Savage Exposes 'The Enemy Within'

Newsmax ^ | Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004 | James Hirsen

[kevao]

Dane, Post 34: Tell me how you are going to round up 8,000,000 people.

Dane, Post 64: After a period of six months or a year, all those who did not register are subject to deportation

ROTFLMAO!!!

[swampfox98]

and uses an overbearing personality.

Dane, I've read most of your posts on FR to people who are aganist illegals over running the country. So if what you say about Michael is true then the only difference between you and Michael is that you are on FR and not on the radio.

[Gigantor]

"He's been off his nut for years."

Okay, so you don't like his style. How about some substantive arguments proving that he's nuts...

[NYC Republican]

Saen's show is currently at #2 nationwide after Rush. I'm still looking for proof, but here's stats from mid-2002, where Sean and Savage each had 5 million. Since then, Sean's skyrocketed further. http://www.numbersusa.com/text?ID=998

[NYC Republican]

I strongly suggest that you, and any other doubters out there, read this, compiled by fellow FReepers Southack and Wolfstar... You list the negatives, but there are scores and scores of areas where Bush has shown his true conservative credentials... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1066122/posts

[exmarine]

Looks like your buddy Kerry isn't going to have a cakewalk.

That's the same tired hold pathetic argument I hear from all Bush supporters - it's all you got. You can't argue any issues - they aren't on your side.

One more time, I will refute your pathetic "lesser of 2 evils" fallacy. I can't be responsible for Kerrey's election if I don't vote for him (unless you have a new definition of what it means to be responsible). Kerry's election will be the responsibility of the 45% of hopelessly liberal Americans who vote for him - half of America. So, you can blame the half of America who votes Democrat for Kerry's election. I, on the other hand, will vote for the candidate that BEST REFLECTS true conservative ideals - that ain't Bush! I will vote Constitution Party.

Voting for any candidate who stands for liberal policies is inconsistent with my values and worldview. I will not prostitute myself or my values - I won't sell my principles down the river in order to elect a man who doesn't reflect my values. The only criteria that determines my vote is ABSOLUTE MORAL PRINCIPLES - principles espoused by the founding fathers of the United States of America - principles that are lost on Mr. Bush.

[robowombat]

A social order sustained by massive private and public debt does not represent a desirable polity. Further the debt pyramid is sustained by encouragement to continually increase spending via consumerism. We are taught that happiness consists in accumulating luxury goods and new variants of items already owned. The persuit of glitter and false luxury are presented as the highest values of the social order and the substitute for the rank and file for either meaningful political power or worthwhile personal lives.
As for the internet it is one of those serendipitious features of the electronic economy which I am quite sure , the leadership class deeply regrets allowing to emerge.

[Dane]

Want me to list the litany of liberal policies and statements by Bush? He supported USSC Mich. Affirmative action decision (racial quotas), he praised a gay church in a letter, he has never met a spending bill he doesn't like, he has not come out in explicit support of Constitutional amendment for heterosexual marriage, he has said nothing while the Supreme Court has made horrific ruling after horrific ruling on Sodomy, 10 commandments, injunction against partial birth abortion ban, he doesn't do anything to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants (in fact, he wants to aid and abet the invasion through his insane immigration proposal).

Now you are spewing lies. Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson argued agianst the Univ. of Michigan cas at SCOTUS. The gay church letter was a mass mailing to 1000's of churches. That church didn't have the name "St. Gay". A constitutional amendment is Congress's purview and in the State of the Union address he gave support to a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage if the liberal judges keep on making up law from the bench. He can't change SCOTUS decisions and those decisions would probably have been different if it weren't for the 2 Clinotn appointees, Ginsberg and Breyer. And Bush is proposing a solution to the staus quo immigration question. I guess you like the staus quo.

JMO, and don't go into victim mode because I have an opinion, you misstate the facts and are a malcontent that the most mainstream people on the political right are glad to see booted out of the party.

[NYC Republican]

Okay, so you don't like his style. How about some substantive arguments proving that he's nuts

All you have to do is listen to him for a couple of hours. It'll become crystal clear to most.

[Lael]

Savage is brilliant!

Savage may be Brilliant, but it helps that a...

SAECULAR Fourth Turning

is at hand.

We are in the middle of the 'OH!-OH!' Decade...and indeed,

Winter Comes Again!!

[NYC Republican]

.

[exmarine]

Now you are spewing lies.

Lies eh? You don't know what you are talking about. I can back up my statements - you apparently can't. Here is an excerpt from WorldNetDaily column - you can read the entire column at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33381

Excerpt from article: "What was President Bush's reaction? This mushy statement of resignation: "I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths. Today's decision seeks a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under law."

Thank you Mr. Bush for your support for "diversity".

The gay church letter was a mass mailing to 1000's of churches. That church didn't have the name "St. Gay".

Baloney- why don't you do your homework? The letter was written to Metropolitan Church specifically. Excerpt from article:

"By encouraging the celebration of faith and sharing of God's love and boundless mercy, churches like yours put hope in people's hearts and a sense of purpose in their lives," Bush said in his Oct. 14 missive. "This milestone provides an opportunity to reflect on your years of service and to rejoice in God's faithfulness to your congregation."

Read the entire article at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35539

I can refute the rest of your post as well, if you like.

[Lael]

SAECULAR Fourth Turning = Winter Comes Again!!!

Savage is the Man of the Hour!!!

[exmarine]

A constitutional amendment is Congress's purview and in the State of the Union address he gave support to a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage if the liberal judges keep on making up law from the bench. He can't change SCOTUS decisions and those decisions would probably have been different if it weren't for the 2 Clinotn appointees, Ginsberg and Breyer. And Bush is proposing a solution to the staus quo immigration question. I guess you like the staus quo.

I can't resist. I will refute your other points as well.

Read the text of Bush's speech again - he DID NOT come out for an amendment - he spoke of it as a last resort. Well, guess what - gay marriage is here! It's last resort time! NOW is the time to support an amendment for marriage! Now, not later. He is waffling and pro-family groups don't like it. Bush quote from Philadelphia Inquirer:

"The position of this administration is that whatever legal arrangements people want to make, they're allowed to make, so long as it's embraced by the state or at the state level."

I call that statement a huge waffle.

And you immigration comment is completely absurd, considering it makes legal immigrants out of illegal aliens overnight, will result in the influx of 25 million of their relatives, will result in taxpayers having to foot the bill for the MASSIVE social services tab (education, health care) for these people, and will certainly enourage millions more to come here for the freebies. It was reported in the news yesterday that the influx of illegals has increased the last 2-3 weeks since Bush announced his proposal.

It seems you are WRONG on every count.

[Dane]

World Net Daily, big whoop. They published an article where a counselor from Vegas said that people were having panic attacks, not over their marriage or venturing into a public space, but Bush's immigration proposal. World Net Daily has an agenda. I hardly read them anymore.

Also World Net Daily, was Y2K scare central.

[exmarine]

Big whoop? In case you didn't know, you can't say people say things in a news article that aren't true - that's libel. And WND has not been challenged on ANY of its statements - because they are true. Besides, there are other sources. Washington Times, Phil. Inquirer, Concerned Women for America, etc. Are they all lying? Tell you what - go ahead and live in your pretend world and I'll live in reality.

[exmarine]

Try reading the numerous articles (directly from teh original news source (Reuters, Washington Times, etc.) at www.bushrevealed.com. Then see if you can come up with a decent argument that directly addresses the facts about Bush's liberal policies and statements.

[Dane]

And WND has not been challenged on ANY of its statements - because they are true

It's not worth the effort. WND is on the fringe and has an agenda and if you asked people if they have heard of WND, 95% would say no. The communist party of America organ probably never has been sued for libel either, and they have an agenda also.

[exmarine]

And the Washington Times, Phil. Inquirer - fringe? Reuters? Fringe? Concerned Women for America? Fringe? Go read the articles and weep at www.bushrevealed.com and then see if you can discredit mainline news organizations that quote Bush VERBATUM.

[exmarine]

By the way, major pro-family groups have accuse Bush of "speaking out of both sides of his mouth" on the homosexual marriage issue. Want to call them fringe too? It seems anyone who disagrees with Bush is a nut, looney, fringe, etc. If you can't argue with the facts, your only recourse is to try to discredit the source, but the sources are too numerous for you to do it!