Yes, it is kind of perplexing, isn’t it? I mean, why would liberals dislike a guy like Michael Savage just because he hates “liberals, gays, academics, the homeless, the Clintons, immigrants, feminists, CNN, the American Civil Liberties Union, Muslims and other minorities”? Oh, wait a minute…
You’re right that he does seem to be rather nicely dressed, though.
Liberals hate all those people as well when they have a different view than they do.
Well, considering that the very CAIR article that I linked to was what prompted Savage to sue them for copyright infringement in the first place (in a slipshod case that was thrown out of court), I don’t think you can reasonably claim that the writing of the article was affected by Savage’s lawsuit. Unless you’re trying to argue that CAIR had access to a time machine. (Oh, those wily Muslims! What will they think up next??)
Really? Which of the quotes in that link do you consider “out of context”, and what do you think is the correct context for them? What, for example, is the correct context for Savage’s claim about Muslim immigrants that “90% of them are on welfare”? In what way can you “contextualize” that statement to make it anything other than a factually untrue and hate-filled slur?
By the way, the linked site does provide extended audio clips of Savage’s own statements, if you want to compare what they said about Savage’s remarks with the remarks themselves. I’d certainly be very interested in seeing your cites for remarks by Savage that are in fact “very different” from the vicious anti-Muslim rage that he’s gone on record with.
Oh, I see. So then why does Michael Savage hate liberals, if in fact they hate all the same people he does?
Don’t know, don’t really care. Many neocons actually *were * liberals 10-15 years ago.
I fail to see the difference between out of context quotes and out of context sounds bites. - out of context is out of context.
As for the 90% quote - I could only provide information if I had heard such a claim, which I haven’t, and to my knowledge this is not an actual show archive available.
All I’m saying if one is basing their opinion solely on someone else’s review, or a CAIR attack, then you may be short changing yourself.
You are mistaken. Many neocons were Trotskyite socialists, more than 30 years ago. (Trotskyites being distinguished by their anti-Sovietism, they allied with RWs on that point and gradually swung around to being a form of RWs themselves.) Which has given rise to some interesting controversy, some neocons denying the neocons even exist. See here, here, here, here, and here. Judge for yourself. Lind, at any rate, is a highly respected intellectual figure and not known for gullibility about anything, least of all conspiracy theories.
Of course, it is better, at any rate, to be a psychotic neocon than an ignorant Pat Buchananite paleocon.
I think you confuse the stature of some of the more notorious neocons as being a metric to gauge neocons as a whole. Big mistake. It wasn’t until the tail end of the Reagan years they grew in any significant numbers. They have been numerically in flux since then, but not in magnitude.
Quite the logic fallacy you are playing with here, as your last paragraph indicates you label them as former socialists, even going as far as supplying an explicit date of “conversion”. So do you not believe yourself, or do you think I’m gonna bite on a red herring? How about both? Yap.
Wow, nonsequitur and ad-hominem. Good improvement. Soon you will be up to 5-6 logical fallacies in a single sentence.
I believe many neocons started out as anti-Stalinist leftists, which is well documented, and that that experience has shaped the form and style and content of their RW politics, and that of the whole neocon movement (including neocons who never were anything else), but nevertheless they are definitly RWs now.
Well, the claim is presented in the audio recording available in the article I already linked to. You can listen to it yourself, or you can read my transcription of that excerpt, as follows:
It’s mighty convenient for you to claim that it’s impossible to evaluate any of Savage’s anti-Muslim remarks without examining the (unavailable) entire show in which they were made, on the grounds that they’re “out of context”. Suit yourself, but ISTM that remarks like the above speak for themselves. Do you seriously imagine that there’s a conceivable “context” in which such statements would appear to be anything other than hate-filled, inflammatory bigotry?
I’m basing my opinion on reading and listening to things that Savage actually said. (In fact, even the short linked article that you describe as “a CAIR attack” consists primarily of lengthy quotes from Savage himself.) And the more I encounter what Savage actually said, the more feeble your “well, but he’s being taken out of context” defense looks. For example, I invite you to contextualize this:
“Uncoupling”?
I’m sure it just means “voluntary reformation and re-dedication to the support of true civil liberties”. If we could only hear it in context.
Savage does say things that one would not generally hear. Not saying he is right or wrong, but I do think he has the right to speak his mind (whatever shape it may be in). I’m not here to say he never goes off the deep end, but unless you have heard the entire show related to a comment or statement, it’s almost impossible to venture on how he ended up in those waters. That’s just the way his show is.
As I stated early on, along with his primary creed of preserving borders, language, & culture - he also has other strong views that many find objectionable. Those views & opinions still do not merit being included on a list of murderers and terrorist.
My dad sent me Savage’s book, The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military a few years ago. I’d never heard of the guy before that.
I made an attempt to read it in good faith. I made it about 15 pages in before I couldn’t stand it any more and started logging page numbers and responses to his bullshit. There were distortions, factual errors, and ridiculously venomous characterizations of anything he didn’t agree with on nearly every page. The few sources he mentions for support of his arguments are complete garbage. I never finished the book. It wasn’t even worth the effort I’d put into it at that point.
Some excerpts chosen from the center chunk of my reading notes:
*pg. 65; No, Wasserman test was dispensed with because the cost/benefit was way too low, not because of new permissiveness in the 60’s. In California, the requirement to get a blood test as a requirement for marriage was discontinued in 1994.
pg. 67; Is he a fucking idiot? Illegal aliens cannot vote! How could any politician be catering to a demographic that cannot legally vote for them? He’s against providing even basic health care like TB treatments for people who might become the source for a TB epidemic in a populous border state like California? Does he not understand the basic concepts of disease prevention? It makes financial good sense too since you spend less treating a few rather than screening and treating a huge number of people. Stop problems at the source.
pg. 68; I don’t know where he’s getting this shit about the ACLU and the supposed special treatment of immigrants. He drags in totally unrelated stuff like anti-discrimination rules on hiring. What the fuck does that have to do with health care?
pg. 71; Seriously, I find it hard to believe this guy has a PhD in Epidemiology. Some of the bullshit he’s talking about was debunked in my basic health courses in college. The Coming Plague is used as an Epi. text book. It’s full of facts that flatly contradict just about everything he says about infectious diseases.*
I don’t talk to my dad about religion, science, or politics for very good reasons.
Do you really think illegals are not a significant voting block in this country? :rolleyes:
Why do you think the politicians fight to keep from having voter ID laws put in place?
Uh, yeah. I really think illegals are not a significant voting block in this country.
And I think that a significant portion of our political spectrum, the one from the center towards the past, would like to make it as troublesome and difficult to vote as they can get away with, 'cause the more hassle it is to vote, the fewer poor people will do it.
This is really kind of hilarious. I invite you to put yourself in the dirty, illegal shoes of a lawbreaking immigrant. Bear in mind, you are a scofflaw and an illegal, a criminal! You face deportation if you end up on the radar of the government. Yet in order to exert your 7.69230769 × 10^-9 influence on the outcome of the election, you voluntarily put your name and address on a registration form, and then present yourself to an election judge *as a citizen *in a room with a few partisan lawyers of all stripes taking a hard look at every shady situation.
Yes, I am certain that this is epidemic.
