Are We Really a "Savage Nation"?

A little something on Savage's politics from wikipedia:

He began his radio career as Michael Savage on March 21, 1994 (SNIP). At the time, his slogan was "To the right of Rush, and to the left of God."

Michael Savage's political beliefs center around maintaining three aspects of America: "Borders, Language, and Culture."

Recently, Savage has been extremely critical of his fellow conservative talk show hosts, in particular Rush Limbaugh, whom he has called "Hush Bimbo," for what he views as their blind support of the Republican Party and President George W. Bush.

Frankly, I think I'd like him and I may pick up one of his books to find out. I consider myself a conservative but I don't care for either party. I would probably agree with him based on the characterization of his key issues given in Wikipedia. Granted, if ECK's link is legit, he has contradicted himself and is, like all of us, a mortal. That's what happens when you make the mistake of speaking on the record for 15 hours a week and attack both sides of the political spectrum. That's not to say that he's wrong- but again, I don't know enough about him to say for sure that he isn't wrong either.
I will say, given some of the outrageous quotes offered earlier in this thread, that although hyperbole is a useful device and not strictly inflamatory, thereby perhaps excusing SOME of those quotes in my mind, Savage has apparently said some things that are WAY out of line. Forcible conversion to Christianity is the only way to make these people human? That's not hyperbole there- that's just brain-dead xenophobia. It didn't take Christianity to make a man I knew in the Corps, named Berkins, into a decent human being. His muslim faith worked just fine. I would have gone into combat with him without a second thought. I would have introduced him to my step sister without a second though. Frankly I might have trusted him a lot less if he were Savage's breed of Christian, if Savage really believes in coercive conversion.

That being said, Ark Angel is WAY out of line questioning ECK's military service on the basis of his political views. What sort of political viewpoint defines a true soldier then Ark? Unbending loyalty to whichever political party is most militant and nationalist, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them on any given issue?
I've got news for you Ark Angel. I'm not a Christian, I'm not a Republican, and on all but a few issues I think the talking heads of conservatism are every bit as nuts as the libs. All that, and I was in the Marine Corps until a training accident took me out, and I still bleed green. Anyone who questioned that in person would be quick to find out if I'm really a warrior or not. The off topic personal attack you leveled on EastCoastKid was a ridiculous public display of immaturity which in my opinion calls your service into question. I don't know how they do things in the Army, but my Drill Instructor would tear me a few new holes if he heard that sort of immaturity from me.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by toasted
looks like PC has infected this lot

too bad...

maybe you guys are just young. I dunno.

Yeah, that's it. We're just not as old and wise as you.

Savage espouses political correctness on his show every day. He thinks people should be forcibly converted to Christianity by the goverment and those that don't support the war should be shot. That's Political Correctness.

Avowing the use of force or punishment to affect a politically approved state of thought or speech.

As usual, the dumbest among us have it all backwards again. Those that hate so called "PC" the most are Politcally Correct thought police pointing the fingers and demanding coversion. I personally don't care what Savage or anyone else calls women or black people (the straw man of so called "PC").

Your tripe about communism being PC makes no sense either, or I'd respond.

The only "Politcal Correctness" one has to fear in a state of predominantly Christian Moral Authoritarian Nationalistic dissent crushing law passers are Politically Correct partisans like Savage.

Making flag burning illegal is Political Correctness. You will go to jail for doing it. It coercive force to respect the flag. You will never go to jail for using the N word or calling the handicapped 'tards. That's just braying stupid. Savage is a ninny and anyone that buys that disinfo "angry majority" tripe is simple minded and easily herded.

The oldest trick in the book is demonizing the other guy as what you really are yourself. Savage and his fans are all the real Politically Correct authoritarians. If you prefer the term Patriotically Correct to understand what I'm saying, think of it that way. It's still PC.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by RANT]

how about NOT nitpicking it to death , mr LEFTBRAIN

there's a spirit there , in savage , crying for justice , for something to be done

and not in the pansyassed [ wussy ] style preferred by the braindamaged lefties

walking on eggshells , paying more attention to not offending anyone, that seems to be popular around these parts.

screw that.

the planet is a bloody mess , and the whores [ transnational corporations/politicians ] are out of control

savage should be applauded for having the guts to speak out against the insanity. but instead...look at what happens...it's pathetic...

Originally posted by toasted
how about NOT nitpicking it to death , mr LEFTBRAIN

there's a spirit there , in savage , crying for justice , for something to be done

and not in the pansyassed [ wussy ] style preferred by the braindamaged lefties

walking on eggshells , paying more attention to not offending anyone, that seems to be popular around these parts.

screw that.

the planet is a bloody mess , and the whores [ transnational corporations/politicians ] are out of control

savage should be applauded for having the guts to speak out against the insanity. but instead...look at what happens...it's pathetic...

Well, I no Leftie mate and I think that Savagery gets it's own rewards. Read a recent newspaper. I find your rant not only offensive, it's convoluted in the extreme. Read the bold parts, they are in conflict.

[edit on 30-7-2005 by intrepid]

Rant's response was hardly nitpicking Toasted. It was perfectly relevant. How can you decry the PC Nazis while upholding Savage's views as a norm, when those views represent a code of correctness of their own?
How can you be at one extreme and criticize the opposite extreme for being extremists?
How can white criticize black for not being grey?

If you oppose the leftwing view of political correctness on the basis that it is incompatible with liberty, but embrace a right wing set of norms which include the rejection of people's right to choose whatever religion they prefer, there is an undebiable moral inconsistency which undermines the logic of your opposition to leftwing political correctness. For this reason, Rant's comments about Savage and PC were perfectly relevant and accurate. They can not be written off as petty nitpicking- they are a sound logical challenge.

Political Correctness.. I despise it on all sides.

People like Savage and Coulter abuse the privelge they are given under the 1st ammendment, as is their right. Their views are beyond inflammatory and invite nothing but vitriol and circular hatred. Perhaps that is their sole intent.. ratings; or perhaps they are actually that spiritually and intellectually deficient.

Forced conversion... what a repugnant idea. People who would support such nonsense are simply terrified down deep. Terrified and prejudiced against anything that differs from their belief-system. As a Christian, I find that to be anything but Christ-like. It's more like something out of Stalin's demented playbook.

As for personal attacks,.. those who have a valid argument have no need to personally attack those who disagree with them. Its nothing more than a sign of inherent weakness.

seems like SAVAGES' message got lost in all

the syntax checking, and circular logic checking


the offended intellectuals missed his bold brave message !

too bad...

[edit on 1-8-2005 by toasted]

I would just like to point out that Savage is number 61 in the book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken Is #37)

Personally, I don't really consider myself a member of that intellectual cultural elite (Really!), but Savage is just too hard for me to listen to. He's just too angry. On some things I agree with him, but his behavior makes me almost sorry I do. I equate it to the whole evolution vs. creationism debate going on. I'm on the fence on the issue, but 9 times out of 10 I take creationist's side because of the vile hatrid and anger many evolutionists spew towards creationists. Recognising that personality trait in myself, I fear Michael Savage -- I don't want to wake up in the morning one day being a liberal!

EDIT: Blew the book's title, had to fix it.

[edit on 8-1-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by toasted
seems like SAVAGES' message got lost in all
the syntax checking, and circular logic checking

the offended intellectuals missed his bold brave message !
too bad...

[edit on 1-8-2005 by toasted]

His message has been discussed. I'll probably buy one of his books to see if he has anything useful to say about points I care about, but my guess is that like most of his breed of political complaint mongers he will have plenty of questions and no answers, and I will be greatly disappointed if I am right about that.

We aren't only discussing the pretty parts of his message though. Part of his message is that muslims are inhuman and should be forcibly converted. I didn't make him say that. Just because we're criticizing a bad part of his message doesn't mean his message got lost.


Also, feel free to demonstrate whatever circular logic you are talking about my friend.
As for intellectuals, I resent the "intellectual elite" as little more than a pat me on the back machine for a few reasonably intelligent people in our society who are virtually crippled by the fear that they aren't as smart as they think.

All the same though, I do believe that my intellect is at least semi-serviceable, and it is definately offended by people who spew vitriol in contradiction to their own logic.
If intelligent people are offended by Savage, is that an indictment of the intellectuals or of Savage? Think about it.

Nation of Hate?

If one individual has both the authority and capability to keep other people from killing people and consistently does not excersize that authority or capability, is that one individual more than just an accessory to murder?

President Bush as Governor Bush let over 200 death row inmates be executed. Some of which were later found to be not guilty of the crimes they had been executed for.

Facts:
1) The same man who is responsible for the murders of more Americans than any other American alive is also our elected leader.

2) The American people have spoken and have proven they have a higher reverence for revenge (which stems from hate) than the American people do for life.

murder/revenge vs. life

We have chosen murder/revenge, and elected a man that stood for the same to be our leader.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
President Bush as Governor Bush let over 200 death row inmates be executed. Some of which were later found to be not guilty of the crimes they had been executed for.

The only thing about your post which is on topic is that it serves as an example of the sort of virtiol and hate we are discussing. Why discuss what is good for America when you can play partisan and call your rivals murderers, right?

Beyond that, the office of the governor does not exist to dole out pardons. That's not his job. Who is the governor, in this case as in many, a man with little or no legal background, to run around freeing everyone who has been convicted by a jury of their peers?
If anybody dropped the ball, it was not Bush but his state attorney general, for not bringing cases eligible for pardon to the attention of the governor.

But go on, keep showing us what a nation of hate this is by your own example.

Well of course this is a nation of hate. In order to teach people not to kill, we use the death penalty. Sure makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Or remember how long it was before the Senate outlawed lynching? Sadly this nation is becoming fueled by hate.

It's a shame we can't go back to the days were we could all just talk things out anymore. I can't stand people like Savage who fuel the hate and impead progress like this.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
It's a shame we can't go back to the days were we could all just talk things out anymore. I can't stand people like Savage who fuel the hate and impead progress like this.

Um, if you're a bible-believer, those days ended in the second generation of humanity, when Cain and Abel failed to just talk things out.

I'm not a big fan of all the nostalgia for the good ol' days. I'm not sure the good ol' days were all that much better. We just didn't write hip-hop songs or have big media scandals about it in the past. Just because we don't do such a good job of keeping things under our hat these days doesn't mean these things are new.

progress ?

what progress ?

wtf are you talking about ?

all I've seen is a decline in character , morals , and integrity. it's a bloody sewer out there...the politicians are whores. AND whores of the worst kind...cowtowing to the corporations , who only want profits and legislation that favors them.



ROME IS BURNING

Progression from being close minded idiots. I figured ever since the civil rights movement we were doing pretty good at denying hate. But guy's like Savage are really getting in the way.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Why discuss what is good for America when you can play partisan and call your rivals murderers, right?

7,000 years of written and recorded history devoid of 7 consecutive days, just 1 week without war,killing and destruction with the power following the money of the same bloodlines from generation to generation speaks volumes, no libraries, to support my claim for me. Perhaps this paradigm is supported by others, personnally I feel no one could truly hate anything unless they weren't first threatened from within their own minds by the perceptions of the FEAR of the potential that what they hate had the ability to take something or someone they love away from them.

Hence it is this countries fear that produces hate, and the death penalty does create and promote fear and therefore creates and promotes hate.

Beyond that, the office of the governor does not exist to dole out pardons. That's not his job.

Then why allot the governor the authority, capability and power in the state constitution if it is not his job?

But go on, keep showing us what a nation of hate this is by your own example.

My example?

Actions and behaviors speak louder than words.
My example is:
11 years working with developmentally dissabled pediatrics and terminally ill children and profoundly mentally disturbed adults followed up by a conscious decision to enter a career field in which I would enter extremely hazardous environments to save total strangers as a firefighter in the Active Duty USAF for the past 7+ years.



[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
7,000 years of written and recorded history devoid of 7 consecutive days, just 1 week without war,killing and destruction with the power following the money of the same bloodlines from generation to generation speaks volumes, no libraries, to support my claim for me.

What claim? I don't see much of a claim at all. All I saw in the post I quoted from you is an off topic assault on Bush's failure to pardon people while he was governor.

Hence it is this countries fear that produces hate, and the death penalty does create and promote fear and therefore creates and promotes hate.

Now you're just kidding us all (I hope). You were off topic, and now you're making an extremely strained attempt to say that Bush made this a nation of hate by failing to pardon people because fear of the death penalty is the source of hate.
I don't know about you, but I don't fear the death penalty. If you do, I suggest that you stop committing capital crimes. Fear does generate hate, but the death penalty is not even remotely a major contributor. Who would this generate fear and hate against. Ironically, I suppose the answer is Bush in your case. The logical conclusion then is that you hate Bush because you fear the death penalty. Again- don't commit capital crimes and maybe you'll be able to cool your off topic rhetoric a bit.

Then why allot the governor the authority, capability and power in the state constitution if it is not his job?

Do you know what context is? In the context of my post your question is clearly answered. It is the job of the attorney general and his subordinates to deal with the concerns of justice in the state, and he answers to the chief executive, who as the chief executive, is the ultimate executor of the law and thus has the final say on pardons, among other things.
Clearly I was not asserting in contradiction of the obvious that the governor has not business giving pardons. I was saying that it is not his position to micro-manage that process- he has many things of greater import on his hands.
Either your grasping at straws or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

But go on, keep showing us what a nation of hate this is by your own example.

My example?
Actions and behaviors speak louder than words.

I agree. The action and behavior I have observed from you so far is the decision to go off topic and slam Bush for not pardoning people. Your actions display vitriol, bitterness, and a sense of voicelessness.

My example is:
11 years working with developmentally dissabled pediatrics...

I thought actions speak louder than words? You're online- those are just words. It's just something you're telling me. The only actions of yours that I can observe are your decisions as to what you post. The actions I have observed from you are a wonderful example of the insecurity and hatred you have been ranting against, and these parallels to criticisms against Savage are the only thing about your contribution so far that has been relevant.

The vitriol is thick on all of the respective sides internally and externally, but I don't really think that humanity has changed in some fundamental way in the past few decades considering his general stagnancy for the past few thousand.

For the same reason Shakespeare is still popular, you could say that things are pretty much the same as they have always been. Timeless human traits.

But what is different and why do people see us as more civilized?

1) Technology has certainly changed, allowing greater access across distance. This increases the danger of dangerous ideas, but conversely increases the benefits of positive ideas (although those are generally relative).

2) We have become comfortable in our created infrastructure. We know that it could very easily come crashing down at any moment, but we choose to ignore it. Additionally, we put far too much stock in human institutions, which become more corrupt and destructive the larger they become, or so says everything in history.


Are we a savage nation? Sure, but I don't think any more or less so than any other. We certainly have become a bit soft.

It is easy to justify horror from afar.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
The vitriol is thick on all of the respective sides internally and externally,

I agree, and I acknowledge that I am by no means above it. I try to be, and I try to check others when they bring it, but I'd only be a liar and a braggart if I pretended that I was perfect in that regard.

but I don't really think that humanity has changed in some fundamental way in the past few decades considering his general stagnancy for the past few thousand.

Again I agree. I think another reason that we consider ourselves more developed is because as I have been pressing in several threads lately, conflict is waged on other levels of what the military sometimes calls "the force continuum" than just open warfare. A few hundred years ago, there is a pretty decent chance that a war might have been fought between France/Germany and America, or China and America, or India and China or some other rival, etc etc. Now however, the greater scale of the international economy and the rapid pace of technological advancement makes it possible to defeat a nation in relatively short order through economic actions and sharing or withholding of technology. Why should Russia fight a war to keep us out of Iran when they can sell Iran SS-N-22s? Why should China and India fight a war when each thinks that it can grow so strong economically that they will be in no danger from one another?
The average person thinks we are more civilized now because instead of fighting an open war for all to see, the government undermines our enemies through more subtle economic and technological machinations, prefering to starve them as opposed to shooting them. It's not particularly more civilized, just harder for the average joe to see. That is the hidden war that decieves doves, that leaves the simple minded among the hawks feeling as if their country had gone lame. It lets us sleep better at night and enjoy our starbucks coffee, not realizing that Ethiopia is starving so that we can enjoy their "Rift Valley Blend".
You're right though- we aren't evolving, only developing. I think savagery is savagery, rather it's Savagery (proper noun, refering to Savage's hawkish beliefs) or economic war hidden behind an Internationalist smokescreen.