"Savage Nation"

[mousecrazy 2]

Treason has an actual legal definition, is a crime, and has legal consequences. It is not interchangeable with libel and slander. If this is the "prison or death" consequences referred to...it is difficult to prove treason, although it has been done in the past. I doubt words spoken by talking heads on tv or radio would rise to the level of that charge. Words used by elected officials, however, might. Still, it is a very difficult charge to prove.

If treason is overstated on my part, please consider the statement one of political satire.

If you would like to conduct a comparative study of murderers, just to put things into sharper focus, since things sometimes seem so fuzzy, try looking into the actions of suicide bombers. Clearly, they are murderers. Saddam Hussein was a murderer, both directly and indirectly. No convoluted reasoning necessary. Clear as day. The creatures who filmed themselves beheading our American journalists are murderers. Again, clear as day. Blood right on their hands and all over their clothes.

If some of the conservative and ultra-conservative commentators/writers take extremes to make points, it is a tactic used just as often by writers on the liberal side. Surely, there can be agreement on that. I happen to like the ones who agree more closely with my political views; liberals like liberal writers, even when extreme at times. What's the big deal here? This just doesn't seem like a newsflash moment. Air America, Hardball, etc...they have the same effect on the right that Coulter, Hannity, et al have on the left.

[anonemouse 1]

If you would like to conduct a comparative study of murderers, just to put things into sharper focus, since things sometimes seem so fuzzy, try looking into the actions of suicide bombers. Clearly, they are murderers. Saddam Hussein was a murderer, both directly and indirectly. No convoluted reasoning necessary. Clear as day. The creatures who filmed themselves beheading our American journalists are murderers. Again, clear as day. Blood right on their hands and all over their clothes.

And we still call bin Laden a murderer for ordering the 9/11 attacks, don't we? Even though he didn't actually fly one of the planes, he is still responsible for the deaths.

Treason has an actual legal definition, is a crime, and has legal consequences. It is not interchangeable with libel and slander.

Then I have to ask why you used the term "treasonous" instead of "libelous" or "slanderous" in the first place, since you know it has no bearing at all.

If some of the conservative and ultra-conservative commentators/writers take extremes to make points, it is a tactic used just as often by writers on the liberal side. Surely, there can be agreement on that. I happen to like the ones who agree more closely with my political views; liberals like liberal writers, even when extreme at times. What's the big deal here? This just doesn't seem like a newsflash moment. Air America, Hardball, etc...they have the same effect on the right that Coulter, Hannity, et al have on the left.

I'm not saying that writers and commentators on the left can't be offensive, but we aren't accusing people of treason or advocating their imprisonment or death. That would be the commentators on the right. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? At least, that's what you probably tell your kids. Essentially saying, "Well, the people on the left do it, so we are automatically excused" doesn't fly. People should be morally obligated to object when they hear something that is outragous and morally offensive no matter what side the person saying it or writing it is on.

[anonemouse 1]

Back to Michael Savage, this is something I found on Wikipedia:

Savage was hired by MSNBC president Erik Sorenson to do a one-hour show beginning March 8, 2003, despite Savage's previous slamming of the network in his book The Savage Nation, where he calls it "More Snotty Nonsense By Creeps" and calls anchor Ashleigh Banfield "the mind-slut with a big pair of glasses that they sent to Afghanistan...She looks like she went from porno into reporting."[17] Reportedly, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw objected to hiring Savage, asking NBC executives, "Is this the sort of man who embodies the values of NBC?"[18]

Four months later, on July 7, he was fired after remarks made in response to a caller, later identified as prank caller Bob Foster. Savage was doing an "Airline Horror Stories" piece, when Foster called in to his show to talk about undercover security guards smoking in the bathroom. Foster continued, "half-hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike should take your show so you can go to the dentist because your teeth are really bad." The words after "should" were bleeped out by an MSNBC executive. Savage then asked if Foster was a "sodomite," to which the caller answered "Yes." Savage then said to the caller:

"Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get

AIDS

and die, you pig, how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage, you got nothing better to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get

trichinosis

. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls? I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages."

[19]

The show then cut to a video of two people grilling sausages to the tune of "The Marines' Hymn."[18]

The man's disgusting.

[anonemouse 1]

Here is the entire Wikipedia article.

[mousecrazy 2]

Well, it's bedtime. It is interesting that some people find Savage disgusting. Alert the media. Oops. That would be pointless.

Seriously, I've tried really hard, I promise, to point out that there are some on the left and the right who cross certain lines...that I'm not necessarily excusing any of them...that I happen to be apt to like the ones I agree with...I am aware that not everyone sees things from the same perspective.

I am sorry, Laurend, that there is someone on the radio you deem to be disgusting. I bet some people think Howard Stern is disgusting, and could quote articles all day long about him, but what's the point?

I just love tolerance and diversity...especially when I agree with it.

Leatha, glad you found Savage. I have confidence that you will be able to enjoy the parts you want, and figure out for yourself when he's too much for you. It's great to be able to reason things out for yourself! Good for you!

[anonemouse 1]

You know, if you don't like the thread, there is a little arrow pointing backwards at the top of the page. No one is forcing you to reply.

Seriously, I've tried really hard, I promise, to point out that there are some on the left and the right who cross certain lines...that I'm not necessarily excusing any of them...that I happen to be apt to like the ones I agree with...I am aware that not everyone sees things from the same perspective.

You may not be excusing them, but you sure aren't accusing them of treason, either.

I am sorry, Laurend, that there is someone on the radio you deem to be disgusting. I bet some people think Howard Stern is disgusting, and could quote articles all day long about him, but what's the point?

The point is to discuss. You know, that thing people usually do on message boards.

Leatha, glad you found Savage. I have confidence that you will be able to enjoy the parts you want, and figure out for yourself when he's too much for you. It's great to be able to reason things out for yourself! Good for you!

This also means that you should see exactly what the man is being accused of. Of course, his webpage is going to fawn all over him. That's why multiple sources are usually used when people are trying to make a decision about something. That's why I posted the Wikipedia link. It's a good polar opposite to the man's show webpage. I'm not saying that you should take everything you see there as gospel, but you should weigh it against what his personal page said.

[L8BloomR 1]

I try to stay off these political threads because they usually follow a very predictable pattern: Someone on the left (usually) starts a thread slamming someone or something on the right (or perceived to be), then someone on the right takes the bait and tries to explain or defend the thing being slammed. Then more left-wingers enter to make accusations about Pres. Bush and/or various other Republicans and their beliefs (or their intelligence) while making statements they believe to be facts, and then more right-wingers respond to say they disagree and to give their version of the facts, etc., etc. Can't anyone see that one person's "facts" are another person's "fiction", and vice-versa?? Why must hatred or distrust of the other side take precedence over your respect for the other's right to hold and believe views you don't agree with? I am trying hard to be fair-mined, but it seems to me that those on the left spend more time trying to put down the other side's viewpoint, while those on the right seem to spend their time defending the subject of the thread and their right to have their own opinion. You on the left, of course, will disagree with what I just wrote, and that is OK. You can have your opinion and I have my opinion, based on reading many, too many, of these threads. I just don't get why these threads keep starting....nothing ever gets solved because it CAN'T. If it could, there would not be 2 major political parties, umteen minor ones, and a gazillion differing points of view. But then again, that is only my opinion.....

[anonemouse 1]

I just don't get why these threads keep starting....nothing ever gets solved because it CAN'T.

Because it is interesting discussion. I, for one, find other people's views interesting, even if I think they are completely wrong. Why does something have to be solved? Why can't we just discuss and argue for the fun of it?

I am trying hard to be fair-mined, but it seems to me that those on the left spend more time trying to put down the other side's viewpoint, while those on the right seem to spend their time defending the subject of the thread and their right to have their own opinion.

I don't think we try to "put down" others' beliefs. Most of us do expect them to be able to defend them with logical arguments, though. And I still haven't seen a logical argument for accusing people of treason or supporting the people that do.

Your statement follows what happens to those of us on the left, also. Those of you on the right aren't the only ones who have to spend their time defending the subject of the thread and their right to have their own opinion. Or haven't you read all the posts in this thread?

Then more left-wingers enter to make accusations about Pres. Bush and/or various other Republicans and their beliefs (or their intelligence) while making statements they believe to be facts, and then more right-wingers respond to say they disagree and to give their version of the facts, etc., etc. Can't anyone see that one person's "facts" are another person's "fiction", and vice-versa??

A fact is a fact is a fact, and it can never be fiction. Facts can be proven. In Bush's case, he mislead the country. That is a fact, and they have directly admitted it. Thousands of troops are dead because he mislead us. He didn't pull the triggers or plant the bombs, but those people would not be dead if he hadn't tricked us into attacking Iraq. The moniker of "liar and murderer" might be completely subjective, but his actions aren't.

[L8BloomR 1]

Because it is interesting discussion. I, for one, find other people's views interesting, even if I think they are completely wrong. Why does something have to be solved? Why can't we just discuss and argue for the fun of it?

I didn't know you were having "fun"...it seemed like things were getting a bit heated. But hey, if you are having fun, go for it!

I don't think we try to "put down" others' beliefs. Most of us do expect them to be able to defend them with logical arguments, though. And I still haven't seen a logical argument for accusing people of treason or supporting the people that do.

So much time has been spent on that word "treason", said by one pundit, yet other words get thrown around from the left that don't seem to bother anyone there. No one is going to jail, no one is being threatened.... it is just a word, like "liar", "murderer", etc.

Your statement follows what happens to those of us on the left, also. Those of you on the right aren't the only ones who have to spend their time defending the subject of the thread and their right to have their own opinion. Or haven't you read all the posts in this thread?

I read every post; I don't pick and choose. I am noticing a pattern. Since you started a post slamming someone, I am seeing others defend him or his right to say what he says. And watching the left trash them for their opinions. That is all.

A fact is a fact is a fact, and it can never be fiction. Facts can be proven. In Bush's case, he mislead the country. That is a fact, and they have directly admitted it. Thousands of troops are dead because he mislead us. He didn't pull the triggers or plant the bombs, but those people would not be dead if he hadn't tricked us into attacking Iraq. The moniker of "liar and murderer" might be completely subjective, but his actions aren't.

These are not facts.... Since there is ample proof (and video) of Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Hilliary Clinton, etc., etc., claiming that Saddam and Iraq was a threat, that he had used WMD to kill millions of his own people, I do not think Bush misled the country. If you listen to all sides of this, and to other news sources other than your usual ones, you would hear what we hear.... and see the tapes and transcripts of other conversations beyond what the liberal press prints. So what is "fact" to you is not the same to me. I can send links showing why Bush and Blair thought they had to deal with Saddam....even the U.N. thought he was a threat. So while to you it may be "cut and dried", to me it is not. So whose "fact" is right? We can do tit for tat all night. It still won't change anything at the end of the day....

Anyway, you are entitled to how you feel.... so am I. Again, if you are having fun, party on! As for me, I am going to bed now... tomorrow comes too early! :notagree

[gailannr 1]

Everything having been said. Is everyone still happily losing weight?

[Fauxnaif 1]

Hillary being a Liberal is a myth. I lived in NY and her voting record in the Senate and the bills she sponsored show that she is not a Liberal. She has won over many of the Independents and even some of the Republican voters from the predominately Republican areas of upstate NY and Long Island.

I am a Liberal. Neither Hillary nor Bill Clinton are Liberals.

Absolutely right. Neither of the Clintons are very liberal at all. Maybe a bit left of center but not enough for me!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Since everyone is debating facts vs opinions, let me state that the following is my opinion:

Both celebrities on the Left and on the Right say things that are offensive.

Celebrities on the Right usually say things that are offensive to people on the Left.

Celebrities on the Left usually say things that are offensive to people on the Right.

Sometimes celebrities on the Left or on the Right say things that are offensive to everyone.

I think most of us can agree with the above opinions.

I think were the divergence comes into play is when LBT members state that there are two differences.

#1. Many of the celebrities on the Right are comedians pretending to be journalists, while the celebrities on the Left are people that admit that they are comedians. And I would hope that words of comedians would not be taken at face value as those of a journalist would.

#2. Some of the celebrities on the Right are calling for penalties for not only celebrities on the left, but for protesters and elected officials, or anyone else who speaks out against the BuSh regime.

My commentary; some questions:

Can you imagine what this country would become if and when people were afraid to speak, lest they me thrown in jail?

Could you imagine what would happen if part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is used to hold sympathizers of terrorists in jail without charges? (BTW, that would mean sympathizers of accused terrorists, or sympathizers of sympathizers of accused terrorists, since it would not have to proved that the accused terrorist is a terrorist until after they torture him into admitting that he was a terrorist, whether he was one or not.)

Where was the outcry from Republicans and those on the Right when Bill Clinton was called a pig on the floor of the House of Representatives?

Where was the outcry from Republicans and those on the Right when Bill Clinton was called a murderer of 56 people (x-colleagues and political opponents) by a popular Internet site?

Do we need to respect the President only when he is a Republican?

Is it Treason to disagree with the President only when he is a Republican?

[BJean 16]

TOM: The answer to your last two questions is a resounding YES!

I know this because I have read all the political threads here and I know exactly what we need to do. We need to shut up and back our president whether he is right or wrong. Even when he and his people admit that they were wrong in going to war because Hussein was hiding WMD, because like everyone was telling them, there were no hidden WMDs, we still need to state unequivocally that Bush was right for going to war. We need to support our president for holding people who haven't been charged with any crime. We need to support our president when we learn that he has been involved in influencing the Attorney General to fire anyone who goes against anything the president wants. We need to support our president when he abuses the power that he talked the Congress into giving him. We need to support the president in all matters. There are no exceptions. ALL of Bush's decisions are worthwhile, worthy of our admiration and praise because he is a good Christian and he has this country's best interests at heart.

Yeah, and I have a great little piece of land I'd like to sell them in Florida.:heh:

[missy4gordon 0]

Since everyone is debating facts vs opinions, let me state that the following is my opinion:

Both celebrities on the Left and on the Right say things that are offensive.

Celebrities on the Right usually say things that are offensive to people on the Left.

Celebrities on the Left usually say things that are offensive to people on the Right.

Sometimes celebrities on the Left or on the Right say things that are offensive to everyone.

I think most of us can agree with the above opinions.

Wow, I actually agree with you on that one....

I think were the divergence comes into play is when LBT members state that there are two differences.

#1. Many of the celebrities on the Right are comedians pretending to be journalists, while the celebrities on the Left are people that admit that they are comedians. And I would hope that words of comedians would not be taken at face value as those of a journalist would.

I have a problem with this one though...so celebrities can say whatever they want because they can pass it off as comedy, BUT a journalist can't make any jokes because they are not comedians??? PUH-LEASE!!!

Bill Mahr can say that Cheney should die, but it is passed off as comedy, but when Ann Coulter makes a joke about an "f" word, that is extremely offensive and creates incredible uproar. (Now, I don't like what she said and am not saying it shouldn't have caused an uproar, but the same should be said for Bill too.) Why shouldn't comedians be held responsible for their words too??? They can't always hide behind their title of comedian because it's obvious their remarks are anything but comedy, they are dead serious.....IMHO

[L8BloomR 1]

TOM: The answer to your last two questions is a resounding YES!

I know this because I have read all the political threads here and I know exactly what we need to do. We need to shut up and back our president whether he is right or wrong. Even when he and his people admit that they were wrong in going to war because Hussein was hiding WMD, because like everyone was telling them, there were no hidden WMDs, we still need to state unequivocally that Bush was right for going to war. We need to support our president for holding people who haven't been charged with any crime. We need to support our president when we learn that he has been involved in influencing the Attorney General to fire anyone who goes against anything the president wants. We need to support our president when he abuses the power that he talked the Congress into giving him. We need to support the president in all matters. There are no exceptions. ALL of Bush's decisions are worthwhile, worthy of our admiration and praise because he is a good Christian and he has this country's best interests at heart.

Yeah, and I have a great little piece of land I'd like to sell them in Florida.:heh:

Ohmygoodness.... where on earth do you see any post saying this...that we should always back our president in everything.... ALL his decisions, etc.?? I don't find that here or on any thread. Just because some of us choose to support Bush in many things, doesn't mean we never are unhappy with his choices or that we agree with everything he does. Hopefully, you do the same when the president in power is one YOU voted for!! Please, these kinds of statements, these sweeping generalities, do not help a debate. No one is trying to force anyone to like all things Bush does or is. But to hate or dispise him for everything is also wrong....