Savage plays Dead Kennedys song again after asserting he "is now being persecuted for refusing to take the party line" on Sen. Kennedy's illness
On the May 21 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage stated of Sen. Ted Kennedy, "His poor health does not excuse him from what he has done to our nation, and so, now, the Soros-run media sets on Michael Savage for daring to disclose the truth about Ted Kennedy's legacy." Savage added: "Just as in a Soviet show trial, Michael Savage is now being persecuted for refusing to take the party line that the great lion of the left must be praised -- all praise, all praise." On May 20, Savage aired the Dead Kennedys song "California Über Alles" while discussing Kennedy's recent diagnosis with a malignant brain tumor. Savage again aired the song during his May 21 broadcast.
From the May 21 broadcast of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: Who is the real Ted Kennedy? The real Ted Kennedy? Well, the leftist media in this nation has erupted in praise of Ted Kennedy. Democrats praise him. Republicans praise him. Liberals praise him. Conservatives praise him. But simply because a man has a serious health problem, does that mean that all criticism must stop? Permanently, his legacy must be rewritten? Does a man who spent his entire political life destroying the fundamental tenets of American morality become miraculously rehabilitated, simply because he entered the hospital? Do so-called conservatives stop being conservative because of a medical diagnosis?
No, and yet it seems that the Republicans in Congress have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has done to our borders. Too many false conservative commentators have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has done to our language. Too many fawning media lackeys have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has succeeded in doing in nearly destroying our culture.
We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965, lying to the American people saying it would not change the demographics of America. We cannot forget that the lion of the left voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget that, in spite of his illness, he has voted for late-term abortion, i.e. infanticide. We cannot forget that he voted no on a constitutional ban on flag desecration; that Kennedy voted no on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage; that Kennedy voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes; that Kennedy voted no on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds; that Kennedy voted yes on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.
His poor health does not excuse him from what he has done to our nation, and so, now, the Soros-run media sets on Michael Savage for daring to disclose the truth about Ted Kennedy's legacy. Just as in a Soviet show trial, Michael Savage is now being persecuted for refusing to take the party line that the great lion of the left must be praised -- all praise, all praise. Well, I will not be silenced. You will not be silenced. Silence is death. Silence is death. Speak the truth about Ted Kennedy. Americans must know his reckless record of destructive social engineering. And PS -- do not ever forget Chappaquiddick. And by the way, the dead girl's name was Mary Jo Kopechne.
This is Michael Savage, I approve of this monologue. Now, let's have some punk rock for a few seconds on The Savage Nation. You can call me at 1-800-449-8255.
[music clip of the Dead Kennedys "California Über Alles"]
SAVAGE: It is the Savage Nation, 1-800-449-8255. The real Ted Kennedy is the issue. You can turn it off now.
Why is there so little focus on the real Ted Kennedy? I've not heard one major talk show host criticize any of his past. Now, I would expect that from NPR. I'd expect it from the Air America lackeys. But certainly you'd expect the Wall Banger, the Leprechaun, the Golfer, to say one word about Kennedy. Why is it that even the Great Golfer won't say anything about Kennedy -- the man who has you believe that he's the conservative in the country?
I'll turn it another way: Is it appropriate to criticize Michael Savage for criticizing the liberal legacy of Ted Kennedy at this time? Is it appropriate to call for an incoherent dottering Senator Robert Byrd to be removed from the Senate?
When you get forced to participate in sodomy against your will, that will cross the decency line. Individual adults participating in consenual sodomy crosses no lines. You cross a line when you assert that your standards, religious beliefs and moral compass must be the same one that everyone else obeys. That's not what our nation was founded upon, and if you think that everyone needs to, then it's you who is crossing the line.
The same goes for your nonsense about how you somehow know that Ted Kennedy had a drunken car accident. If you know it, then so should the people who investigated, and the grand jury that heard the evidence 40 years ago. What you're saying is that all those who failed to indict Kennedy were in on a conspiracy to keep him from the just punishment he deserved. You cross a line when you say that those people didn't do their job.
Savage crosses a line when he says that Kennedy must be praised. It was not the fact that he didn't praise Kennedy that was the issue. It was his hypocritical use of a song by a band called the "Dead Kennedy's". He crossed the line with his offensive commentary and his false honoring of Senator Kennedy with the song by the band with that name.
"When you get forced to participate in sodomy against your will, that will cross the decency line." - Following this train of thought....when somebody forces you to listen to talk radio against your will, that will cross the line. That's not happening.
"Individual adults participating in consenual sodomy crosses no lines." - Following that train of thought...Individual adults (Savage and the listening fan) participating in talk radio crosses no lines.
"You cross a line when you assert that your standards, religious beliefs and moral compass must be the same one that everyone else obeys." - Well, that pretty much summarizes why MMFA, and all the posters who have a problem with Savage are in the wrong. MMFA and co. are asserting that their standards and moral compass is correct, and that in order to be correct, everyone else should agree. That's crossing the line.
"Individual adults participating in consenual sodomy crosses no lines." - Following that train of thought...Individual adults (Savage and the listening fan) participating in talk radio crosses no lines.
So, John, you are equating Michael Savage and his listeners to sodomites? Interesting analogy, and perhaps very revealing regarding your psyche.
I think he's pointing out what hypocrits liberals are for their actions/statements against savage.
He's shown that all lines crossed are voluntarily crossed. No one has forced any liberal to listen to savage or his method of communication. Therefor, any whining done in the name of 'decency' is still just simple whining by a bunch of hypocrits.
Phillib wrote:
>>He's shown that all lines crossed are voluntarily crossed. No one has forced any liberal to listen to savage or his method of communication. Therefor, any whining done in the name of 'decency' is still just simple whining by a bunch of hypocrits.
Oh yes, the whining accusation. Whenever a valid criticism is made against a right-wing moron like Savage, the people making the criticism are whining. So I guess that no criticisms can ever be made against any Democrats, because that is just whining. And for that matter, your criticism against Irony is also whining. How ironic.
"So I guess that no criticisms can ever be made against any Democrats, because that is just whining. And for that matter, your criticism against Irony is also whining."
Right. All criticisms against left-wingers is called "whining", too. So, yes, it IS ironic, isn't it? I guess I'm a right-wing hypocrit. One willing to admit it.
MMFA and co. are asserting that their standards and moral compass is correct
If wanting people to be humane to the (probably) terminally ill, then I'm all for imposing my moral compass on you. Why do you hate the Christian ethic so much?
Are you being sarcastic or just stupid?
Or how about drunken car accidents?
How about lying to start a war against a country that didn't attack us, and making the first assault against that country a show of force ( stupidly named "Shock and Awe") deliberately aimed at civilian neighborhoods in the capital city of that country that didn't attack us?
Laura Bush killed someone with her car, too. Where's your selective outrage over that?
"Laura Bush killed someone with her car, too. Where's your selective outrage over that?"
Laura; driving during the dark of night, saw the opportunity to murder a classmate who dumped her recently by using her vehicle as a weapon. Coming to a dangerous intersection, she was able to determin that another vehicle was her ex's (even in the dark) and felt assured that she and her friend (maybe she didn't care what happened to the friend) would not be injured while she perfectly judged the timing that would allow precise impact on her ex's vehicle to cause great bodily harm (even death), while producing no injuries to her or her rider as she T-bones the ex's vehicle.
Teddy; leaving a party which included 6 single women and 6 married men (no wives were present), Ted drives one of the single women to the local ferry during the dark of night. He mistakenly turns right onto dirt road instead of left onto paved road (and didn't notice the difference) drove an additional half mile then drove half onto a narrow bridge and into a pond. The vehicle flips and sinks. Ted is able to escape and swim to shore, walk back to the party, retrieve help to attempt a rescue, then calls police 10 hours later.
Who are we supposed to be outraged against? I get confused on matters like this.
"Laura Bush killed someone with her car, too. Where's your selective outrage over that?"
Hey, easy-to-refute-wingnuts, your silence is deafening!! Where's the quit retort we've come to expect on my short synopsis of the murders by Teddy and Laura??
You DO have one, don't you? Or are you just using your "selective outrage" to point out that others murder, not just Teddy?
John### wrote:
>>Decency line?
Let me just point out that this is what John said about Obama. (The following is a quote):
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.
____
When I pointed out that the Soviets also labeled their political opponents insane and turned to death to eliminate them, John, Mr. Decent, wrote (the following is again a quote):
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.
* - john174541842
That he has the nerve to question anybody's morality must be God's own private joke.
Phillib wrote:
>>You're making all that up. Where's the links you people usually provide when you make false statements like that? I assume you have a link to prove you contentions? When I see the proof, I'll apologize for calling you a liar.
You better apologize, then. I can't provide a direct link, because the link won't take you to the exact page of the messages on MMFA. But just go to the other Savage thread in which Savage played the Dead Kennedy's song. Look at the messages and keep scrolling until you get to page of comments 221-240. That's where you will find the first comment. Then keep scrolling and you will find the second comment.
I'll await your apology.
FMP wrote:
>> [showed where the comments came from]
To help you out more, the last comment about my being gay is found on the last page of the Savage thread
link
At least that is its location as of this post.
Like I say, I'll await my apology.
Roundhouse wrote:
>>Don't bother waiting, apologies from phil will not be forthcoming. Instead the qoutes will more than likely disappear. That way phil, lesismore, john###'s(I have my suspicions they are all one person) can call you liar.
Well, the comments sections is *closed* on the other Savage thread. So ha ha ha, they cannot delete them at this point! Also, I took a screen picture of them, in case numbered John ever wants to deny making them.
"You better apologize, then."
I apologize! You did not lie. I did find the first one, where you said. But, it took a while to find the second one. You should have told me it was on the last page.
Either way, you are right (in this case). I apologize for calling you a liar. Thanks for providing the proof I thought needed.
Well played, Phil.
"You should have told me it was on the last page."
I only read your first request. After posting, I read your second request and saw you DID say it was on the last page.
Uosdwis,
Now, now...... if you go this route, you are feeding into exactly what Savage, like Ann Coulter wants you to do.....
In fact, I would go so far as to say the MMFA shouldn't even bother, because by talking about Mr Weiner, you give him a small piece of credibility..... this is what he lives for.
He could care less about the consequences of his words, so long as it sells and makes him money, just like Ann Coulter.
The more we all can agree on ignoring them and take away their venues to spreading their form of hate, the sooner we can all be better off.
Besides, I get the feeling that if Savage, like Coulter were to have never had airtime or TV time in the first place, they would be those crazy people we sometimes see at street corners that pace back and forth, talking to themselves about how important they are!
Tom Sullivan has some good ideas on the matter:
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/taking-radio-goliaths
"Few grassroots groups can afford blocks of radio airtime in large media markets. But in that swath of our country’s middle recently rediscovered by Howard Dean, it is still possible for those with limited resources to compete with media conglomerates’ talking heads. The way forward is not to think big, but small – grassroots. Unlike “the other guys,” we don’t need billionaires to do this for us. We do it ourselves.
If you’re not Goliath, fine. Be David.
A loose network of citizen activists (and/or 527 committees), operating locally, can in time erode the message dominance of conservative talk radio. We will plant seeds we may not harvest in a single election cycle. That’s okay. It’s not a quick fix – it took conservative think tanks decades to build their infrastructure – but it won’t happen unless we have the patience and discipline to begin. Start in the provinces where costs are low. Build support there and work towards the capitol. It is a classic strategy for taking on a more-powerful, more-centralized adversary."
"Few grassroots groups can afford blocks of radio airtime in large media markets. But in that swath of our country's middle recently rediscovered by Howard Dean, it is still possible for those with limited resources to compete with media conglomerates' talking heads. The way forward is not to think big, but small - grassroots. Unlike "the other guys," we don't need billionaires to do this for us. We do it ourselves.
If you’re not Goliath, fine. Be David.
A loose network of citizen activists (and/or 527 committees), operating locally, can in time erode the message dominance of conservative talk radio. We will plant seeds we may not harvest in a single election cycle. That's okay. It's not a quick fix - it took conservative think tanks decades to build their infrastructure - but it won't happen unless we have the patience and discipline to begin. Start in the provinces where costs are low. Build support there and work towards the capitol. It is a classic strategy for taking on a more-powerful, more-centralized adversary."
Beyond that lib radio is still around and growing, slowly but still...growing. Slow is fine. Even with tons of money to support it, con radio took years to catch on. Hartmann beats Rush in several markets and so does Randi Rhodes and they continue to siphon off listeners.
You wished Sullivan's strategy luck. It won't take luck once the progressive message of effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future gets out among the people. Hell, 81% of the country already think the cons have taken us in the wrong direction. On the economy, tax investment, foreign policy and social issues people already agree with progresives.
Thanks for the well wishing anyway, les.
I don't care what 81% of any group thinks. It had nothing to do with the above post. If someone has the TALENT to make it in talk radio, I'm all for it, whether it's from the left, right, or neither.
Thanks anyway.
You've been rebuked so, you're going in circles, desperate.
Anyway, what does it matter? Most Americans agree, the right is out of creativity, out of ideas and out of time. What we see in Savage is the last twitchy nerve endings of a brain dead entity.
"They're all three propped up by large support staffs contributing their talents to the glory of the host."
Roundhouse, you have no evidence to back up this claim, talk radio is not done off of a teleprompter and the ideas of a writer but rather it is spontaneous and original.
"Even with tons of money to support it, con radio took years to catch on. Hartmann beats Rush in several markets and so does Randi Rhodes and they continue to siphon off listeners."
Tons of money to support it? so you attribute the massive financial machine of republican conservatives to the rise of conservative radio? There is no evidence of this, these guys all came from the bottom and built their way up. Liberals on the other hand, are tried on the radio with large financial backing, but they never catch on.
THe reason that Hartmann and Rhodes "beat" the big three on some markets is because America is not a country with each area having an equal population of liberals and conservatives! The more liberal areas will be much more likely to listen to LIBERAL radio!
"It won't take luck once the progressive message of effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future gets out among the people. Hell, 81% of the country already think the cons have taken us in the wrong direction. On the economy, tax investment, foreign policy and social issues people already agree with progresives."
What does the "progressive message" of "smart defense" entail? preemptive surrender? Protesting an enemies belligerence at rallies?
"Broad prosperity." THis translates to mean "redisttribution of wealth," so that those undeserving can benefit of the work of others. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," right??
Marx would have loved you "progressives."
And "effective government?" Especially considering national defense, "progresive"government has not been the most effective by a long shot.
81% of the country often thinks whichever way the wind takes them. The "sheeple" can be fooled to vote however someone else wants them to. All that has to occur is a perception in the people of troubled times under the most recent [republican] government.
On tax investment, people most certainly do not agree with the progressives, for most common people still have a thing called "common sense."
On social issues as well people do not agree with progressives. Just look at gay marriage.
One thing i will give you is foreign policy. This war is [inexplicably] unpopular, and the people have by now forgotten the debacles that progressive foreign policy has produced.
Overall, you "progressives" are out of touch with the majority of the American people. We will see come election day who was right...
"I would have never even heard of this guy if I had not read about him on this website."
I find that difficult to believe. MMFA may have introduced you to the Savage Weiner, but he also has the #3 radio show in the nation, and you have internet access. I think his name would have come up eventually.
I never heard of MMFA until I heard Bill O'Reilly say this:
"I mean, I want you to go to Media Matters for America; I want you to look at that stuff. All they do is attack, personal attack after personal attack after personal attack. They've got nothing."
I would have found MMFA eventually, but Bill-O is the one who introduced me.
"I would have found MMFA eventually, but Bill-O is the one who introduced me"
And?? What say you since then?
You know Zamfir the same argument could made right back at you-----“If you don’t like this web site then don’t read it.” or “if you don’t like the Savage and Limbaugh articles that appear here, then just skip those.”.
You say, ”What irritates me is people (whether liberal or conservative) trying to tell opposing interests what to do.” The articles here inform people of the “conservative” misinformation and other assorted GOP nonsense in the media. If it weren’t for sites like this one, and especially this one, a lot of it would just disappear into the ether or get lost in the torrent of words from the Republican Party noise machine.
You further say, “For example, if you don't like Savage, don't listen. If you don't like Rush Limbaugh, don't listen.” I don’t think a lot of people should listen as their psychology is such that they are susceptible to the charm and persuasion skills of these skilled propagandists. Other people are very cynical and temperamentally impervious to the likes of these con men. One type isn’t necessarily smarter than the other. You know yourself best, and are in the best position to decide what is right for you.
And you say, “I dislike them both but I choose not to listen to them (rather than try to condemn them on websites like this that only bring more attention to them).” It is good to shine a light on the propaganda of the Right. We need to know what they are saying to best counter it.
If they were arguing sports or American Idol I would agree with your general point. But their listeners are being influenced as to how to vote. The people they help elect we can’t ignore.
"I don’t think a lot of people should listen as their psychology is such that they are susceptible to the charm and persuasion skills of these skilled propagandists."... - EDDY
So you believe that those who listen to conservative talk radio aren't smart enough to know that they are listening to "right-wing propaganda"?
"It is good to shine a light on the propaganda of the Right. We need to know what they are saying to best counter it." - EDDY
Counter it from what? What are you so afraid of? People will have DIFFERENT OPINIONS. Its called DIVERSITY. Why are you so against it?
Do you even recognize the arrogance in your comments.
So you believe that those who listen to conservative talk radio aren't smart enough to know that they are listening to "right-wing propaganda"?
Well lets see. There's probably 2 groups who listen to conservative talk radio. The first is too ignorant to know they're being lied to. The second knows that they're being lied to, but just enjoy the lies so much they tune in day after day.
Oh, and remember that poll that said that 50+% or so of Fox viewers believed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Sure, conservatives are informed all right.
SO...you agree that everyone who regularly listens to conservative talk radio is an uninformed idiot. Do you have any conservative friends or relatives? Should we all just be eliminated? Is there no common ground with you?
I was a liberal many years ago and slowly became disillusioned with it. First it was PC speech control and then endless victim mentality and now I am just fed up with the hatred coming from the left. I can tell you from experience that there is exponentially more hate, vitriol and venom spewing from the left to anyone with whom they disagree.
Look at the comments on MMfA everyday. It is unending hatred.
Goodfellas wrote:
>>I was a liberal many years ago and slowly became disillusioned with it. First it was PC speech control and then endless victim mentality and now I am just fed up with the hatred coming from the left. I can tell you from experience that there is exponentially more hate, vitriol and venom spewing from the left to anyone with whom they disagree.
Oh really? Because my experience is the opposite. I used to be conservative, but changed when I realized how much conservatism is based on propaganda and lies. From my experience, I have noticed that most of the hatred is coming from the right.
Funny how anyone can make almost any argument when one prefaces it with "from my experience."
Eliminated? Eliminated? You were basically called dumb, how on earth does any rational person jump to elimination from that unless that's the view you truly harbor deep in your own bossom?
Common ground? Now that Republicans face monumental repudiations of their ideas come November, politics is suddenly all about common ground. That's hillarious. Come back and wag your finger at us after the radical minority of Republicans of the 110th Congress have ceased their historic amounts of filibusters.
Where's that compromise and bipartisanship as the radical minority of Republicans filibuster healthcare for all, living wages, Iraq withdrawal, medicare negotiations for lower cost prescription meds?
Furthermore, Republicans have called liberals terrorist sympathizers, called liberals the enemy within. After that kind of disgusting rhetoric, it will have to be Rpublicans who take the first steps toward common ground because y'all have proven yourselves untrustworthy.
ROUNDHOUSE said: "Furthermore, Republicans have called liberals terrorist sympathizers, called liberals the enemy within."
Which mainstream conservative said those words?
AS usual, your condescending hate-filled remarks are dripping with arrogance.
David Horowitz:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603030013?f=s_search
“There are 50,000 professors with the views of [fellow Scarborough Country guest and Citizens for Legitimate Government founder Michael] Rectenwald and [Colorado high school teacher] Jay Bennish, who are anti-American, they're radicals, they identify with the terrorists, they think of them as freedom fighters.”
Now read closely again what I wrote above, I said Republicans have been calling liberals terrorists sympathizers, I said we've been called the enemy within. Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D'Souza have been pushing the enemy within theme.
John Boehner has a hard time differentiating Democrats from terrorists, "I listen to my Democratic friends and I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."
http://citybeat.wordpress.com/2006/09/14/boehner-suggests-democrats-like-terrorists/
That's what being called a terrorist sympathizer sounds like.
Or there's Dick Cheney, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting Tuesday. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641895.shtml
Rudy Giulianni: "MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html
I could go on and on. Do you truly not see the pattern? I mean, who are the eliminationists here? Republicans have been making the case that liberals are weak, soft, appeasers, sympathizers when it comes to terrorism. It's a slippery slope once you start equating your political rivals with terrorist murderers, it makes of us traitors. The punishment for treason is execution. That's eliminationism.
Maybe if you were in my shoes you could understand the anger I have for the rightwingers who characterize my vote as dangerous. Maybe then you wouldn't think I was arrogant and condescending. Maybe you would realize that I love our democracy and that it pisses me off when partisan ideologues play this despicable game in the name of short-term political gain.
Anyway, have a good night Goodfellas. Sweet dreams.
"Well lets see. There's probably 2 groups who listen to conservative talk radio. The first is too ignorant to know they're being lied to. The second knows that they're being lied to, but just enjoy the lies so much they tune in day after day."
And which group do YOU fall into? I would guess the second, since you like this site, you must enjoy being lied to. You are one 'informed' voter! You get lies from the right and lies from the left and enjoy their lies so much you tune in day after day. What more could you ask for?
Phillib wrote:
>>And which group do YOU fall into? I would guess the second, since you like this site, you must enjoy being lied to. You are one 'informed' voter! You get lies from the right and lies from the left and enjoy their lies so much you tune in day after day. What more could you ask for?
I could ask that you actually write a post that isn't a rant. Let's just change the words of your post above:
And which group do YOU fall into? I would guess the second, since you like Fox News, you must enjoy being lied to. You are one 'informed' voter! You get lies from the right and lies from the left and enjoy their lies so much you tune in day after day. What more could you ask for?
Wow! Ranting is easy! You can make any argument when you just throw out a bunch of accusations.
"Wow! Ranting is easy! "
I guess so, if all you do is copy other's posts and retype them. So, your arguement is... ?? Oh, I forgot, you just like to rant.
Remember your own skin cancer, Savage?
When your time comes, your jack-boot wearing neo-Nazi KKK ass will be sent straight to Hell - you better believe it.
Savage lost that lawsuit against CAIR, and he's going to lose the lawsuit he's planning against New York Post. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but Michael Savage is a fading star in the demon-filled hellhole known as far right-wing talk radio.
MEGABOT, Please do not use FACTS when speaking to John3:16. You must remember that he is a member of the "Arsetirch party" controlled by Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter etc. He can't hear your written words. He can't see your written words. Dreams of Savage are dancing in his head. He gets so overjoyed a the smallest things. Heck, he doesn't see the end of his Poopular Radio in the distance.
Seems to me that John666 is one of those RITOs.
What is the best way to get at the money that supports these guys?
Matrix, I don't know... However, here are a few thoughts:
1. Savage is relatively obscure. Although he has millions of regular listeners, there are millions of people who have probably never heard his name. Don Imus, for example, is more widely known. To bring attention to Savage, even negative attention, is something that Savage probably would welcome.
2. There is no Al Sharpton-lke figure, such as in the case of Imus, to spearhead a drive against Savage. Despite his cartoonish displays, Sharpton scares the hell out of the power people.
3. An e-mail or letter writing campaign to radio stations who broadcast Savage, as well as to advertisers, is a start, but I don't think that, in itself, would work. However, it creates a record of dissent and eventually Savage may reach a tipping point where his sponsors can no longer tolerate the protest he brings.
4. Writing to members of Congress, and to your own Senators... Savage made light of an iconic Senator's probably terminal illness. Ask that they publicly denounce Savage's remarks.
However, I woud like to find an answer to the basic question, Who makes money off of Savage? Identifying who owns the show and how is syndication structured is where to start.
When considering the most effective way to target him, I think it is worth noting that the majority of his supporters (judging from the callers) are the less educated (perhaps HS dropout or HS graduates at most) lower-income individuals. They are an angry lot, wanting to blame others for their frustrations - immigrants, certain ethnic groups, whatever. I am constantly amazed at how the callers mention how much they learn from listening to the show, when it is clear to any informed, moderately well-read person, that he distorts facts and history in a major way. I actually use his monologues to teach my children how media personalities can misrepresent the facts.
So, if this is the listener profle, then the syndicators solicit advertising dollars from companies that market to this group. In general, the advertisers are money-saving, or money-making rackets, or fear-related industries (security systems, ID-theft prevention companies, etc).
OK, that's my contribution to the money trail right now. Can anyone expand on this and suggest a next step?
Are your wittle feewings hurt by the big bad talk show host?? Well BOO-FRICKIN'- HOO.
You are advocating CENSORSHIP. I thought I lived in America. You left-wingers are once again showing your true colors - That is "if WE don't agree with it, it must be stopped". Give me a break
Or did you simply mean compromise on your terms?
Sorry. You're kind of a phony.
oh aren't you cute - the way you write baby babble.
Actually, to point out the obvious to you, since you cannot get your small mind around it on your own, we are not talking about our feelings. We are talking about truth vs non-truth, appropriate vs inappropriate. We are talking about the financing of propaganda and the spread of misinformation. We are talking about standards on the public airways. Comprende?
The "powers that be" include the radio stations, management, companies like Talk Radio Network- Savage's syndicator- and the advertisers.
It's the same working model for virtually every business in America. So if you want to get rid of talk radio, start the revolution.
"It's entertainment more than anything else, unless one reads too much into it, and apparently some do."
Which is precisely the problem. When you're preaching hate such as "(Obama) was hand-picked by some very powerful forces...to drag this country into a hell it has not seen since the civil war," and people actually listen to that, it distorts their world view to an absurd degree. The result of which, and I've seen it quite a few times now, is you get people who say stuff like "If the Muslim is elected President, I am going to do everything in my power to take him down. He will not live to run a second term." I swear to you it's out there, and it's treasonous to plot the death of a sitting Senator, much less a Presidential candidate.
*note, I am talking about the full effect of lying and distorting to demonize the other side by all of the right, not just this particular Savage comment, which was an example.
The Left is just as filthy and corrupt as the Right
That's hilarious. You can't think that the left is as diabolical as the right. They may be corrupt, but not to the extent of the neo-cons. The left follows the consitution while the right does everything it can to make it moot. That's filthy.
I have to disagree. I see both sides are corrupt scum of the earth. I will NOT argue this is the worst administration IMO durring my lifetime. I will NOT argue there. That said, there are no angles in congress. Well, maybe a couple.
"The left follows the constitution"....HA!
You mean the left that says the constitution is a living, breathing document, and therefore is subject to change. (hey, maybe that's what Obama has in mind)
Article 5 of U.S.A Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I agree, but I would also like to see the day that people are held accountable for their words. I'm sure you agree that there's a difference between free speech and freely and frequently used hate speech (in which Savage and so many other right-wingers engage).
People need to be taken to task and must take responsibility for their words and deeds. Republicans are always spouting personal responsibility...this seems to be a good place to start.
All I can say about Mr. Savage is.................
You can varnish a turd but it is still a turd.
Verminista Brigade
This just in:
Savage Recoils at Insult
Michael Savage just closed his show with the threat of a possible lawsuit aimed at Richard Johnson of Page Six fame and the Rupert Murdoch owned NY Post.
He said he'll consult with lawyers to see if Johnson can get away with calling someone "...the most inhumane human on the planet." He noted the irony of a Murdoch vehicle throwing mud at him, and alluded to collusion between this website, Murdoch, and George Soros.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05222008/gossip/pagesix/just_too_cruel_111927.htm
May 22, 2008 -- SYNDICATED radio host Michael Savage may be the most inhumane human on the planet. After news broke Tuesday of Sen. Ted Kennedy's malignant brain tumor, the conservative blabber aired a song by punk rock band the Dead Kennedys that he said was out of "respect" for the lawmaker. Savage, who airs on WOR in New York, also played a montage of the word "tumor" over and over again, as well as audio from "Kindergarten Cop," in which Arnold Schwarzenegger says, "It's not a tumor."
Eddy3957
Well he can dish it out, but of course he can't take it. He'll run screaming to mommy of someone says something bad about him.
It will be terrific for Savage to get his laundry aired by the MSM. Bring it on Mikey. Give him the publicity he wants....let the real Repulbans hear his hatred while speaking for them..Go Mikey GO
And John12345, don't forget to send money to his defense fund. Just like before. I thought he was rich but people like you will pay for his defense team AGAIN. Then again, do what he says...HE BE THE MAN. And remember, stay BLISSFUL.
"And John12345, don't forget to send money to his defense fund. Just like before."
Well, it's either send savage money or send cair money. You can support freedom or you can support terrism. Everyone knows liberals will be supporting terrorism (it's 'what you do'). So, it's only patriotic to support someone who praises our nation instead of supporting someone who pisses on our nation. I would ask, 'do you agree', but I'm afraid of another tongue lashing for being patriotic from those who are not.
Savage is who he is. Liberals are what they are. No amount of whining will change either truth. Both are haters. Each feel their hatred is justified, neither is correct.
Phillib wrote:
>>Well, it's either send savage money or send cair money. You can support freedom or you can support terrism. Everyone knows liberals will be supporting terrorism (it's 'what you do'). So, it's only patriotic to support someone who praises our nation instead of supporting someone who pisses on our nation. I would ask, 'do you agree', but I'm afraid of another tongue lashing for being patriotic from those who are not.
Yes, another rant from Phillib. You just love throwing out inflamatory rhetoric, don't you. Again, let me just switch your words:
You can support freedom or you can support terrism. Everyone knows conservatives will be supporting terrorism (it's 'what you do'). So, it's only patriotic to support someone who makes wars that help the terrorists (Bush) instead of supporting someone who actually was against such wars that hurt our nation (Kucinich). I would ask, 'do you agree', but I'm afraid of another tongue lashing for being patriotic from those who are not.
You see, when you rant, you can just switch labels and make the same argument. In other words, you are not making an argument at all.
Excellent point. Rants, because they do not address the issues, are interchangeable. If you have something substantive to say, it stands alone.
Conservatives haven't run out of things to say just constructive ways to say it. They have been dragged into a Bushian way of thinking in black and white terms, which is not now nor has it ever been a means toward bettering the world.
I never pretend I am 100% right, just informed on the issues of the day. I take that information and employ it in forums like this. If I say/write something refutable then refute it logically and with facts. Do not resort to calling me a bad name (like liberal, I hate that one) or changing the subject, or I will stick my fingers in my ears and wag my tongue at you. There are other things I could wag, but I won't go to that extreme. I'm a class act.
Randy
No, and yet it seems that the Republicans in Congress have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has done to our borders. Too many false conservative commentators have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has done to our language. Too many fawning media lackeys have forgotten what Ted Kennedy has succeeded in doing in nearly destroying our culture.
We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965, lying to the American people saying it would not change the demographics of America. We cannot forget that the lion of the left voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget that, in spite of his illness, he has voted for late-term abortion, i.e. infanticide. We cannot forget that he voted no on a constitutional ban on flag desecration; that Kennedy voted no on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage; that Kennedy voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes; that Kennedy voted no on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds; that Kennedy voted yes on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.---Michael Savage
One might think from the above that Ted Kennedy was King for the past 40-50 years.
He was a relatively new senator in 1965 having only arrived in 1962. Also what special clout he may have had was gone by 1964. He held leadership rank in the Senate for only a couple years. (1969-71 as Majority Whip).
Hopefully his listeners have enough sense to realize that he was only one vote out of a hundred in the Senate and that the other house of congress had an equal say before any legislation went to the President.
This is boiler plate scapegoating of a single demonizable figure.
Why is there so little focus on the real Ted Kennedy? I've not heard one major talk show host criticize any of his past. ..... ..... But certainly you'd expect the Wall Banger, the Leprechaun, the Golfer, to say one word about Kennedy. Why is it that even the Great Golfer won't say anything about Kennedy -- the man who has you believe that he's the conservative in the country?---M. Savage
I'm also surprised given their many scurrilous characterizations of Ted Kennedy. My guess is they were warned off by their company's management with a finger in the wind.
Well, what should we expect? Savage is just another in a long line of borderline-retarded morons who are angry at the world because their particular brand of pig-ignorance hasn't been welcomed with open arms by the world of reasonable, educated people. It's always the same garbage from these sad little self-hating idiots - blame immigrants, blame feminists, blame academics, blah-blah-blah......what a tired species of scum they really are. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king - in the land of fat, moronic rednecks, the brainless weiner is king!
Still, you gotta laugh - especially at the halfwitted defenders of this loathsome creep who cut and paste slabs from wickipedia in order to try and fool people into believing that they have the first clue as to what they are talking about. The fact is that morons like that are a disgrace to every opportunity that the United States has given its people to educate themselves and create a better world - it's almost as though the WWII generation is speaking directly to these swamp-minded dimwits and saying "look at the wealth, freedom and opportunities that we died to secure for you...for goodness sake don't squander what we have given you." To which the fat, angry wife-beaters reply - "pipe down pinko, I'm trying to listen to Hannity."
Bravo Savage and your little friends - continue raging against decency, you vomitous little animals!
It's not about criticizing what Ted Kennedy has done during his time in the Senate, and you know that. What it is about, is you being an obtuse scared little man who needs to kick a man when he's down on the ground. It's called being human (as others have pointed out), and it's called just being decent. Nobody who has a normal brain function wants anyone to get cancer, and nobody wants anyone who does have cancer to suffer through it. We, who have had loved ones go through cancer and everything awful about it, understand where Ted Kennedy is headed, and we wish him well and hope that he does get better, because hey, believe it or not, cancer is non partisan you freakin' hack.
Criticize Ted Kennedy for his legislation. Criticize him for his positions. I've got no problem with you doing that. When you make light of, or downright make fun of someone's illness that is this serious, it really points the spotlight on you as to how much of a horrible human being you are. I know that you're not the only one doing this, but you're still a straight up POS.
The other funny thing about you Savage, is that for a hard core conservative that you say you are, you seem to LOVE a lawsuit. And the even funnier thing about you being the hard core conservative that you are, is that when you file these lawsuits, you implore your listeners to send you money for your legal fund. What happened to personal responsibility, and paying your own way? Oh, yeah, right, you didn't want to foot the bill for your own silly little lawsuit, so you asked your sycophants to fund it for you.
File a lawsuit against the NY Post. Go ahead. You'll never even get close to winning that one. I'm sure you'll prop it up as some sort of protection of freedom of speech, which most thinking individuals know is not the case (as it wasn't the case with your lawsuit about CAIR after all).
You're a pathetic human being, and if you fell of a cliff tomorrow, the world would be better off without you. You'd be down burning in hell with the likes of Saddam Hussein, Hitler, and a bunch of your other buddies.
Exactly Mags. It's kind of funny that on yesterday's thread the drooling Savage Army was busy trying to defend the cretin because he was just "voicing an opinion against Kennedy's politics" and now today Savage actually did do a monologue which, while almost completely free of any sort of factual basis, was mostly just a critique of Kennedy's career. And now he claims he is being persecuted just for having that opinion.
But that isn't what Savage's first attack, the one that got him the criticism in the first place, was at all. He looped various samples of people using the word "tumor" with the Kindergarden Cop line and the DKs song and proceeded to accompany that with a vicious series of personal attacks on Kennedy that didn't touch on his politics at all. It wasn't political speech and it certainly wasn't comedy, it was offense for the sake of shock value and attention seeking. But just like a good wingnut, Savage changes his story the next day and tries to get the world to revise history with him.
Viscious attacks?
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
Thanks, eddy.
Time to start a new band:
The Dead Michael Savages
So when HE gets sick or dies it won't be tasteless to play a cut from Michael Savage is a Heartless Worm (and Worm Food). It'll be "comedy" or "edgy".
Randy