Replies

Agreed. Many here on FR are doing exactly what we rail about when the libs come running to their "wing nuts" like Jesse Jackson and Slickmeister.

We hate it when they do it with their jackels, yet so many of us will swarm to protect ours.

It's always a challenge to discern between liberal trolls and conservative deadweight. A quick review of jhoffa or joesbucks posts under their profile (using "find in forum") could reveal either. And both can spare us their indignity of being categorized as such because we know the excuses ahead of time. What's important in the case of Savage is that we view the issue purely pragmatically. You can technically have free speech but if your program is characterized as "hate-speech" and your advertisers are intimidated with that stigma, the conservative voice will be drowned out. With a predominantly liberal media, conservatives have to be tenacious in protecting whatever few opportunities they have in promoting their message to national audience. Savage is not the perfect messenger, but he is preferable to a liberal alternative. For too long, conservatives have tried to play by gentlemen's rules while liberals have used a win-by-any-means strategy. Politics is war by other means. Despite holding power in government, we can't get much done because of the liberal stronghold in the media which punishes conservatives for disobeying liberal priorities while ignoring such things as racial double-standards by Democrats (ie: Estrada). We simply can't afford to allow deadweight to hold us back from fighting for the conservative cause.

I hate the fact of censorship! The market will decide, which is as it should be.

However, I was surfing the channels the other day and came across Press/Buchanan show and they were chatting up Savage. In the ten seconds before I could change the channel I heard Savage praising Buchanan.

IMHO Savage is the problem, not the solution for what ails America, which is still the greatest country on earth.