFA is about. It's not about fairness in the media, it's about finding things that conservatives say that liberals dislike and try to distort.
The point that some of us here are trying to make it is that it is incredibly hypocritical for liberals to condemn a mans free speech by responding with equally critical free speech.
There are plenty of examples of edgy statements by the left pointed at conservatives. Just think back to what the lefty blogs where saying about Cheney's hunting accident. Think about some of the crap that Olbermann and Mahr have spit out before.
You don't have to like what Savage did, but you can't ignore his Constitutional right to say it. In this country you have the right to free speech, you do NOT have the right to not be offended.
"The point of this article is to promote the fact that a conservative did something that liberals don't like. That's all MMFA is about. It's not about fairness in the media, it's about finding things that conservatives say that liberals dislike and try to distort."
That's ringing pretty hollow unless you can show how this isn't at least very tasteless behavior or what the "distortion" is.
"The point that some of us here are trying to make it is that it is incredibly hypocritical for liberals to condemn a mans free speech by responding with equally critical free speech."
Nobody is condemning his "free speech". He's not owed a radio show any more than I am.
"There are plenty of examples of edgy statements by the left pointed at conservatives. Just think back to what the lefty blogs where saying about Cheney's hunting accident. Think about some of the crap that Olbermann and Mahr have spit out before."
So even granting that point, that means that nobody on the left should complain about the myriad of irresponsible conservatives because of a few liberals (and libertarians) out there. I'm sure that if that happened that the right would close down all their blogs as well, right? You might be able to find a toddler somewhere who thinks that will happen.
"You don't have to like what Savage did, but you can't ignore his Constitutional right to say it. In this country you have the right to free speech, you do NOT have the right to not be offended."
Nobody has even implied that he doesn't have a Constitutional right to say it. But as an employee he can be fired for performance. You can tell your boss that his wife is a whore, and you have every Constitutional right to say that, but you can't be surprised if there are consequences for your actions. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and nobody can criticize you for it, no matter how many times you make that ludicrous argument.
Your last sentence suggests that you must be offended, since you don't have the right to not be offended.
"If someone is truly contemptible, then that contempt can be shown. That's based on someone's behavior and isn't hypocritical."
But who is the arbiter of what is "contemptible" and what is not?? The fact of whether someone is "contemptible" is entirely relative, for example you think that savage is contemptible whereas i think that he is not. There is not sufficient proof for either side, it's all a matter of [political] opinion.
Later you brought up the subject of Hitler, you think him contemptible, but there are others who do not. It is simply the opinion you draw from ambiguous data. I think that Stalin was a contemptible man, whereas you may be quite fond of "Uncle Joe".
It is all a matter of opinion, no matter how large a population agrees with you.
Philib's point is certainly true, you should not in one moment call someone a "hateful bigot" for their political views and in another moment viciously insult someone else whose politics you disagree with. That is known as hypocrisy, of which Philib correctly accused you of.
You really want to turn this into a philosophical discussion? Call me crazy, but I find anyone that would make light of or joke about another human beings dying of a terminal illness contemptible. And that would include comments made about Tony Snow or anyone else I "disagree with politically". It's about decency. But hey, that's just me.
"I think that Stalin was a contemptible man, whereas you may be quite fond of "Uncle Joe". "
Cute. I don't think many her are fond of "Uncle Joe." I find it interesting you choose to make a point about Stalin being a contemptible man, but merely point out that others may not find Hitler to be contemptible. And it is an opinion based on "ambiguous data"? AMBIGUOUS DATA??? Are you kidding me????
"Philib's point is certainly true, you should not in one moment call someone a "hateful bigot" for their political views and in another moment viciously insult someone else whose politics you disagree with. That is known as hypocrisy, of which Philib correctly accused you of."
Wrong. This isn't about "political views". Savage wasn't commenting on his "political views." He was making fun of a man's terminal disease and he is being harshly criticized for it. Nothing hypocritical about it. Maybe you and Phil need to look up the meaning of "hypocrisy". And while you're at it; try "decency" and "compassion" as well. Not that it'll do any good.
"But who is the arbiter of what is "contemptible" and what is not?? The fact of whether someone is "contemptible" is entirely relative, for example you think that savage is contemptible whereas i think that he is not. There is not sufficient proof for either side, it's all a matter of [political] opinion."
I can't believe this has to be explained to someone old enough to type. Society in general is the arbiter of these things. It's subjective. It's not simple math, where it's cut-and-dry and there's zero room for debate. Cursing is debatable, some people take that more seriously than others. Pre-marital sex used to be shameful but the social mores have changed. But mocking someone's fatal illness is pretty much universally regarded as contemptible, and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future.
"Later you brought up the subject of Hitler, you think him contemptible, but there are others who do not. It is simply the opinion you draw from ambiguous data. I think that Stalin was a contemptible man, whereas you may be quite fond of "Uncle Joe"...It is all a matter of opinion, no matter how large a population agrees with you."
Yes, people who think Hitler is not contemptible are called "Nazis" and "Holocaust deniers". Who puts any value in their opinion, then? They're extremists, as are people who are fond of "Uncle Joe". The judgment of the general population is what determines what is acceptable and what isn't, even though it's obviously not objective fact. Just because a handful of racist punks think differently from everyone else doesn't mean that it's all up in the air and nobody can possibly say who's right and wrong with any authority whatsoever. As for "ambiguous data", what does that mean?
"Philib's point is certainly true, you should not in one moment call someone a "hateful bigot" for their political views and in another moment viciously insult someone else whose politics you disagree with. That is known as hypocrisy, of which Philib correctly accused you of."
That point would depend on the notion that the "vicious insult" and the "hateful bigot" usage are based on the politics and not the behavior. That argument should prove most difficult for you to support.
"That point would depend on the notion that the "vicious insult" and the "hateful bigot" usage are based on the politics and not the behavior. That argument should prove most difficult for you to support. "
For what need would that have to be proven? You are a hypocrit if you whine about someone for insulting others while using insults to fulfill your whining.
No, it simply is not. If someone says something idiotic and inflammatory to you, then you can call them an idiot or whatever, because you're basing it on their behavior. It's not the same as lobbing an unwarranted insult.
It's a matter of fairness. I don't call people like Jeter morons just because I disagree with them, that would be unfair. But when you post any number of stupid comments and smears against people you disagree with, then I'll call you a moron because that's how you act. That can be evaluated for fairness and reason. If it's not my general behavior, then it's not hypocrisy.
So if you're talking about someone who insults any conservative just based on their beliefs, then they can't really complain about Savage's behavior very much. But most people recognize and respect reasonable conservatives, and so we can call Savage out for what he does.
"But most people recognize and respect reasonable conservatives, and so we can call Savage out for what he does."
You can "call savage out for what he does". But, can you do that by 'doing what he does' as your form of calling him out? Without being a hypocrit?
Yes, because if he's being an idiot, then you call him out as an idiot. That's an insult, but it's warranted.
Let me explain it in simpler terms for you. Hypocrisy is the act of saying something you don't follow yourself. So criticizing someone's behavior while you do the same thing is hypocritical. But just "insulting" is not the behavior in question. There's a difference between warranted insults and unwarranted ones, as I explained above.
Therefore there's a difference in the behaviors.
Therefore it's not the same behavior.
Therefore it's not hypocrisy.
That must be your opinion on what hypocrisy means. I checked m-w dictionary and they have something totally different than you say:
" a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion "
Just in case, 'feigning':
" 1 a: to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b: to assert as if true : pretend 2 archaic a: invent, imagine b: to give fictional representation to "
I think my use is certainly within those parameters.
" a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion "
Um, yes, that seems consistent with what I said. What do you see as wildly different?
Phil,
Which poster on here has a radio show to broadcast that type of rhetoric?
With that large of an audience, MMFA should take over Yahoo and Google. Hey you 4 billion people reading this, each of you please send me a penny so I can retire in luxury.
With that large of an audience, MMFA should take over Yahoo and Google. Hey you 4 billion people reading this, each of you please send me a penny so I can retire in luxury.
And that would make 4 billion people who know that Phil is an idiot.
There may be 4 billion POTENTIAL viewers of what we post here, Phil, but the ACTUAL number is far, far less. Savage, OTOH, broadcasts his hate into millions of homes over the public airwaves. He needs to be shown that his behavior is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated.
"He needs to be shown that his behavior is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated."
Who made you judge/jury/executioner? Where do you get off saying what "needs" to be done. I think that is simply another example of liberal mentality thinking you are better than everyone else and ONLY you know what punishment fits the crime. IMHO, what "needs" to be done is every poster who uses hateful/vial language should immediately be fired from mmfa posting abilities. Would that solve that problem?
If you want to stop being hypocritical, then you will say the same hateful/vial speach, from mmfa posters, "needs" to be shown as unacceptable and no longer tolerated. Are you willing to do that? I didn't think so. Since you agree with one hateful/vial speach, then IT is acceptable. But, whatever speach you disagree with suddenly becomes unaceptable. Not because it is hateful/vial, but because you disagree with it. Which makes YOU a hypocrit, along with everyone else who whines about savage while calling him hateful/vial names.
"There may be 4 billion POTENTIAL viewers of what we post here, Phil, but the ACTUAL number is far, far less. Savage, OTOH, broadcasts his hate into millions of homes over the public airwaves. "
That is totally bunk. Are YOU forced to listen to savage? Are YOU forced to read mmfa? The "potential" is there for both. Just because savage is more popular than mmfa doesn't mean he is automatically listened to in every home in America. Remember, the internet travels over the same public airwaves you so proudly claim to own.
And, of course mmfa readership is "far, far less". Who wants to read a bunch of hypocrits calling others hateful/vial names? It's bad enough we got savage being forced into our homes (as you imply), we don't need hypocrits forced in, too.
"Remember, the internet travels over the same public airwaves you so proudly claim to own."--philib
The internet is a 'series of tubes'! Didn't you know?
But it IS acceptible and IS not only tolerated but applauded and rewarded. You see, there is this new invention called commercial radio. In it, people are hired as on-air talent due to their ability to attract listeners and advertising revenue. Savage, by this article's own admission, is at least the third best in the country at doing this.
I guess it's time to bring out the old chestnut of the left regarding broadcast entertainment: if you don't like it, turn it off. Stop trying to covertly censor political speech you personally dislike. Here's a hint: it hasn't worked. It didn't work with Donald "millions in undisclosed settlement and brand new show" Imus and it won't work on the superior Michael Savage.
Oh, really, genius? Try this site... my local Savage outlet... and get back with me with something more intelligent, k?
www.wtntam570.com
Well, I stand corrected.
So, now we have 4 billion people listening to savage call people hateful names and we have 4 billion people reading mmfa posters call people hateful names. Should both groups be "fired" from their respective jobs?? Some of these posters say savage "needs" to be punished for his hateful proclomations. Should mmfa posters face the same punishment, since they are guilty of the same crime?
Look up the numbers yourself. Last I heard it was eight million for Savage.
How many people read the articles doesn't say anything about how many people read the comments, either. I read several sites where I don't bother with the comments, so even an estimation of how many people visit the site doesn't help your point.
It's your argument that billions of people are reading these comments, not mine. You support it yourself.
If he gets eight million a week, let's be incredibly generous and say that 1.6 million listen every day (although there's bound to be a huge overlap there). That's still surely more than the number of people who read the comments here, especially considering some articles only get a handful of comments.
And besides this, there is a difference between anonymous people on a message board and someone who is paid to talk. There's sort of an implication that the person who is paid has something valuable to say, you know?
"If he gets eight million a week, let's be incredibly generous and say that 1.6 million listen every day (although there's bound to be a huge overlap there). That's still surely more than the number of people who read the comments here, especially considering some articles only get a handful of comments."
It is YOUR arguement that he gets 8 million listeners. How do you count them? Are you guessing? Are you estimating? I thought so. So, in fact you know of (maybe) a handful of people who actually listen to him (I'm a conservative and I only know one who listens to him). And, then they are restricted to a specific time. Whereas, mmfa is 24/7, with a complete archive section that can be accessed any time also. Reading is not the same as commenting.
Perhaps (doubtful) but perhaps over the lifetime of mmfa there has been more than 8 million who have accessed any particular article. Thus making mmfa just as guilty of providing hateful/vial statements and also worthy of similar punishment as sought towards savage.
A simple google search shows that the 8 million figure came from Talkers magazine. Surely there are ways to figure this sort of thing out. It's not like he's got four thousand and they're just really off the mark.
So eight million people have read a significant portion of the archives of this site, which posts 5-15 articles every weekday and sometimes on weekends? You must be joking. Meanwhile, the millions who listen to Savage per week are going to largely be the same people over and over again. They always get the same messages from him. It's not like you can argue that millions of people have read individual items on here and read the same comments. One person reads one item, another reads another, they're not getting the same messages.
And a paid radio host knows how many people are listening to him, as opposed to people on here who have no way of possibly imagining that millions of people are reading their particular messages. Your argument is as idiotic as a cardboard frying pan.
"Your argument is as idiotic as a cardboard frying pan."
You can boil water in a paper cup over an open fire. So, maybe my argument isn't as idiotic as you think.
Again, you provide proof of 'mythical' numbers. Someone makes up a number based on a 'probable guess'. How many of your 8 million listen to his entire show? Maybe 4 or 5. How many listen to 5 minutes of his show? Maybe your 8 million? How many read mmfa? Maybe 4 or 5. How many have read mmfa? Maybe 8 million. I can just as easily say: 'studies show 8 million people have read a mmfa article at one time' and be just as right as you when you say: 'blah-blah says 8 million listen to savage'. You could never prove me wrong, and I could never prove you wrong.
Boiling isn't the same as frying, nitwit.
So the fact that I can't prove exactly how many listeners he has is supposed to put what I'm saying in doubt? Yes, he could have four listeners and MMfA could have 5 billion readers. And you might win three million dollar lotteries in three consecutive days. It's just not very likely.
"So the fact that I can't prove exactly how many listeners he has is supposed to put what I'm saying in doubt? Yes, he could have four listeners and MMfA could have 5 billion readers. "
Well, you're getting good at admitting when your wrong. Now, maybe you'll stop making unfounded claims and stick to facts. No...not 'made up' facts, but 'real facts'. That may be tough at first, but with a little practice you'll get better at it.
Sometimes you can't know everything to an exact degree. You use the best information available. No, I'm not betting my life on the eight million figure, but that's the accepted number. There's no "wrong" to admit by accepting it at face value.
I guess whenever someone touts the ratings of O'Reilly, liberals can just say "prove the exact number of people who watch him" and that will be the end of the argument. It seems unlikely.
Thanks for playing, though. Your "insights" are always...... instructive.
"Thanks for playing, though. Your "insights" are always...... instructive."
It's nice that your first imposition to this thread is the quote you usually use when you've lost the arguement.
It's nice that your first imposition to this thread is the quote you usually use when you've lost the arguement.
Phil - people like you generally lose the argument when they're too stupid to spell "argument". :-)
Oh...you mean the word that Bush pronounces ARGERMINT, like in his speech in Israel last week? ;>)
Bush speaks like English is his second language. Wait - I take that back. I know a lot of people for whom English is their second language, and they all speak FAR BETTER than Pretzelboy does......
"Oh...you mean the word that Bush pronounces ARGERMINT, like in his speech in Israel last week?"- IRONY
"Bush speaks like English is his second language. Wait - I take that back. I know a lot of people for whom English is their second language, and they all speak FAR BETTER than Pretzelboy does......" - wzwriter
Your scurrilous attack on Bush's manner of speaking is simply a base insult, one from which nobody should draw conclusions on Bush's intelligence.
For you fellows are making fun of a man's accent, incidentally something which is not determined by intelligence but rather locale and upbringing.
A person who comes to this country from another does not often use entirely proper English, but this does not mean they're stupid or unintelligent. I am not saying that English is Bush's second language, only that you cannot judge him because of the way he pronounces words.
Do you fellows ever mock any other people because of the way they speak? Such action is contrary to the liberal creed of love and understanding, so i suggest you end your obvious hypocrisy.
For you fellows are making fun of a man's accent, incidentally something which is not determined by intelligence but rather locale and upbringing.
A person who comes to this country from another does not often use entirely proper English, but this does not mean they're stupid or unintelligent. I am not saying that English is Bush's second language, only that you cannot judge him because of the way he pronounces words.
Do you fellows ever mock any other people because of the way they speak? Such action is contrary to the liberal creed of love and understanding, so i suggest you end your obvious hypocrisy.
Have you ever seen "Fahrenheit 9/11", Finarfin? Near the beginning of the film, there's a film clip of George W. Bush being interviewed toward the end of his father's term in office. And he has absolutely NO TEXAS ACCENT and speaks CLEARLY AND ARTICULATELY. So sometime between 1992 and now, George W. Bush forgot how to speak. I'm sure all the booze and drugs he's injested over the years had something to do with that....
And I'd suggest that you drop that crap about instructing us how liberals are supposed to act. We're not here to live up to your standards, or anyone else's.
For you fellows are making fun of a man's accent, incidentally something which is not determined by intelligence but rather locale and upbringing.
And what part of Texas are Connecticut and Maine located in? because that's where Bush's upbringing was. Does Andover Preparatory School (which Bush attended) have a course in "Illiterate Speech for Future Incompetent Political Hacks?" If so, it was probably the only course Bush ever passed with more than a C.
"And what part of Texas are Connecticut and Maine located in? because that's where Bush's upbringing was"
Well Bush should start worrying about Wright making fun of his accent, like he did with Kennedy's. "How do you spell eask"? How about cah or bah? Does that make Kennedy as dumb as Bush? Apparantly, by liberal standards--- yes.
This from a clown who claims to be a "writer" but can't use "your" v. "you're" correctly.
Uh, I AM a writer - been doing it professionally now for over 25 years.
Here's a gem from your post downthread, "And your head is so far up you're rectum"
No issues though. I will give you a free lesson in English grammar and writing only because your (not you're) clients/users shouldn't have to suffer the "writings" of an illiterate and incoherent "thing":
"Your: Your is the second person possessive adjective, used to describe something as belonging to you. Your is nearly always followed by a noun."
"You're: You're is the contraction of "you are" and is often followed by the present participle (verb form ending in -ing)."
For more lessons in the basics of English grammar, go to http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/youryoure.html Don't worry - the lessons there are quite easy and I think you might be able to keep up. I can't guarantee success though....to paraphrase an old cliche, you can take WZWriter to a website but you can't make it think.
Oh...I usually don't correct spelling and grammar in other peoples' posts but am making an exception in your case because you insulted somebody else for poor spelling upthread.
Genghiz -
I will ocasionally make a mistake like that in my haste to post replies on MMFA. And many of my typos are a result of nerve damage I sufferred in both of my arms as a result of a motor vehicl accident in 2004. But when someone makes glaring spelling errors in VIRTUALLY EVERY POST THEY MAKE, it does not reflect well on them, and that's the point I was trying to make.
They're still calling for you back at Free RepubliKKK, BTW.....
" of a motor vehicl accident in 2004."
I lost an eye to cancer. Can I use that as my excuse for spelling incorrectly (while I'm rushed at responding---like you)?? Or would I be hypocritical for trying to use a physical disability as an excuse for a mental failure?
I lost an eye to cancer. Can I use that as my excuse for spelling incorrectly (while I'm rushed at responding---like you)??
No, but it does explain why seeing the truth is such a problem for you.
By the way, that was a joke about cancer. Since Phil thinks it's OK for his hero Doctor Weiner to do such a thing, he shouldn't mind it here. After all, a blogger on MMfA is equivalent in his eye(s) to a nationally syndicated radio host.
That part where I said "eye(s)" was another joke about cancer. I'm a real comedian, aren't I?
You're good, wingnut. But, there are better jokes you can use. Like when a blind guy asks where the bathroom is, you say (and point) "over there" then walk away knowing you've helped the handicapped.
Oh, here's a better one; you (blind guy) go into an airline phone reservation office in search for a job and they don't hire you because they worry you won't be able to find the bathroom. But, they think your dog is 'cute'.
If it's nerve damage then it's not a "mental failure". The brain sends the correct signals, but they don't always get carried through because of the damage in the arms.
If your vision is blurry because of your injury, then that would be a valid explanation for your typos as well.
Phil,
The internet may be worldwide, but every radio program can be heard online. Are you seriously trying to argue that this website has as many hits as Savage has listeners?
Philib, I don't think it's improper for you to raise the question of hypocricy...although I disagree with your conclusions. What you are seeing here in the repsonses of some is legitimate anger and outrage over Savage's episodes of hate-filled speech. Savage crosses the line repeatedly.
Although I am certainly not qualified to make a clinical diagnosis, I think it is neither unreasonable nor unfair to conclude that Savage is insane. My problem is with the powers that allow this type of cancerous (pardon the pun) speech that Savage engages in over the airwaves.
I think the fact that Savage is trying to be provocative here largely exhonerates the response from some of the posters here. Savage would not get the same response had he not been doing what he often does.
You can't just slap people in the face and call them a hypocrite when they respond. It defies common sense.
Whaaahh! Liberals say bad things about Savage after he says bad things about Liberals! Whaaahh! It's not fair that they respond in kind because they are supposed to be tolerant and allow Savage to berate them and call them names with no expectation of a response! Whaaahh!
Someone call 9-11, Phil needs a whambulance.
Let's not beat around the bush.
Are you trying to say that we're hypocrites?
"Liberals say bad things about Savage after he says bad things about Liberals! Whaaahh! It's not fair that they respond in kind because they are supposed to be tolerant and allow Savage to berate them and call them names with no expectation of a response!"
Snoopy, Savage is not hypocritical in insulting liberals as he does, for he does not endlessly profess his tolerance!!
Liberals do profess tolerance, thus they are hypocritical when viciously insulting someone for their political views.
Tolerance does not mean we must tolerate the intolerable.
"Here's the "irony" for you, irony. All the good liberals are on this site complaining about Savage speaking badly of a drunkard who has cancer. Let's read some of the quotes from the "sane" liberals who would NEVER think of denegrating another fellow human:"
Boy Philib, talk about projection! I think you need to lie down, you seem to have the vapors.
You know, there's an un-spoken rule in comedic circles that you don't joke about cancer unless you've had cancer. Otherwise it's just not funny, it's deplorable. Now while Savage is no comedian, he is certainly making light of a tragic situation for political glee. The man is a sycophant, and deserves the ridicule that a few here have expressed.
And no, posters on this board are not equal in scope and measure to a right-wing radio host. First, your analogy is flawed, because almost all radio today is streamed on-line, making potential listenership/readership equal.
And you speak of hypocrisy as if you're guilt-free. Please. Longing for the "good ol' days" while railing against the socialist policies that made those good ol' days what they were is the height of hypocritical.
No, ridiculing a man who feels that a brain tumor is something to poke fun at (but only when it's on the other side!) is not hypocritical in the least. You need to get your head on straight.
Disclaimers? That makes it OK in your book to ridicule the terminally ill?
OK - what I'm about to say may be controversial to just one person -
PHILIB - you're idiocy makes you un-patriotic.
Wait a minute. This isn't "misinformation." After all, it is perfectly accurate that Michael Savage is a heartless d-bag.
As for Senator Kennedy, Thank you and God Bless you.
So you don't joke about a man's cancer, but you make references to Kennedy's death because it's "appropriate".
Who is it who's been "off" for years, again?
From bogs, fens, flats, on Weiner fall, and make him
By inch-meal a disease!"
(from The Tempest)
Another for Savage:
"Come, come, you talk greasily;your lips grow foul" - Love's Labours Lost
This vile, disgusting piece of human refuse deserves his own circle in hell.
Sadly, his lack of class and dignity is no surprise.
What a sad, pathetic little man.
Media Matters, please revoke this clowns right to post. How do you compare Olberman and Savage? Seriously, Olberman may disagree with Bush harshly at times, but come on, he's never taken a shot at someone terminally ill with a brain tumor. That's low. I've read some of your post on other threads, but seriously this is about as low as they get. Anyone, anyone who has ever had someone in their family die from cancer understands its no joke. Maybe your life is just that sweet, but you're a clown in my book and I pray you don't get afflicted by the same thing you find humorous in others.
Clown.
I point out excesses - be they from the Left or the Right or in between. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen rather than demand that I be kicked out.
Yes, I pointed out that Sen. Kennedy has become a heroic figure now despite this past and I stand by it. That being said, don't accuse me of things that I didn't write (I did the same mistake with Snoopy a while ago and have regretted it since).
Since you are accusing me of cheering Ted Kennedy's illness (and that's a low blow), I challenge you to point out one post of mine that supports your distortions.
Finally, the comparison between Savage and Olbermann is valid considering that they are both willing to say stuff to appeal to the most radical fringes of their respective ideologies.
Kieth Olbermann, besides being a moron is different form Savage simply because of the fact that he is a dim bulb.
As in this video demonstrating Olbermann's lack of insight, the spin is evident for anyone who heard that particular section of Savage's show a while back.
I hope this man rots in hell. And when he's done rotting, his head needs to be stuffed in a toilet.
C'mon, 8 Homes - don't hold back. Tell us what you REALLY think!!! :-)
Only in America, are you allowed to spread this kind of filth...
... When the right-wing corporations are allowed to own the public airwaves.
This despicable human being has sh*t on America again, courtesy of corporate right-wing America.
Usually it's just "he's joking", except that Savage says he's not joking about cancer and not playing the song to mock Kennedy. Maybe they'll say he was just kidding about not joking.
They'll use the standard right-wing excuse - that Savage's words were "taken out of context"....
Weiner is a foul disease: 7 votes say aye
0 say nay
Didn't take long, did it?
Savage is a pig.
His listeners are pigs.
The people that defend him are pigs.
Nothinig more.
This also makes me wonder, will O'Reilly denounce this? Since he's all about the "hate" sites out there. I won't hold my breath and all.
Savage, just proves once again how he is in a class all by himself as far as POS human beings. I wouldn't even lump him in with conservatives really. He's just a straight up POS.
He's just a straight up POS.
You are way too kind... ;>)
Mags/Irony, Haven't you learned anything from other yesterdays items? Please, no "PUBLIC EXHORTATIONS OF LOVE" about savage. On the other hand, I guess that since he is already "daily public diarrhea" that you both are being too kind. I can't help but feel sorry for his listeners. His stuff also flows from them. Tough way to go through life.
Signed, VERMINISTA
Michael Savage says that Elizabeth Edwards is faking her cancer.
And he is now mocking Ted Kennedy, who could be dying from this brain tumor.
Didn't I read somewhere in the comments section of another Savage article that Michael Savage has "cancerous growths" in his hands and face? That's Karma coming to take you away, Savage.
Yes, Savage has trouble with skin cancer, and he has a family history of heart disease. Fair is fair - if he croaks from cancer or whatever, it won't be inappropriate for others to celebrate his demise. It is also clear from his talk on radio that he is an alcoholic. What a case.
The right-wingers should be careful what they wish for - they might get it. They wanted to stop the PLO and got Hamas instread, they wanted Saddam out and got Al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents instead. Now they say they wanted to create chaos in the Democratic primary (most likely b/c they were terrified of running against Hillary) and they got Obama instead, who is even more liberal. In general, creating chaos in you own country when the problems are so severe is a real stupid thing to do.
...creating chaos in you own country when the problems are so severe is a real stupid thing to do.
Real stupid, indeed...and not very patriotic, IMO. It makes you wonder about these so-called Americans...
"Fair is fair - if he croaks from cancer or whatever, it won't be inappropriate for others to celebrate his demise"
But, it IS inapropriate for him to celebrate? Isn't that a bit hypocritical to say others can celebrate his demise while denouncing him for his celebrating anothers demise? It sure sounds hypocritical to me.
I'm not complaining about you doing it to savage. I'm saying you all are hypocrits for claiming he is a vial human being when he 'picks on the handicapped', while during your very complaint against him you do the very same thing you are complaining that he does. I could care less that you do it. Everyone knows liberals will personally attack everyone who disagrees with their opinions, I'm just pointing out how truly contempible liberals are. (thanks for the better word choice)
It would be like a rich man saying he hates rich men because they are rich while denying that he's included in the hatred.
Our ranting on Savage is bred out of anger and outrage over his hate-speech. There is justification for that ranting.
Now please tell us what is Savage's justification for trashing handicapped people, gays, and Ted Kennedy? What did they do to him?
His family has had it's share of tragedies. His brother was blind. And, if you know anything about the treatment of the blind in our society...
Someone said (earlier) that unless he's been aflicted with cancer (or knows someone who has) then he can't joke about it. Well, he has. So, according to that poster, savage has the right to joke about cancer and the handicapped all he wants. Now, what's going to be the excuse for all those who call him hateful names??
Everyone knows liberals will personally attack everyone who disagrees with their opinions, I'm just pointing out how truly contempible liberals are.
LOL... Ever look up the word projection? ;>)
Since he likes projecting, heres how right wingers "disagree" with a liberal position:
"You are a stupid jack#ss who should never be allowed to vote! You're ruining my country! You athiestic little pigs don't do nothing but sit on your butts collecting welfare checks paid for by my hard work! Losers!"
"You are a stupid jack#ss who should never be allowed to vote! You're ruining my country! You athiestic little pigs don't do nothing but sit on your butts collecting welfare checks paid for by my hard work! Losers!"
Snoopy, a more accurate rendering would go somewhat like this:"You are a bunch of ideologically insane zealots who unfortunately have the [incontestable] right to vote! You atheistic pigs do nothing but pass legislation to give MORE unnecessary welfare to those that do not deserve it, and your dogma is above all, destructive.
"Snoopy, a more accurate rendering would go somewhat like this:"You are a bunch of ideologically insane zealots who unfortunately have the [incontestable] right to vote! You atheistic pigs do nothing but pass legislation to give MORE unnecessary welfare to those that do not deserve it, and your dogma is above all, destructive. "
You're doing it ALL wrong. You use too many big words. Everyone knows right-wingers are idiotic morons, so they would say something like this: " get out of here, and don't come back...y-here? "
"They're not morons, but are opportunistic, greedy, uncaring and are basically an extinct party. The fear tactic didn't work in 2006 and it won't in November. Your time is done. Time to let the adults back into the White House."
Greedy??
Conservatives are wise with money, something liberals have never understood and will not understand. You will not make someone a better person by giving him more money, it all lies within the person's character.
Uncaring??
While we do not stupidly trip over ourselves professing our compassion, historically conservatives are the most compassionate, something the liberal indoctrination construct may not have informed you of.
Conservatives opposed the expansion of communism which led to mass murder while liberals eventualy had to pretend to be against the spread of communism. Only then did they weakly attempt (and fail) to "contain" communism.
Even today, liberals would rather have a bloody middle-eastern despot kill Kurds willy-nilly rather than finish the job of deposing him and establishing peace.
Liberals are able to freely allow the murder of helpless developing humans without batting an eye, and they care not for starving third world masses as long as their pathetically short-sighted goals are attained.
No sir, liberalism is surely not the ideology of compassion and caring, no matter what popular conceptions of politics may be. rabidly protecting [insignificant] animal subspecies and their rights does not count for much in compassion.
"time to let the adults back into the white house."
I do not think you perceive the irony of your statement. Of all people the democrat liberals are the most infantile in their politics, your politics are based upon an astoundingly naïve idealism, typically found in starry-eyed youngsters. Notice that it is always the younger generations who are smitten with liberalism, young people just tend to be inexperienced and naïve, so they're naturally drawn to liberalism. For it is in the maturation and adult years were most conservativism is found.
However, the best example is found in the most recent liberal democrat in the white house, who incidentally acted like an immature pubescent boy who was caught with his hand in the candy jar but denied the truth beyond all reasonable doubt.
All in all, only the political naïvette and immature behavior of the young have been the hallmarks of what you call "adults" in the white house...
"You're doing it ALL wrong. You use too many big words. Everyone knows right-wingers are idiotic morons, so they would say something like this: " get out of here, and don't come back...y-here? "-phillib
I certainly hope that you are being sarcastic, aren't you yourself a "rightwinger?"
I disagree with the supposition that all right wingers are morons, although liberalism boasts a population of pompous intellectual elitists this does not indicate that their ideology is any more correct than that of the conservatives.
"I'm saying you all are hypocrits for claiming he is a vial human being when he 'picks on the handicapped', while during your very complaint against him you do the very same thing you are complaining that he does."
People are picking on Savage because he's "handicapped"? Or are we criticizing him because he's an irresponsible, deranged hatemonger who pollutes the discourse? I guess it's all the same in your head.
Everyone knows liberals will personally attack everyone who disagrees with their opinions, I'm just pointing out how truly contempible liberals are.
Quit while you're behind, Phil - it's spelled "comtemptable". With each post you make, you look worse and worse.....
"No, if Savage delights in the illnesses in others, then it's fair for others to delight in his illnesses. That's consistent with the Golden Rule."
No, it isn't. The shortest version I know of the Golden Rule says "Do as you would be done by"...not "Do as has been done to you"
Your statement would more accurately say "That's NOT consistent with the Golden Rule"
"Do as you would be done by", so if you do something you have to accept it when it's done to you. He does it with the understanding that he "would be done by" the same thing.
This doesn't mean that it's the apex of Christianity to celebrate Savage's illness. It just means that it's "fair". Consider that Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, while it would still be fair to slap someone back by the standard of the Golden Rule.
"Do as you would be done by", so if you do something you have to accept it when it's done to you. He does it with the understanding that he "would be done by" the same thing.
NO, you don't have to accept it. But you do not do it back, this is not a tit for tat game. The higher ground is required there. Contempt can be shown in so many ways and not ONE of them means that you have to be like Savage.
Re-read my post. No, you don't have to be like Savage, but it's "fair" to do so. Like I said, I'm not doing it myself, I prefer to take the higher ground.
If you do something, then you do it with the understanding that the same could be done unto you, so there's not much room to complain about it. "You're wrong for doing the same thing I did" isn't a legitimate argument, obviously.
Pardon then, please.
In my world it would not be fair to do to someone and evil they had done to you.
"I'm differentiating between "fair" and "right". I like the phrase "turnabout is fair play", which is a variation of the Golden Rule."
Again. No it isn't. It's is REVERSING the Golden Rule. It is taking a plea for restraint and compassion and turning it into permission for revenge. Completely the OPPOSITE of what the Golden Rule intends.
Nonsense. If you do something that you would have done unto you, then it's fair when it's done unto you. The plea is based on the premise that you should behave the way you expect others to behave towards you. It may not be right, but that's not the issue.
Sorry Brab, regarding the GOLDEN RULE. D-Ga is correct. It is to treat others how you would like to be treated, not treat others how you expect they will treat you.
While fighting fire with fire may be a legitimate behavior, its not the golden rule
"The plea is based on the premise that you should behave the way you expect others to behave towards you. It may not be right, but that's not the issue. "
No it isn't. It's based on the premise that "you" are better then "they" are and that "you" would treat others as you would like to be treated. Treating others as they do treat you...when that treatment is "unfair" is revenge.
If you follow the Golden Rule, it's about how YOU treat others. It says nothing about how others treat you. Just like the "eye for an eye" - you are taking the Golden rule and turning it upside down. The "eye for an eye" verse is a plea for MERCY, not a guideline for revenge. The Golden Rule is likewise a plear for MERCY, not a guideline for revenge.
Me:"The plea is based on the premise that you should behave the way you expect others to behave towards you."
You:"It's based on the premise that "you" are better then "they" are and that "you" would treat others as you would like to be treated."
Can you explain the difference between "the way you expect others to behave towards you" and "the way you would like to be treated"?
Even by your definition Savage displays the way he would like to be treated. So what's unfair about treating him in that manner?
"Can you explain the difference between "the way you expect others to behave towards you" and "the way you would like to be treated"? "
The Golden Rule is about how one person: YOU behaves. It admonishes us all to behave the way we would like to be treated...just as it says. If you behave the way you expect others to treat you...but those expectations are BAD, the YOU are behaving just as BADLY as you think they are behaving. The Golden Rule says to do what is right...period. There are NO QUALIFICATIONS that say "but you can behave badly when someone else behaves badly"
"Even by your definition Savage displays the way he would like to be treated. So what's unfair about treating him in that manner? "
There's nothing "unfair" about it, I suppose...as long as you don't mind being pulled down to his level of nastiness. But that you are willing to BE that nasty says a WHOLE lot more about YOU than it does about him. In fact, it says NOTHING about him...and a TON about YOU.
I already said I don't advocate that behavior, so I'm not sure what you think it says about me. I'm talking about Savage, not me. As far as he is concerned any blowback he gets is consistent with the Golden Rule. Either he's behaving the way he wants to be treated, or he is violating the rule himself in which case it doesn't really matter what he wants. It's not like he can criticize people for not treating him better than he treats others.
As far as a general standard is concerned, I see the rule more as a guideline for fairness, but I understand where you're coming from as well.
Didn't I read somewhere in the comments section of another Savage article that Michael Savage has "cancerous growths" in his hands and face?
Michael Savage IS a cancerous growth...
When anybody listens to these voices, savage, coulter, the limborg, insannity, o'really?, how can they do anything but laugh? Or cry.
'When anybody listens to these voices, savage, coulter, the limborg, insannity, o'really?, how can they do anything but laugh? Or cry."MGHAMMA
With liberals, the response is usually to cry.
Interesting look at the strategic scheduling, Goracle.I'll assume you're talking about East Coast time.
The top 3 talk radio shows are all strategically positioned so that the hard working Americans (aka republicans...)can listen.
You mean that round-the-clock right wing radio is tailored to Republicans work schedules?
Rush is in the morning,
6-9 am EST. Republicans don't go to work until 9? I've already been here 2- 2 1/2 hrs by then. Slackers.
Hannity during lunch break,
Isn't he on for 3 hours or so? That's a mo-fo of a lunch break.
and Savage during the evening drive home.
I don't know what time he's on-ok , I just looked it up 6-9pm Eastern.
So, Republicans shuffle into work after 9, take a 3 hour lunch break, get off at 6, and then a 3 hour drive home. That seems like an odd schedule.
I think you've been fooled. These shows are obviously directed at the retired, unemployed and mentally disabled.I'm surprised you can't see that.
Oh I disagree there Col
Interesting look at the strategic scheduling, Goracle.I'll assume you're talking about East Coast time.
The top 3 talk radio shows are all strategically positioned so that the hard working Americans (aka republicans...)can listen.
You mean that round-the-clock right wing radio is tailored to Republicans work schedules?
Rush is in the morning,
6-9 am EST. Republicans don't go to work until 9? I've already been here 2- 2 1/2 hrs by then. Slackers.
I don't know about you but most folks around here leave for work around 6am....and used to drive for an hour to GET to work, thankfully, the drive is shorter now.
Hannity during lunch break,
Isn't he on for 3 hours or so? That's a mo-fo of a lunch break.
Yeah, lunch break.....drive to someplace....drive through maybe...or even have lunch in the break room where either 1. TV is on, or 2. Radio is on.
and Savage during the evening drive home.
I don't know what time he's on-ok , I just looked it up 6-9pm Eastern.
I'll give ya that one, but some people do have to drive for an hour to get home....traffic sucks. And some people do have flex hours too remember. 6-9 will still hit lots of people Repubs and Dems alike who oops....Work.
I think you've been fooled. These shows are obviously directed at the retired, unemployed and mentally disabled.I'm surprised you can't see that.
It might be directed at them, but it hits many that are not. What I am surprised at is that if you think that, are you doing anything regarding the "abuse" of the mentally disabled, the elderly etc? If not then you and I have nothing to complain about.
Me, I write to the stations and tell them what I think about the comments that Savage spouts, I ask for his dismissal, I ask for apologies to the public and to the people he constantly insults.
I have to disagree with all of you and I actually listen to these douchebags- it seems you can catch virtually any show at any time. Any one of them is on for 3 hours on one station while the other is on another, then they do al ittle switcheroo in case you missed something while you drove through a tunnel (it is AM radio, afer all). In between the trifecta of troglodytes is her child's mother, Dr. Laura, who gives these a-holes and jerkwads livin' right tips. Where I live, I can listen to Savage twice throughout the day (6 scrumptious hours) Hannity in the morning AND in the evening, Rush for 6 continuous hours. I just discovered Laura Ingraham's show is on in the mornings AND in the late morning (in case you missed some talking pointy goodness). The ones we don't get-presumably because we're in California and we're a little bit smarter than the rest of the country-are those numbnuts Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. Not that I've looked for them on the AM dial or anything. There's a pair of dipsh!ts called Armstrong and Gety who are like K-Mart versions of Glenn Beck- if you can imagine THAT!-, so that's cool.
It's funny the lengths you people will go to just to FIND radio shows you hate to listen to. Wouldn't it be easier to just listen to pop music or npr? You know that because all of you liberals listening, then that accounts for half of his "supposed" 8 million people listenership. If you would just stop listening, then only 4 million people would hear his vial-ness. But, noooo, you are forced to listen and then whine about him.
Hears a thought... why don't you start listening to air america. I hear they have hate mongers, too. AND, they are going broke and need listeners. Please...please go listen to air america and save a liberal station. That would be easier than trying to pass the fairness doctrine while all the liberal stations go out of business for lack of listernship.
I know this and you know this, but I'm sure that we'll shortly be seeing the many people who believe in some sort of false equivalency between anonymous internet nutcases and highly paid professional broadcasters and use the existence of the first to excuse the behavior of the last. There will be no railing against the "off the chart hate" of either Savage or the many fellows he has out there. It seems that as long as somebody can find an example of hate speech on HuffPo or DKos somewhere that it gives the punditry with far greater media exposure a blank check to be "as nasty as they wanna be."
But here's the thing, when the DKos/Tony Snow event took place it was all over the cable news and most of the coverage portrayed the tasteless remarks about Snow as the predominant theme on the site. I was on DK when it happened and there were far more people against those comments than there were for them. But still we continue to hear how DKos is a heartless hate speech site that celebrated Tony Snow's cancer.
In the meantime this latest outburst from Savage will most likely fly right past the chat shows and pundit fests with minimal comment and if any discussion takes place they will take great pains to make out Mikey to be all by himself and not indicative of the tone and tenor of AM talk radio at all.
Moon
I think you are right about that. I think Fox News picked up on the Tony Snow Daily Kos story because Snow worked there before he went to the white house, but I get your point. Savage is so out there, I just wonder how many people really take anythig he says seriously. What he said was just so wrong, especially given the news coming in today that it does not look like much can really be done medically for Kennedy. I never cared for the mans politics, but would never wish that on him, now would I ever want anyone in his family to hear those kind of things said about him on a radio show.
The time has come for Michael Weiner to lose his radio show. Period.
That's exactly what Weiner wants us to say. Then he becomes the persecuted victim...in his twisted mind. But that doesn't mean we should refrain from saying it...
That's exactly what Weiner wants us to say. Then he becomes the persecuted victim...in his twisted mind. But that doesn't mean we should refrain from saying it...
As I see it, his remarks were worse than what Don Imus said, and he deserves a harsher penalty than Imus paid.
Seeing as how Rhodes lost her job and was sharply criticized by lefties I fail to see the comparison.
Uh, rodes did NOT lose her job. She was forced to take a week off. She is comtemptibly back on the air. Get your FACTS straight before you make a statement of FACT.
Will a week of the air be sufficient punishment for savage? Why not? Try using an excuse that doesn't show your hypocrisy, ok?
Which is a WEEK later. Nobody works for air america anymore. Aren't they the ones going bankkkrupt?? She's back on the air in a week, MY facts are correct. Where did I say she continued working for the same company?
Liberals are hypocrits. Is Imus working for the same company he worked for? Are you happy he's back on the air? Are you happy he's working at all? But, you seem to have NO problem with rodes working again.
But, not as bad as calling a presidential candidate a 'fricken whore' like randy rodes does? Let's see, how do we differentiate between "hate" radio and "free speach"?? I know...if it comes from right wingers then it is hate radio. If it comes from left wingers then it is free speach. Is that how your hypocritical mind works??
At least my mind works, Phil - which is more than we can say for yours...
First off, let's correct your spelling, which is atrocious - as usual. To begin with, the Air America host who was suspended for making inappropriate remarks OFF THE AIR is "Randi Rhodes"; if you're gonna make reference to someone, the least you can do is spell their name correctly. And the right protected by the First Amendment is "free SPEECH" - not "speach", as you mispelled it twice. (At least you're consistent - consistently wrong.)
Randi Rhodes' employer felt her words were inappropriate, and suspended her. I doubt that Michael Weiner will suffer a similar fate.
And once again, us liberals are not being hypocritical. OTOH, Phil, you're being stupid. As usual.
" us liberals are not being hypocritical"
Who wrote that for you? The correct usage of the words in your sentence would be; "liberals, like us, are not being hyporitical". Saying "us liberals" makes you sound like some country hick. And, since you proclaim to be a professional writer, then you can't be a country hick, huh?
BTW, when using the "..." there are only 3, not 4 or 5. But, a professional would have known that.
Lose his radio show? If anything this will make him bigger than ever.
Until he says something even crazier, which will make him even bigger....
He has got this "radio thing " down to a science (Ph.D. ...a real one... from a great University...he worked his butt off for....thesis was published...) and continues to laugh (literally) all the way to the bank. (somewhere in North Beach)
Hey Savage (I know you read these posts, and love them) why are you calling Limbaugh, "lim-blow?" Why don't you try Limberger, or Limpy?
So why is it that a liberal says something controversial that a bunch of conservatives get outraged? I would think all the attention would just make them bigger, like it supposedly does for Savage. I also wonder why that sort of thing is used as evidence by people as "liberalism is a mental disease". If that's supposed to be a valid criticism, then why isn't Savage evidence of conservatism being a mental disease? And if it doesn't matter that he's crazy because it "works" and makes money, then why does Savage get bigger while Randi Rhodes gets fired?
Is it just that conservatives don't care about their radio hosts making sense and acting responsibly as much as liberals do? I really am curious.
I realize that many here have antipathy for Savage. I for one do care for his hyperbole, but what specifically did Savage say or do in this instance that is so outrageous?
Let me say that playing the Dead Kennedy's is in very poor taste. But doesn't part of the poor taste lie with the band naming themselves such?
Please save your breath if you are going to simply disparage me for asking these questions. I am just interested in the discussion.
ps. My heart goes out to Senator Kennedy and his family. I only wish the best for him during his illness. Nobody deserves cancer. Nobody.
"Let me say that playing the Dead Kennedy's is in very poor taste. But doesn't part of the poor taste lie with the band naming themselves such?"
No, "part" of the poor taste doesn't go to the band. That's their own issue. It doesn't subtract anything from the poor taste of Savage's own actions.
Brab,
In my opinion, had the Band's name been "The Beatles" this would not have even made it to MMFA.
If it was the Beatles then it wouldn't have been "appropriate" by Savage's definition. Obviously there wouldn't be a problem then, so that comment is pretty meaningless. If O'Reilly hadn't lied about such-and-such, then there wouldn't be a thread about it. Well, that's always true.
What I'm saying is that if you want to say that the band name itself is also in poor taste, that's a legitimate argument, but "part" of the bad taste of this particular incident doesn't transfer over to the band. That is owned solely by Savage.
Brab,
Fair enough.
And Herr Weiner would never have used the song to ridicule a dying man.
There is absolutely no way for a sane human being to defend this poor excuse for a man.
He deserves the ridicule for his illness and anything else that happens to him.
Worrier,
Do you not realize you are guilty of the exact same thing that you criticize Savage?
No, he's not.
There's legitimate criticism versus unfair criticism.
Black and White thinking must be your disease. Some criticism is fair, and other criticism is unjustified.
BB,
What part of " He deserves the ridicule for his illness and anything else that happens to him." by worrier in reference to Savage is honest criticism?
I said legitimate criticism.
When someone heaps unfair criticism on another, criticism in response to that unfair criticism is legitimate.
I have a question for you. Is there any liberal who you can't disparage and is there any conservative you won't defend?
Yes.
ps. I'm not defending Savage. I believe his DK reference was in bad taste and have stated so. Apart from the DK references I am interested in is what specifically in this thread raises his quotes to the level of "hate speech".
If you can provide the quotes I think you will see that Savage really is not saying anything more "hateful" than most of the posters here.
I really don't think most of our friends here who dislike Savage consider themselves guilty of hate speech so I am interested in what they see as the difference between what they have been writing on this thread and what Savage expressed as illustrated by MMFA's excerpts.
Savage would have found a different song to play, something along the lines of being dead. We would still be having this discussion, AA.
He didn't do much, just poking fun at an American legend, so he can get his ratings.
Ratings make your rate you know.
Just wanted to warn you that Phil should be along at any moment with his 'oh yeah, well you're all "hypocrits"' routine. Although I think someone taught him the word contemptible so you might get hit with that one as well. Just a heads up...
Jlyons,
Can you define the difference between "bad taste" and "hate"? Bringing up "The Dead Kennedys" is indeed bad taste. What specifically did Savage say in this instance that is so hateful?
Well this comment in discussion of Senator Byrd is hate. Savage is a hater.
SAVAGE: Oh, my God. Get him off. Get this old -- get him off my show. This is unbelievable to me. Now, you want -- you try to understand why the country's in the shape it's in. They've got literally a walking psycho there. And we've known it for years by the things he does. For years now, Byrd has been blubbering on the floor of the Senate. For years, I mean, to be honest, Kennedy didn't seem sane to me. Forget about the drunk stories and all that -- anybody can drink. The guy sounded like he was off for years, I'm sorry. When he would give that -- he gave a speech about a year ago, I forget the topic. He could not finish the speech, Kennedy couldn't. Feinstein had to come from the side and speak to him like from the wings, like the queen of diamonds. And he's, "Oh, oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah." And then this Jalisco song -- play Jalisco for a minute. Play Jalisco.
J,
In essence you believe Savage calling Byrd a 'psycho' and feeling Kennedy has "been off" for years is hate. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
I must admit, it doesn't sound too outrageous to me.
However iIf that is hate speech, then everyone here who has posted anything other than compliments is guilty of the same, don't you agree?
"However iIf that is hate speech, then everyone here who has posted anything other than compliments is guilty of the same, don't you agree?"-AnotherAmerican
Exactly. Hence the accusation of hypocrisy levied by the illustrious Phillib.
An unflattering comment about Robert KKK Byrd is "hate speech"? Please stop showing your true colors, they are puke green with envy.
So you are basically admitting that, in your opinion, any non-worshipful statement of opinion about a Democrat is "hate"? So is "Bush lied" hate speech too? "McCain is too old to be president"... is that hate speech?
Please try some consistency. Or don't. It's much more entertaining when the lunacy of the Dimbots is on display. Thanks for the laugh.
I listened to this disgraceful performance of Savage on Tuesday.
I tuned in at 5pm PDT and he was still wallowing in garbage. A caller joked about Kennedy having to wait for Universal Healthcare before getting treated. They both shared a hardy laugh! Then he started up the clip about Kennedy and "not having a tumor. It was disgusting! If I had a gun I would have shot the radio! But I flipped him off instead.( I mean the power switch).
No wonder our country is going to the dogs!
"Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: 'Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw.'
Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.
In 'Godfather II,' Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film."
Sources: http://www.airamericaplace.com.nyud.net:8090/upload/aarr042505.mp3
http://www.airamericaplace.com/upload/aarr042505.mp3
I wonder, Freudian slip? or am I missing something here?
The Dead Kennedys were always misunderstood as far as their band name. Yeah, it was about shock value, but I heard the singer explain the name one time;it was basically acknowledging the assassination of the Kennedys as torpedoing the whole Camelot idea, and signaling the start of the "Me" generation.
For those unfamiliar with them, the DK's were a bunch of leftys from San Francisco.The song mentioned, about Jerry Brown, was partly about their ability, like most leftys, to take jabs at those on all sides, as well as the ability to operate on a satire and humor level about 5 stages beyond what Weiner could comprehend.
I worked at a restaurant when I was in high school in the late 70s, and had a customer offer to buy my Dead Kennedys t-shirt one day when I ventured out of the kitchen.I thought it was strange that a middle-aged conservative looking guy was into that, then I figured out that he just liked the idea of dead Kennedys.
...then I figured out that he just liked the idea of dead Kennedys.
I used to have an extremely right wing neighbor who once told me that he was in college in Mississippi when JFK was killed and that a cheer arose in the restaurant where he eating when the assassination was announced...and that he cheered too. Sick people... I can't stand George W. Bush but I wouldn't cheer if he was killed.
I just remember thousands and thousands of people lined up crying.
When we were told he was shot, I was in the third grade.....you would think that I would not have cared at that age, but I did, our president was shot.....I cried.
I might not cry if another president was shot and killed, but the apprehension for my country in that dire time would be the same.
Let's say a hardcore fundamentalist islamic terrorist assasinated Obama because in the fundamental islamic world, obama is technically an apostate, and should be punished with death.
I would cheer. NOT because the man was killed, but 2 other reasons: The future of America wouldn't be in the hand of a far far left freshman senator, and the left MIGHT, just might, get behind the military and the mission to wipe terrorists off the face of this earth, wherever they may be.
My point? Savage is not making all these off-color jokes because he is happy Kennedy/Byrd are physically ill men, it is because we conservatives are glad to see they will no longer be imposing their off the wall politics on America.
That's a very Christian thing for you to say.
Anyone who could take pleasure in the death of another human being is not human.
Why did I make sure to clearly make this statement: "I would cheer. NOT because the man was killed, but 2 other reasons"
There is no way to make it more clear that I would not cheer for his death. I disagree with his policies on everything, therefore I would cheer because those policies would not be leading America.
If someone like Tom Tancredo, or another far right conservative died, I have no doubt that you would not cheer the death, but you quite possibly would be happy that his policies were not leading America any longer.
"You would cheer, huh?
That's a very Christian thing for you to say." -Worrierking
Do not bring religion into this. John said that he'd rejoice on the death of a disseminator of a destructive ideology, who also happens to play a role in the United states gov't descisions.
Wow. Bin Laden couldn't have said it better himself.
Knowles wrote:
>>
Wow. Bin Laden couldn't have said it better himself.
EXACTLY. If you really think that your opponenets deserve death, and wish and cheer for that death, simply because they don't agree with you, then you don't believe in democracy.
John,
As a conservative I would NOT cheer. I would do just the opposite. Whatever their political outlook may be, it would be a greivious blow to our country and the world.
There is room for honest disagreement here in America without wishing ill on anyone. The fact that we can have disagreements and people whom we oppose politically can be elected sets our country apart from so many others.
If Obama or Hillary gets elected, so be it. Same goes for McCain. None of the three would be my choice but that's the way it goes. No matter who gets elected, they will be my President.
ps. The death of a President does not mean their policies would not live on. After all, their VP would continue out the term of office. Who knows, maybe the veep will be more progressive than the POTUS.
"I would cheer. NOT because the man was killed, but 2 other reasons: The future of America wouldn't be in the hand of a far far left freshman senator, and the left MIGHT, just might, get behind the military and the mission to wipe terrorists off the face of this earth, wherever they may be." -John
Ah, how short your memory is! Ask anyone here if they weren't all for going into Afghanistan...all but maybe one or two definitely were. I know I was.
Your problem is, you see terrorists as a single entity...which is what I'm fairly certain Bush sees as well. That's a problem, because anyone can be a terrorist...Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and he was just one man who took down a whole building. You can not stop terrorism because any wacko with an internet connection can make a pipe bomb. So to "wipe terrorists off the face of this Earth" would be impossible just by the very definition of terrorism. Get your head out of the sand and read a book every once in a while.
John### wrote:
>>My point? Savage is not making all these off-color jokes because he is happy Kennedy/Byrd are physically ill men, it is because we conservatives are glad to see they will no longer be imposing their off the wall politics on America.
Wow. That is one he sickest, stupidest posts on MMFA ever. So you think that your political opponents should be killed? And I suppose you are for democracy too (which I need to point out does not function by the elmination of political opponents). And exactly how are you different from the terrorists who you want to eliminate, if you are cheering at the death of politicians you don't agree with?
I guess you have run out of ideas, John, if you think the only way your side can win is by the death of those you don't agree with.
"Wow. That is one he sickest, stupidest posts on MMFA ever." -Funnypants
Oh, and here i was thinking that this honor was bequeathed upon my brainspawn...
"You get dishonerable mention. Its a small Your sneaking arround in the middle of a thread. Your not gonna get your krown back that way." -EWESTON
I'll disregard the incongruity of your wording and adress your point(?).
I was not sneaking around in the "middle of a thread" as you can see my comments are dispersed throughout this thread, especially s oat the beggining.
Your post does not make sense.
Please do not respond to Finarfin. He is *literally* a neo-Nazi. 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
Wew, i had almost though you had forgotten to do your little watchdog routine.
I post on other threads, make sure to check them out and inform others of my being a "neo-nazi," something which is untrue, but i don't want to shatter your delusion.
Everyone who is a regular at MMFA knows that John ##### is most likely Micheal Wiener Savage.
This comment about hope for the murder of Obama - by someone other than himself - validates what I have always said about him - that he actually tries to incite others to violence, even killing, by whipping up fears, prejudices, and distorting facts. I couldn't have asked for him to make it more clear than this last post.
Anyone who thinks assassination is going to make American a better place is in the same league as Rushbo, who thinks that chaos in American is good for the nation. And incidently, both are in the same league as terrorists who think that killing, and chaos, is good for their religion.
So he just wants the slight majority of the country in chaos. How benificent. snark off
I remember a listener expressing his desire for the US military to mutuny against Clinton. Rusbo lost what little humor he had then.
This looks to me to be a variation off the theme, "If I can't have my way then I'm going to tear it all down so you'll all be sorry!!"
That's an awful lot of crap crammed into one post, very impressive. The idea that 9/11 is a government plot is pretty marginalized, so it's absurd to attribute it to "liberals" in general. Assuming that a large number of people would argue such an assassination is a right-wing conspiracy is utterly baseless and inflammatory.
We all know what a terrorist is. We know they're bad people, yes. The question has always been how you minimize the threat, and creating an atmosphere less conducive to breeding extremism is a major part of that. Overthrowing governments doesn't exactly undermine the "evil American" image that feeds terrorist recruitment, now does it?
Next you'll be telling me that's not his real name.
Sorry, King, I think Jello was his Christian name. Klaus Fluoride too.
This remids me of something for which I still hold a grudge against Tipper Gore. The PMRC was using another DK's song, "Kill the Poor", as an example of nasty music that needed warning labels. The song was actually from the POV of rich people using the Neutron bomb to wipe out undesirables without destroying too much real estate.
It was amusing, if anybody remembers those hearings. Jello Biafra and Frank Zappa kicked some ass. Best part was seeing the ultra-conservatives upset at the "hate" in lyrics satirizing their own ideology.
Did that get you kicked out?
No, smart-aleck... I'll never forget it. It was at a Ry Cooder gig. I was standing at the urinal alone when Zappa's bodyguard, a burly black man with a shaved head, walked in...then Zappa follwed and stood right next to me at the urinal. Our eyes met and an unspoken moment passed between us... ;>)
"Our eyes met and an unspoken moment passed between us... ;>)" -Irony
Unspoken moment in which Frank undoubtedly though; "why is this guy watching me pee???"
Too bad Frank never ran for public office. Burning sacred cows would have his favorite barbecue meat. Probably the only one, I think he was a vegitarian.
Mikey, your brain must be jelly cause jam don't shake like that.
Well, yeah, OK, but...
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TASTELESS COMMENTS BURIED IN DAILY KOS ABOUT TONY SNOW'S CANCER!!
KOS IS THE PROBLEM!! HE'S THE NAZI, NOT WEINER!!
</sarc>
I don't think Jello would appreciate his song being used this way. I saw him doing a spoken word thing and while he can go on (I left after 2 1/2 hours as I had to work the next day) he is a VERY smart man.
And AA - you have an issue with the band name. I bet you dislike the band MDC? It stands for (depending of their mood) Millions of Dead Cops or Millions of Dead Christians. And yes, they are awsome.
Never heard of them.
I think their band name is in very bad taste.
What really blows my mind here is that not a single person posting here seems to have any idea who the Dead Kennedys were!
They were the most progressive/leftist punk rock band in America. Their problem with Jerry Brown was not that he was a leftist, ITS THAT HE WASN'T LEFTIST ENOUGH! The name Dead Kennedys is a comment on our society: we live in a country where they f'ing killed John and Bobby Kennedy!
They rewrote the lyrics to "California Uber Alles" in the mid-80s as a song called "We've Got A Bigger Problem Now". That problem: Ronald Reagan
God damn people would you try and LEARN something about a topic before you comment on it?
Learn about it? Lived it in high school.
"Home recording is killing the record industry. Side 2 of this audiocassette has been intentionally left blank for your convenience."
Here's some Dead Kennedy's lyrics for Mr. Savage. Play this on your show, doosh!
RELIGIOUS VOMIT - from the album "In God We Trust Inc."
Chorus
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions make me sick
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
They all claim that they have the truth
Thatll set you free
Just give em all your money and theyll set you free
Free for a fee
They all claim that they have the answer
When they dont even know the question
Theyre just a bunch of liars
They just want your money
They just want your consciousness
Chorus
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna throw up
All religions suck
All religions make me wanna bleah
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me sick
They really make me ill
SJ,
Thanks for the lesson on what progressives think about religion.
Do you think a progressive leader like Obama agrees with the DKs?
One guy posts the lyrics to one very old and angry punk song and that is suddenly a complete and accurate representation of progressive thought on religion?
Well then, I guess you as a fine conservative must be in total agreement with Savage and Fred Phelps if that's the way things work.
Moon and DB,
Just testing. I was wondering if anyone would speak up. ;-)
And what was THEIR solution? NONE.
Just some young idiot lefties looking to get attention. And where are they now?
Crickets......
In this old US of A we have something called FREE SPEECH.
It protects offensive,unpopular speech,for polite speech doesn`t need any kind of protection.....i don`t know about you,but i wouldn`t like to live in a dictatorship,where a few people such as a few activist judges could dictate the rest of us what we can and what we cannot say.
Savage is right and even if he was wrong,which he was not,he had every right to say what he said.
And what exactly did Savage say? Your post implies you didn't even really read the headline...just saw "Savage" on MMfA and had to defend him.
You know, MMfA has every right to criticize what he says as well. This is a dead-end argument and leads to nowhere. Try something new for a change.
Savage is right and even if he was wrong,which he was not,he had every right to say what he said.
And we have every right to demand that he be punished for saying it. Responsibility comes along for free speech - and no one has the right to spew hate speech over the public airwaves.
Get with the program.
How transparently insulting!
And I'm sure if he had only voted for English to be the national language that all the immigrants would suddenly learn English because of that symbolic measure. And if he had voted for a ban on gay marriage that everyone homosexual would quit "choosing" to be gay. Life would just be so much better, right?
I understand having issues with his character, fine. That's different from calling his positions "disasters" when you can't demonstrate any adverse results coming from them. They're "disasters" just because you don't like them, which is weak to say the least.
Sorry goracle, Savage is a voice of insanity in a world that is becoming less and less sane all the time. I heard a small portion of his show that night and his premature grave dancing schtick and barely controlled perverse glee was just oozing out of him. It was pathetic. The insane thing is that he has the ratings to keep him on the air, even though he's relegated to the nighttime slots, at least around here on the East coast. Back in the day when discourse was civil, lunatic ranting like his was only heard late at night from low power stations broadcasting from trailer studios in woodchuck hollow, usa. For all that need be said on this topic, see post #1 on this thread.
By the way, is he still thinking of running for president? Didn't he have several million emails supporting his candidacy at one point?
Kennedy is a horses ass. For you young out of touch lefties, please try to remember that he killed a woman in a car accident but got off with 2 months of probation. He didn't even contact the police until the morning after the accident. This is the power of the Kennedy clan.
I don't wish the man death, but I do wish him enough illness to get the hell out of office. There are far too many out of touch power hungry old codgers still in office that should have been replaced long ago (on both sides of the aisle).
Cannonball wrote:
>>I don't wish the man death, but I do wish him enough illness to get the hell out of office. There are far too many out of touch power hungry old codgers still in office that should have been replaced long ago (on both sides of the aisle).
Wow! Another wingnut. You wish illness on others, and then you expect us to take you seriously? Hey, if you really think Kennedy is such a bad represenative, why don't you work the democratic way to get him out of office? Or don't you really believe in democracy?
Smittymatt wrote:
>>So Savage called him names, or make light of Kennedy's unfortunate situation.
Yes, another idiot shows the true nature of the knee-jerk Republicans. You are probably a Christian, too.I am a Christian sir, and I hope you're a better man somehow for pointing that out. Back to Savage and his comments; Savage makes a lot of comments that are insensitive or hurtful and there will always be a handful of people who are offended. Get over it and move on with your life. This has nothing to do with conservative misinformation. It is simply a man, Savage, making comments that many of us wouldn't make. But he said what he said, and WHO CARES??? Why are people so hurt by what this man says? He has an extreme way of getting his point across, which many like, and many don't like. If you don't like what he says, then turn the dial.
Smitty wrote:
>>I am a Christian sir, and I hope you're a better man somehow for pointing that out.
Yes, and what a good reason for my not being a Christian. You could have condemned Savage's hateful speech; you could have ignored it. Instead, you come on and defend it. What would Jesus do?
And you, SM, on the other hand, are an obvious paragon of incisivness, relevance, and manners.
The leadership of the Republican Party is yours for the asking!
John wrote:
>>Thank God for Savage and his fearless ability to hold his ground against insane liberalism in this country.
Yes, John, rants are easy, aren't they? There was another country that called its political opponents insane and turned to death as a way to eliminate them. That was the Soviet Union. Who knew you were such a fan?
John### wrote:
>>Sucking the d*cks of all your little homo buddies on here is real easy too, isn't it? What's that? I think I hear mr. brock calling you all in for the nightly circle jerk. Radical perverts <--- close to being as bad as a jihadi.
Yes, I guess you lose your temper when I point out what is true. But that doesn't change my post: you don't really believe in democracy, because you want to label your political enemies insane and eliminate them through death. And apparently you think everyone is a homosexual who doesn't agree with you. So not only do you not believe in democracy, your haven't advanced socially beyond the seventh grade.
he's a pundit. actually he's an entertainer and a fire starter like the rest of the lot. what else would you expect? is this media matters, pundits matter, or idiots that don't mater suddenly matter?
btw... dead kennedys are amazing. holiday in cambodia anyone?