"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of the IMAGINATION.
Posted on 11/10/2006 3:00:44 PM PST by RussP
I actually liked Michael Savage at one time, but now I am embarrassed for him every time I hear him (which is not often). The guy has become a clueless loon.
To show off his "independence," he refused to endorse Republicans. Fantastic, Michael! Then the day after the election it finally occurred to him that a Democratic Congress is now empowered to work with Bush on his amnesty program for illegal immigrants!
What kind of moron could not figure that out *before* the election?
Thanks a lot, Michael, for sitting on your hands and doing nothing when it counted most to help stop illegal immigration. You're a true patriot, but not a very bright one!
Michael calls Rush Limbaugh a shill for the Republicans, but Rush figured out *before* the election that (1) Bush is not on the ballot, and (2) if the Republicans don't win Congress, the Democrats will. In other words, Rush passed politics 101 a long time ago, but Michael never did.
I happened to be listening yesterday when a caller tried to point this out to him. How did Michael reply? He couldn't argue rationally, so he resorted to his usual 3rd-grade-level name calling and telling the guy to change his underwear. I kid you not.
Ironically, Michael wrote a book calling liberalism a mental illness, but Michael clearly has a mental illness of his own. He has become some kind of deranged, angry clown.
Savage is not a conservative. Just listen to what he proposes.
But, he's got a good schtick, and if you don't listen carefully you might think he's a good conservative, telling it like it is.
It appears that trying to have a conversation with savage-bots is as effective as it would be to have a conversation with savage.
You nailed it.
When I listened to Savage-Weiner in the past, I was always amazed at how he could jump all over you even if you basically agree with him but differ on some subtle nuance. If you don't see exactly eye to eye with him he will instantly start calling you names.
He helps the Dems more than he helps us. ....I've always figured he was a shill, or act, of a lefty stereotyping what they say a right winger is.
I don't see how a guy like that could be a shill. Whats with so much paranoia? Savage is pretty much of a populist type. He holds no punches on anyone, and thats what I like about him. But for crying out loud, he is getting way to much credit here. I think of him more like the guy next door who sits around and yells at his TV when he watches the news. (In this case with a microphone broadcasting his rants to the world) - thats whats so entertaining about the show. You go to his house and sit on the porch while he rants about all the things he sees wrong.
He doesn't give a squat what he says or care who it offends. If it seems insane, or loony, everyone here should tape record themselves doing the same thing - some night while you are watching various news programs on TV. You may suprise yourselves how loony YOU may sound when you are sitting in front of the TV getting p---ed off when you see all the crap goin on in the world and how the news gets twisted, D.C. is twisted, etc.. Try it. Now stick a mic in front of it broadcasting it to radio. And there you have it. Thats how I see it. Just a guy behind a mic who gets cranky and whose blood boils when he sees whats going on around him. Surely some of you had an uncle or grandfather who was like that. Surely no one takes him more seriously than that.
(sigh)
I believe that Savage is solely and uniquely an opportunist. He has the means to offer a specific 'product' to the market and his timing is very good.
It's all about the $ IMHO.
You wrote: "You are naive and why our great nation is in trouble. You trump party over conservative values. ...
The Founding fathers knew the dangers of a democracy, and this is why they were so stead fast against it."
Our great nation has become considerably greater and more stable and powerful since 1932, when the social welfare state and the regulatory state began in earnest. America in 1930, or 1920 or 1880, was but a sliver of what it is today in terms of power and wealth. Back then, there was a depression every twenty to thirty years. Today, there hasn't been one for 70 years and counting. That is because of an intelligently designed regulatory state. You want to rewind the clock to 1930, or 1830? Hey, good luck getting the women and blacks to stop voting.
The Founding Fathers did not believe in direct democracy, meaning that they did not think that having the whole country vote on each law, or on every official, was either advisable or workable. That is what they meant by "democracy". But hello, ace, a republic IS a democracy at the local level. People vote, democratically, for their representatives, and they remove them from office in the next election if the representatives do not perform. If you go back and read the Federalist Papers, in addition to cautioning against America attempting to emulate Athens, the writers also constantly intoned the genius of the people, and relied on the wisdom of the people in electing representatives. That's democracy by any name, and the Founders were not in the slightest opposed to it. They were opposed to national government by referendum, and that's not what we have.
We have Social Security because the people voted for Representatives and Presidents who would create it, and steadfastly stood against anybody - including W - who would dismantle it. This isn't really hard. I have no idea whether the Founders would have approved of Social Security, disapproved of it, been surprised by it or been indifferent to it. 1789 was a different time and space than now, facing different conditions. We have the system the Founders left us, and we have followed it and used it to create Social Security. We can't possibly know what
they would have thought of the program; they're dead.
So yes, genius, DO let's think of the end results.
The end results of Social Security are an economically more prosperous, more stable and freer country. Ditto for Medicare. Ditto for public education. We have had these things for three quarters of a century now, and the country is FAR wealthier, freer, more powerful and better in every sense than it was before we had them. The ongoing "end results" of all of these programs has been overwhelmingly positive. So, what's your beef with them, exactly?
Perhaps your mommy and daddy were wealthy enough to get you a private education, but 90% of the people around you are able to read, write, compute and go on to higher things because they got an education at the knee of the state. Almost all of them who have college degrees have them because they were able to get subsidized money from the government. Shall we go back to 1920, when perhaps 3% of the country went to college, and they were the sons (forget the girls) of wealthy people. College was a privilege for the wealthy. Well, newsflash, ace, America was a far less educated and more ignorant country back then on account of it. The real BURST of economic activity and advances in all sectors of science and technology, the professionalization of everything, came about because all those returning GI's who wanted to went to college on government expense: the GI Bill, and that raised the educational level of the whole country. You think the country is WORSE OFF because of universal education?
Apparently.
Now, you're a rich guy, so if we strip away Social Security and Medicare, YOU'LL have no problem taking your elderly parents and in-laws into your great big house for the rest of their lives, and paying for their medical care. But most of the rest of us would not be able to bear the burden (never mind the burden to marriages), and nobody - not the kids, and not the parents WANTS to. So, as a people we have turned to government and structured a way to give the old far greater independence, freeing up the young to work and maximize their own opportunities. Nobody is going to go back to the old way, because the old way was inferior in just about every way imaginable. Including economic costs. The costs were hidden, perhaps: women couldn't work because somebody had to stay at home and change grandma's bedpan. Oh, and everybody died a lot younger too, let's not forget THAT little detail.
To quote you verbatim: "Hey genius just think of the end results. Duhhhhhhhhhhh"
Like I said before, this article (RE: drivel) is all about you not liking Mike's criticism of Rush so you can call Mike an a-hole a bunch of times.
Brilliant.
Maybe you can get a job as a writer for Wikipedia, or The Nation.
Well, there's a little more to it than that.
All the talkers make a good living, but only some of them have something to say.
You baffle me. Why is it so important to you to defend savage? And why do so by name-calling rather than presenting a reasonable refutation?
BTW...I respectfully submit that the moderators would remove the post if it were grossly in the wrong place, and I would also ask who made you the "vanity" police?
Are you kidding me????
"You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of the IMAGINATION.
Yes, I called Savage-Weiner an a--hole. Sorry for regressing to his level temporarily. But at least I made a rational case before resorting to name calling, which is more than Savage-Weiner usually does.
Since you apparently condone Savage-Weiner's name calling, I have a good one for you. People like you are suckers for him, so I think you should be called Savage-Weiner suckers.
ding ding...
are you saying the GOP has NOT turned left?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.