Assbag of the Week - Michael Savage
Four major companies quickly pulled out and are no longer advertising with The Michael Savage Show.I know. We rock.
Unfortunately, the USO is standing behind the Weiner. They refuse to pull their ads from his program.
Listen as Savage screams about the Koran like an insecure madman.
"...a document of slavery and chattel!"
Doesn't he realize the same can be said about the Torah and the Bible? Instead of a thought-provoking discussion regarding the cruel and inhumane sections of our holy books, and how those "commandments" resonate today, he's just screaming nonsense that only appeals to the lowest common denominator.
King Assbag and his legion of Assbag Fans.
We wouldn't accept it if he said these things about Jews or Catholics or anyone else. So we shouldn't take it when he goes after Muslims either. Please call John Hanson, spokesman for the USO, and let him know this is just not acceptable. (703) 908-6400
Cause we're not a nation of Assbags.
Are we?
posted by kate @ 9:26 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Ass-bag or conflicted bagger of ass? Can I allow this opportunity to reference Savage's (formerly Weiner) savage love affair with Allen Ginsburg to go by unused? Apparently not. MS, like many of his ilk, is driven to baboon-like expressions of rage and fear by internal conflicts... conflicts over his not-so-latent desires for bagging ass of the male variety, perhaps? Google for yourself and see.
I don't know. I think Savage has just been outshown in the assbag department by John Gibson. Seriously, I'm thinking all of the product this guy uses in his hair has rotted his brain or something, at least affecting the parts of it that regulate what's appropriate.
Koran is okay, especially Freak on a Leash, but I like Metallica better.
savage offers an alternate view - sometimes too radical for me - but, lots of times -- right on, michael!
america needs savage.
You just have to love how the libbies yell and scream about freedom of speech...until someone says something that they disagree with, and then it's "Get the pitchforks!!!!"
good point about the freedom of speech issue.
assbags of the week are like art - it is in the mind of the beholder.
OILF followers know that sanctions of some sort are in order when the sandbox princess disagrees with the message.
those who are respectful of free speech may attack an assbag for the content of what s/he has said.
these attacks could come in many different forms and styles, full of wit or full of shit.
but to attempt to stop the speech of others is to ultimately stop the speech of any.
unfortunately, the glitz and the glamor afforded to free speech inhibitors fuels their fires, as they are mesmerized by their egocentric focus on the moment and not of the future.
those of us not included in the sandbox league understand this.
just lookin' has a really great point.
After all, Michael Savage has his name and face out on the line. He isn't hiding behind an anonymous screen.
The same people who are calling in to complain about Michael Savage about the ideas and images that he publicly displays could also have friends, well maybe aquaintances, that could call in to school boards about ideas and images that a teacher publicly displays.
Now let's ponder, which one of these two would want to be protected by free speech?
And which one would have more of a pictoral representation of an assbag?
Just got in from Illinois.....
Everyone has the right to complain - whether to a school board or to a corporation. Some speech can be defended and others cannot. We are are guaranteed our freedom of speech; we are not guaranteed our jobs.
Even teachers are complained about - is it warranted? Is it acceptable?
I suppose we have to decide that ourselves.
Freedom of speech relates to the government - not GEICO.
Spare us the faux outrage. This is all about tearing down someone you don't like, and nothing else.
We all have a right to speak. None of us have a right to be heard.
Kate says:
"Some speech can be defended and others cannot. We are (all?) are guaranteed our freedom of speech;.."
Obviously, the right to free speech has it's limits if some of it can not be defended (in a court of law).
Kate says: "Freedom of speech relates to the government - not GEICO."
Not sure what your point is on this one. One can speak about the government, GEICO, Savage, Starbucks, you name it.
To ask or demand that any speech be sanctioned is where the issue of "rights" come in to play.
If GEICO started losing money because of Savage's speech, then GEICO should choose to pull it's advertising. Supply and demand. No demand, no supply.
Threats made to GEICO that they will lose money because of Savage's speech changes the playing field. No demand due to sanctions (boycotts, tarriffs, taxes, government control) leads to different results and consequences.
No, it's about drawing a line in the sand. Michael Savage reminds me of that priest many years ago, standing in Boston, screaming about the Jews.
It's not okay to say these things about Muslims. It's not okay to say these things about anyone.
I "don't like" Paris Hilton. I "don't like" Oasis. I "don't like" evening news programs.
This is different.
Our Bill of Rights protects us against a powerful government. If the gov't throws us in jail for speaking out, it's a freedom of speech issue. If GEICO pulls out because they don't want to lose customers - it's called a successful boycott.
Power to the people and all that good stuff.
Works for me if it works for them.
I wonder how many customers will drop GEICO.
Power to the people is what is.
if you don't like what savage is saying - turn the dial -- to rush or hannity or some other clear thinking guy/woman.
Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it."
That said, I, without tongue-in-cheek, appreciate the Savages, Limbaughs, Hannity's and the rest of the Fox people because their vitriol--and I have the right to call it that--has finally caused the rise of sensible voices like Keith, Chris, Dan, Air America and my beloved daughter-in-law. So, thank you all of you on the extreme radical right, because, without you, we would not have the sensible voices of the latter aforementioned. (I used the word "latter" so that those of you who can't understand English unless spoken out of the "right" side of your mouth would know I refer to Keith and his ilk, not Savage and the rest of the savages. According to Voltaire, I'm allowed to say that. Will you defend my right to say it?)
Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it."
That said, I, without tongue-in-cheek, appreciate the Savages, Limbaughs, Hannity's and the rest of the Fox people because their vitriol--and I have the right to call it that--has finally caused the rise of sensible voices like Keith, Chris, Dan, Air America and my beloved daughter-in-law. So, thank you all of you on the extreme radical right, because, without you, we would not have the sensible voices of the latter aforementioned. (I used the word "latter" so that those of you who can't understand English unless spoken out of the "right" side of your mouth would know I refer to Keith and his ilk, not Savage and the rest of the savages. According to Voltaire, I'm allowed to say that. Will you defend my right to say it?)
I guess my passion caused my comment to list twice. Maybe a higher power heard my voice and decided that a double dose of it was needed for my "friends" in low places
The great robinski is on to something.
The same point was being made by the one signing in with some "Credence".
I don't give a rat's ass about any of the previous aforemenioned or the later aforementioned. In my opinon, which I only owe to myself, they are all trying to make money, and without each "side", they wouldn't make as much.
Every body enjoys trashing opposition, but without it, the game can't be played.
Talk up your side or talk down the other side. But to try to stop either is so un-Voltaire, mon frere.
Without you, there is no pas de deux.
Look, from what I've heard of him I don't like Savage in the very least. Not because of his politics which are all over the map. Rather, because his style is to agressively expectorate a stream of consciousness in a stimulus/response manner that gives no evidence of forethought and evaporates any credibility. I would sooner take offense to the ramblings of others who are mentally unbalanced or chemically addicted.
That said, the issue isn't black and white. Those who practice that brand of absolution and protection of anything considered "in the name of one's faith" from even the slightest counterattack, will soon find themselves facing the same fate as the inhabitants of the kingdom on mountain of "One Tin Soldier" fame.
Bringing religion into an argument isn't always beyond the pale, and in many instances, it is critical; particularly when the subject was first broached by those holding the opposing viewpoint. I refuse to give anyone who has taken it upon themselves to assume the role of combatant to me any pockets of sanctuary or Trojan Horses. I will go after everything that you hold dear which you have clearly stated are the catalysts for your actions.
I also give preemptive absolution to anyone who is unfairly and egregiously attacked by another who might purport to share the same faiths or philosophies as do I. When you are being pummeled by a book whose similarities to my good book begin and end with their text and title, feel free to attack that book and that religion. It may very well be a philosophy or belief that is held by the entirety of that faith and should rise or fall on its own. I use as an example those "churches" formed over the years by white racist organizations. When they pull out their "good book" should I expect anyone to go guns down? Most certainly not.
The entree of religion reference in order to support an argument should be able to stand on its on merit. Believe it or not, there are actually religious tenets that aren't all bad like that "thou shalt not kill" thing.
Continuing, even if someone who purports to belong to the exact church or faith as I and appropriates my religion and uses it as justification to mete out what I believe is hatred, violence or exploitation of the weak, you are well within your right to attack anything in my church that they have commandeered to reach their objective. I am smart enough and wise enough to know that in many instances, even if the counterattacker doesn't realize it, they are going after an adulterated brand of my religion and so I don't take offense. It should also move the religion in question to act to resolve the issue, as they are the ones with the most power to do so.
Just as with the laws pertaining to self-defense - the individual, individuals, community, or nation that feels as though it has been targeted in the name of religion, should feel free to use force that is limited to what is necessary to end the attack.
Savage could have done the same thing with other religious books and found things that are absurd, however, in most instances the followers of those scriptures would agree that the many passages are outdated, arcane or no longer followed. Others are just harmless traditions. However, the book Savage pointed to is still taken literally by many and has been used by individuals as their right to attack, oppress, kill, maim both their enemies, whether they are actual, perceived or manufactured, as well as their followers, females in particular. Savage wasn't going after the religion, he was going after the warped view by some of that religion's followers. He wasn't calling on harm to be done to anyone because they believed in anything, he was attacking those who believed that their religion called for and encouraged the obliteraton of other religions and nations, for no other reason than "those infidels aren't us."
When my religion is under attack, which it has been on occasion, I first explore whether the allegations are valid by looking inward to see if my church needs to get its house in order. If that is the case, I encourage and support the condemnation of those who lay claim to my faith and who have brought such retribution to our doorstep.
No, sorry on this one, all is fair game when followers allow their religion to be used for violence as a result of their complacency or tacit, passive or active support. In such instances members allow for a proliferation of a host of reprehensible acts by their extreme and the guilty shouldn't be given the luxury of whipping out the "religious card" to forward their hate and then whip it out again when their religious logic, or illogic, is held up to the light of civilized society.
Adam's Professor
"Stay here, work and go to college. Let the stupid people die."
That's what my son's supervisor told him. That pearl of wisdom came after my boy expressed his desire to join the military and stand-up for what he believes in.
"Didn't you say your father is in the National Guard? He's doing his part, so you don't have to."
My son said, "That's what his father told him."
"Isn't it time someone learned, then?"
Clearly, my son has learned . He learned that sometimes, sacrifice is neccessary. Sometimes, people must put themselves second. Sometimes, good people die. All the while, ignorant people are falling over themselves to call the sacrifice "stupid."
Who's stupid, I wonder?
Maybe it's the person who uses the term, "Bush's pawns." As if we joined the military because we can't think for ourselves : " Please help! I have this gun and this contract but I don't know what to do! Can you help me? After all, you went to college on Daddy's dime! You're so much smarter than me. Can you teach me?"
Perhaps the stupid person is the one who feels the need to "educate" me.
I suppose we're to believe that the men and women of the military can't think for themselves. Somehow, we've all been duped. In short, we're stupid. You know, "pawns."
Speaking for myself, and my friends, I can honestly say, that isn't correct. We do what we do because we believe in the cause. It isn't our fault that you don't agree. It also doesn't make us stupid. It certainly doesn't make you smarter. Trust funds and Daddy's frat connections only get you so far.
We do what we do, because unlike our detractors, we're not arrogant. We don't hold ourseves above others. We actually believe that we have a duty to something besides ourselves.
How quaint. How old-fashioned. How stupid.
By the way, if the time comes that my wife covers the blue star in the window with gold . . .
I hope that someone has the courage to tell her that my sacrifice was "stupid." I hope that my son is standing next to her when that happens.
Guess I'll always be a "stupid pawn."
Excuse me, the man is in a KKK ROBE. Does anyone really expect him to treat people like equals? Look how he has treated the AUTISTIC COMMUNITY.
He'd support stopping all inclusion with regular classes. Never mind that the majority of parents (WHO YOU DO NOT HEAR ABOUT ... MYSELF INCLUDED) hold their children to be completely ACCOUNTABLE for their actions.
Never mind that it's far cheaper to educate the children now, rather than throwing them in STATE RUN INSTITUTIONS later.
According to Savage we're running a racket.
Neither I or my children are collecting government benifits, as a matter of fact; I REFUSED government benifits for myself and my children.
Instead I pay out of pocket for the councilling etc...
Yet according to Savage ...... WE do not deserve to be included in HUMANITIES number.
Savage is a BIGOT pure and simple. And yes, he and the organizations which he represents BEARS WATCHING.
Post a Comment
<< Home