Michael Savage gets a lesson in politics 101

[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.

[period end of story]

Or is having a different opinion on just about everything from Dr. Wiener enough for you to classify me as such?? I know I know, what was I doing, varying from the always right Weiner-Lovers!!!

So which is it, Wiener or Weiner?

BTW, I don't think anybody 'loves' Savage, or any of the talkers.

Wait a sec, I think lormand might love El Rushbot.(the extra 't' was an accident)

[RussP]

Let me tell you something. If one of those guys posing with Savage-Weiner called his show anonymously and differed with him on *anything*, Savage-Weiner would not hesitate for a second to belittle him and call him childish names.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Savage-Weiner has the emotional maturity level of a child.

And I'll bet he fights like a girl too.

[Sprite518]

LOL! Did I get your panties in a Wad ? LOL!

People like you crack me up. You are so naive about our Founding Fathers and the history of our country. Plus reading what you wrote just has me shaking my head. You have been indoctrinated, and you do not even know it.

If you sent a kid to Catholic school, then would you agree that the school that would teach the kids about the Catholic religion in a positive manor? Like wise what about a Jewish school? So then you would agree that a government school (a.k.a. public school)paint government in a positive manor?

Let me start by saying you do not know the difference between democracy and a constitutional republic. I could school you on this, but it would be too long of a reply. So I am going to get right to the questions you need to res each. It will help you understand what I am talking about. Perhaps its above you? Nevertheless, I will give it a shot.


1)How many times can the word "democracy" found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

2)Which articles of the Constitution grant specific powers to the federal government?

3)Which article of the Constitution restricts the powers of the government to only those specifically set forth in the Constitution?

4)Where in our Constitution is it stated that anyone has a right to vote for the office of President of the United States?

5)How did our original Constitution provide for the appointment of Senators?

6)Explain the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.

7)Was our country founded to be a country of majority rule?

8)Define a system of government where the means of production are owned and controlled privately.

9)Define a system of government where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government.

10)Define a system of government where the means of production are owned and controlled by the government.

I suggest you read Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough, "1776". This should answer almost all the questions. There are other books, but at least read this one.

Let me just say our country is great because of people and NOT government. The government did not invent the light bulb, the airplane, the car, radio, etc. It is individuals that have done this.

The social welfare state (a.k.a. the Great Society), which you love so much, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the prosperity of our great nation. Government does not EARN money, they take and redistribute. It makes people more dependent on government then less. It is not Progress to become more dependent. Progress is when you do not need to depend on anyone, and you are self reliant.

The Stock Market laws,rules, etc.... have NOTHING to do with the Welfare State. I do not have any issue with NYSE, NASDAQ, etc... rules.

Now where did I ever say about stopping blacks, or women from voting????? DUHHHH.......

No STUPID a Republic is not a Democracy. If it was the same, then why would they have two different names? You can redefine Democracy all you want, but at the end of the day it is mob rule. Regarding the Federalist papers please see above.

Given the way the Founding Fathers were about the role of the Federal Government vs. States Rights. I believe it is safe to say that they would not have endorsed it Social Security or the Great Society. How can you say you do not know is ridiculous. The Founding father believed in a small central government. States had more power. So this leads me to the question how can you say you don't know?

W did not want to dismantle Social Security. He wanted to reform it. W is a big government Republican. However, the "give me" generation does seem to mind screwing over future generations. Social Security is going bankrupt, and generation X will never see it. I guess that is the Great Society for you. You know the one you LOVE so much.

When you wrote, "The end results of Social Security are an economically more prosperous, more stable and freer country. Ditto for Medicare. Ditto for public education"

ROLTHFLMAO! I thought this is a real bright one I am talking to. Given the world's history failures of Socialist and Communist states. You are a Socialist without a doubt! I cannot believe you think Social Security, Medicare, and Government Schools have helped make us more prosperous!

That are notorious for being mismanaged. Social Security is going bankrupt you idiot because it has been mismanaged by the government you love so much! This is not a big secret. Good Grief!

Ever since the Department of Education has been created our government schools have over time got worst. We are globally no longer the leaders, math, science, etc.... We are a downward spiral not up. Private schools on the other hand do just the opposite.

Government is only good at one thing. That is the use of force. Everything else they fails miserably. A private firm can run a lot more efficiently than any government agency.

OK I know you are for BIG government. Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that the government will take care of us for school, social security, etc? Where do you draw the line? I just want to know this. OK what else should the federal government pay for? Maybe a car, clothes, etc...?

There is no free lunch. You either pay for it on the front end or the back end. Nevertheless, I rather do it myself then entrust the government. They screw up everything. Do you know how much Tax Revenue the Federal Government collects annually? Try over 12 Trillion Dollars. The Budget alone is over 2.5 Trillion dollars. However, I know you big government types think that is not enough money.

Tax cuts work. This is why our nation becomes more prosperous every time they happen. The Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts each grew our GDP by leaps and bounds. However, our government spent more because they cannot be trusted. Less government is better. Look at the failures of Socialism, and Communism around the world.

[Sprite518]

Why don't you look at your own post #342? Then lecture to me about name calling. You must have short term memory?

I am not defending Savage at all. I said it was stupid to say that the Republicans lost because of Michael Savage. Excuses are for LOSERS!

[Sprite518]

ding ding

I am saying the GOP HAS turned Left.

[Sprite518]

I voted Libertarian, with the following exceptions. Lt Governor of the State, and if there was only a Republican or Democrat. Then I voted for the Republican.

I hoped to send the message I want less government.

My state is not a swing state. I live in the second most conservative county percentage wise in the state of Georgia. So it really did not matter how I voted. I just hoped to send a message.

[Sprite518]

I know the Dems are Dangerous but the Republicans still control the Executive Branch. All Bush has to do is dust off that veto pen. Bush can lead by example.

What is the point of electing a Republican if he or she is just going to vote like a liberal? The Republicans had 6 years. Perhaps this will wake them up, or at least weed out the RINOs.

[MikefromOhio]

I don't care if they do love him or not, they call everyone and their brother bots at the drop of a hat.

Therefore, they are Weiner-lovers.

It has that NICE double meaning that can't be duplicated anywhere else :)

[period end of story]

Alright, to be reasonable though, you have to see that the article to this thread is basically drivel.

The second paragragh is fallacious, and the author's spin on Savage's opinion is based on his disdain for the guy.

I heard Mike endorse republicans, and his analysis after the results came in was basically right; as opposed to what this 'article' states.

Just another (bad) excuse to bash Savage. (some can't get enough)

[Vicomte13]

You wrote: "ROLTHFLMAO! I thought this is a real bright one I am talking to. Given the world's history failures of Socialist and Communist states. You are a Socialist without a doubt! I cannot believe you think Social Security, Medicare, and Government Schools have helped make us more prosperous!"

Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state. The United States is not socialist. Social Security, Medicare and Public Education are not socialism. And yes, Social Security, Medicare and Government Schools have absolultely certainly without a doubt made the country more prosperous, by making the elderly self-sufficient, by extending their lives (and therefore their purchasing of goods and services, including medical services), by relieving their children of the full burden of having to care for them in the long old age (thereby allowing the children, both sexes, to work, expanding the economy).

As to public education - isn't that how you learned to read and write and compute? Shall we scrap public education, then, and reduce your ilk to ignorant serfdom from birth?

[MikefromOhio]

LOL

I know you are a weiner-lover too, so why should I even bother to respond?

[RussP]

Did you get a load of how irate Savage-Weiner was at the fact that sensible Republicans refused to appear on his childish show? Think maybe he wants some revenge for that? If you continue to defend Savage-Weiner, you are only proving that you are emotionally immature too. Have at it.

[lormand]

"Wait a sec, I think lormand might love El Rushbot.(the extra 't' was an accident)"

As far as inpiration goes, yes, I love El Rushbot. When I started listening to him in 88' I was a union employee who hated his job. I alway heard him say how great this country was and the opportunities that there were for anyone who wanted it. I'll never forget his words, "America needs more Engineers, not more Lawyers.

It motivated me to quit my crappy union job on the Railroad, get an Electrical Engineering degree, and flee Louisiana for greener pastures.

That is the stuff you get from El Rushbo.

Weiner is all about doom and gloom. Can't wait until he is an after thought.

[RussP]

So Rush inspired you to become an engineer. Hey, as an engineer myself, I think that's great. And Rush is absolutely right that we need more engineers and fewer lawyers.

I doubt Savage-Weiner ever inspired anyone to do anything but be rude and obnoxious.

[Irisshlass]

Russ...just admit it! You were the caller that Savage told to change his underwear.

[Irisshlass]

Can't wait until he is an after thought.

The after thought is the Republican controlled house and senate. Savage is still "King".

[Irisshlass]

doubt Savage-Weiner ever inspired anyone to do anything but be rude and obnoxious.

What is your excuse? And did you get your behavior of lying and distorting the truth from listening to Rush or Hannity or from the Demoncrats?

[lormand]

"I doubt Savage-Weiner ever inspired anyone to do anything but be rude and obnoxious."

...and stupid

[lormand]

"The after thought is the Republican controlled house and senate. Savage is still "King"."

You are celebrating the loss of the GOP controlled House and Senate?

If so, then your tin-foil-hat is not in sync with your "King" Weiner, because I heard him say the night before the elections to vote GOP. Of course for the past 2 years he was trashing them and everybody else. You included, but I see you are too busy kowtowing.

[RussP]

"What is your excuse? And did you get your behavior of lying and distorting the truth from listening to Rush or Hannity or from the Demoncrats?"

Michael Weiner-Savage is an emotionally immature, megalomaniacal a--hole. I suggest you call him someday and ask how he's doing or neglect to worship him. Then you will find out for yourself.

Savage-Weiner is the only talk-show host I have ever heard berate someone for asking how he is doing. Oh, basic civility is such a waste of time, isn't it. Then he proceeds to waste a half hour talking about how his mother treated him like the loser he turned out to be.

Perhaps you have time for Savage-Weiner's deep personal problems, but I don't.