Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Michael Savage makes no bones about his antipathy towards, uh, well, I better choose my words carefully here. Because no matter what you think about Savage's views on American attitudes and policies towards Muslims, both extremist and otherwise, both here and abroad, one thing's for sure: he's got some extremely well organized opponents. To wit, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has members throughout the U.S. listening in to his show to identify Savage's local advertisers, as part of their ongoing campaign to pressure the show's sponsors to withdraw. Automobile recently published CAIR's most recent press release, which takes AutoZone to task for allowing ads for the chain to appear on The Savage Nation. Apparently, it was a slip-up. A spokesman declared that "AutoZone has a 'Do Not Air' policy against the Michael Savage show and that has been in place for over 6 years now." When TTAC contacted CAIR and asked what automotive-related companies advertise on the program, they named Hyundai, Tom-Tom GPS and GM's OnStar. We'll see if CAIR's campaign forces a retreat…
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Never heard the guy, so I don’t pretend to know his schtick, but I can read between the carefully worded lines.
Are there enough Muslims in the US to matter? Given what is going on with Islamic extremists all over the world, advertisers may find it beneficial to be perceived as anti-Islam!
Hey, thanks for the tip. I’ll steer clear of AutoZone.
Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam.I wont be doing business with companies who cave in to CAIR
I like Savage, first real radio talk show I started listening too. Not as good as Russ Martin, but you gotta hear him to understand.
“Are there enough Muslims in the US to matter? Given what is going on with Islamic extremists all over the world, advertisers may find it beneficial to be perceived as anti-Islam!”
“Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam.I wont be doing business with companies who cave in to CAIR”
I really don’t know what to say to this, other than saying that it makes me sad that fellow car nuts have so much hatred towards me for something I had nothing to do with.
dean:
Are there enough Muslims in the US to matter?
My personal assistant and a fair number of my clients are Muslim, so my answer is: Damn right, there are.
FINANCEGUY :
November 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam.I wont be doing business with companies who cave in to CAIR
Uhhh…what fight against Islam? You mean the fight against Iraqi nationalists, or the one against fundamentalist terrorists? It’s sort of hard to wage a military war against religious beliefs.
FINANCEGUY:
Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam
So we’re at war with all of Islam now? That’s well over a billion people, last I heard. Could get a little ugly.
I know nothing about CAIR or Savage, but I bought enough WELLS products and lifetime warranty alternators from Autozone to know not buy anything from there. Other than brand name oil and chemicals, that is.
Savage is full of malarkey. He’s a spigot from which hate and vitriol spews for the amusement of his ever-shrinking audience.
Savage goes too far in his rhetoric – CAIR has a point – although I’d like to know who else CAIR boycotts. (There’s a lot of wackos on the radio – both right and left…)
“FINANCEGUY :
November 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam.I wont be doing business with companies who cave in to CAIR”
Hey FinanceGuy, i guess you did not hear that your presidunce in chief says it is not a war against Islam. Are you not checking the fax for your talking points?
Clean
Waht about all the Christian Extremists? Should we boycott business who serve them?
Waht about all the Christian Extremists? Should we boycott business who serve them?
To which Christian Extremists are you referring? I don’t know how many Muslims are terrorists, but I do know that none of the major Muslims leaders with any real power have denounced terrorism. Many of them are in favor of the destruction of Israel.
I do know that when people bombed abortion clinics in the name of Christianity, the Pope, Billy Graham, and other leaders of Christianity denounced such acts.
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Omar Ahmad, Chairman Emeritus, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
CAIR is also a front group for Hamas and an unidicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Charity terror funding case. I would have to dig for the polls, but vast majorities of Muslims have not been shown to support CAIR.
In response to Dean, whether there are enough Muslims in the US for Savage’s comments to matter: It doesn’t matter how many or how few Muslims or another group of people there are for an issue to matter. Any such group still has certain rights (i.e. minority rights) and unfounded and baseless comments should not be made. In response to financeguy, though I don’t agree with him, those are his opinions and not proven facts by an independent/unbiased party (about whether CAIR really is funded by or funds *proven* terrorist organizations) – so there’s nothing for me to say to his *opinion*
TexasAg03, if you think Islam has a corner on imperialism, try picking up a history book from somewhere other than the pew of a Christian church.
Frankly, some questions just aren’t very complicated. No matter how convenient it may be for our national leaders’ economic self-interest to whip us all into a xenophobic froth, this is a simple matter of right and wrong. Savage is a bigot for profit, and what he’s doing is wrong. Period.
Idealist that I am, I hope everyone steps forward and renounces bigotry and discrimination. It’s not only immoral, it’s un-American.
Savage is a hater. I could also say, an obnoxious stupid little man.
We can discuss what parts of Islam, especially political Islam, are hateful too. And we can also discuss the pros and cons of boycotts. Farago has plenty to say about how little use, for example, boycotts against South Africa were, I would imagine. But let’s be civilized about it. And let’s not get in the boat with people who have open contempt for civilized society.
People boycotted South Africa? What for?
# FINANCEGUY :
November 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Savage has it right on CAIR and on our fight against Islam. I wont be doing business with companies who cave in to CAIR
I’d rather be talking about cars….
But to stay polite, that’s one of the most uninformed posts I’ve read on this forum for quite a while.
This said, I’m not in favour of pressure groups pushing advertisers to withdraw from show x or y, as it works against free speech.
If only more listeners were interested in moderate talk-show hosts instead of all those haters. But I guess that’s asking for too much…
Virtual Insanity – In the 1980s, South Africa was boycotted by many Western nations,and companies ceased operations in South Africa due to the white minority government’s policy of Aparthied, which segregated the blacks, whites, Asians and colored people. Oh, and the white people were the only folks allowed to vote, too. The boycott was designed to make the white minority government fail under economic pressure from sanctions and boycotts, allow free elections for ALL South Africans.
One thing to note: VW, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Nissan and I think maybe Toyota, ALL DID BUSINESS in South Africa even after the US based multinationals Ford and GM divested or sold off thier South African operations.
As for Michael Savage, well, he has a right to free speech, but he does have to face the consequences of it. The problem with any religion is the interepretation of it by human beings, and using it to further personal agenda.
Personally, I prefer DAN Savage. His columns are MUCH more interesting.
Bah, should have made it a bit clearer than that, my appologies. I’m pretty well aware about the whole SA thing. Never really supported it and all. Of course, its hard to support anything that comes with a “Truth and Reconcilliation” trial. Though it is a cool name for a space ship.
I guess I should have said radical Islam which is what I meant..that does not change the fact of
what CAIR stands for which is among other things to use our legal system against us to gain what they cant in armed conflict.Like it or not we are
in a war against people who hate us for our freedoms and way of life to think otherwise is
at the least naive
Free speech folks, free speech. As much as the lefties want to ignore the second amendment, and as much as the rightists want to ignore the first, the fact of the matter is that Savage has a right to say whatever he wants. CAIR can boycott all they like, but if Savage wants to rant, and can afford to rant, let him rant.
Although admittedly, we are at war with a large percentage of the Islamic world AND Michael Savage is a foaming idiot who plays off of emotion and bigotry a la fugly b!tc7 (Ann Coulter).
RegularJoe: In response to Dean, whether there are enough Muslims in the US for Savage’s comments to matter: It doesn’t matter how many or how few Muslims or another group of people there are for an issue to matter. Any such group still has certain rights (i.e. minority rights) and unfounded and baseless comments should not be made.
You misunderstood me. I agree with you vis-a-vis rights. What I meant was: are there enough Muslims in the US that a boycott would have an appreciable effect on the businesses that are boycotted? Any my further point was that such a boycott may have an unintentional beneficial effect for those businesses, given the level of anti-Islamic-fundamentalist sentiment in the western world right now. (And it only increases every time someone comes home in a body bag.)
My original post could have been phrased more clearly, but I deliberately left it muddy in order to be a little controversial.
Why is this site engaging in Politics? it is an Automobile site. Shall we debate Russ L next?
Unfortunately, my earlier post didn’t make it because my connection went down.
My point was that almost everything said on radio or TV offends someone. It won’t be long before this tactic of going after the advertisers and threatening them will cease to work. Soon, all advertisers will start taking a policy of non support which states that they do not support, and are not responsible for anything said on a show just because their ad’s appeared at that time. When this happens, our ability to affect behavior on the airways will be almost destroyed.
At any rate, I noticed that no one here has bothered to point out what Savage has said that offends so much. I always love the whole “hate” thing. I can only suppose that Nezromatron is being sarcastic. There was nothing in that post that was hateful, or likely a result of hate. Seriously.
I can’t listen to Savage, he gives me a headache. However, the Modus Operandi for this sort of thing is for a right wing pundit to take an offensive, but rationally defensible position and watch the lefties explode. They then dig in with logical and factual arguments while the lefties make themselves into idiots trying to argue.
Invariably, the left’s position end’s up being a high school level attack or appeal. In this case CAIR is using the old appeal to be part of the “in crowd”: You don’t want to be one of “them” Mr. advertiser, you want to be with us, don’t you? You don’t want everyone to hate you, do you? Be cool, be one of us.
Being as I can’t stand to listen to the guy could someone help me out here? What’s the REAL argument?
Savage can dish it out but can’t seem to take it. These people are only implementing the policy he would implement. I mean this is a man who wished on air for a caller to get AIDS and die. He files bogus lawsuits against online critics. How the hell is that defensible in any sense?
We live in a free market economy, you can say what you like, but don’t expect to be insulated from the consequences. Has anyone actually read some of his rants, they are really out there.
I mean, here are some choice quotes:
* “I can guarantee you [liberals], you wouldn’t be in business too long. I can guarantee you you’d be arrested for sedition within six months of my taking power. I’d have you people licking lead paint, what you did to this country.”
* “…these big-mouthed, phony scum of the ACLU, who should be rounded up, arrested for sedition. Their property seized, and they should be put into Abu Ghraib prison as far as I’m concerned. That wouldn’t be enough of what I’d like to see done to the ACLU. They’re the worst vermin America has ever tolerated. The worst vermin in the history of America are the vermin in the ACLU.”
This sounds like the work of a rational man. Clearly his positions are logically defensible. Anyone who attacks a man of integrity who makes these statements is certainly just making a high school level attack right?
I do hate it when political debate comes on TTAC and ignore it the best I can.
However, it saddens me to see that what seems like so many intelligent, level-headed people come to the defense of Michael Savage. To argue that he is taking “rationally defensive” positions and dig in with “logic” shows either a lack of knowledge about this specific person or something much worse.
Since many of his defenders admit to listening to very little of his show I can only imagine they feel compelled to defend him out of some conservative-fraternal bond; us vs them, conservative vs liberal, Republicans vs Democrats, etc etc.
I consider myself a traditional conservative (though such strokes are really too broad) in some respects but it is embarrassing to be associated with someone like Michael Savage. He is purposefully offensive and bigoted, he appeals not to rational discourse but the most base emotions and instincts. As Americans, we should all be offended by someone like that.
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
This is weird to say, but Michael Savage is entertainment… he’s not there to educate. If you take him as a pundit the same way you view Anderson Cooper or Brian Williams or Lou Dobbs, I would argue you’re missing the point. He’s more like Anne Coulter, Keith Olberman and Michael Moore – There to stir things up, but not a reliable news source.
As for CAIR, it’s a racist organization that uses double speak to hide it’s real agenda. It’s funded by our “eternal friends, the Saudis” – you know, birth place of 15/19 Sept 11th hijackers.
I recently heard a female Arab Muslim author speak about what needs to happen for the Muslim world to reform. Her short answer: Get the West out of the oil consumption business.
BuckD wrote: “So we’re at war with all of Islam now? That’s well over a billion people, last I heard.”
Where have you been for the past dozen or more years? World Trade Center bombings in 1993, African embassy bombings, USS Cole, Sept. 11, Madrid bombings, London subway bombings, routine executions of Buddhists in southern Thailand or Christians in Indonesia – it’s all there in the public record. Islam declared war on the U.S. in particular, and the west in general, years ago.
Landcrusher wrote:
“At any rate, I noticed that no one here has bothered to point out what Savage has said that offends so much.”
Here is a link to 145 separate quotes, many with audio, made by Savage.
http://www.mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/michaelsavage
Wow,
Only Carlos Negros came even close to a decent answer to my post.
KBW,
Please read my post again. I never said he was rational, or that his position was logically defensible. In response, you never stated his position on Islam, so how can you argue against it. I must be qualified to be a conservative pundit. I put out a logical but offensive position and you threw back a sarcastic ad hominem attack on Savage. He is a nut case, ergo he must be wrong?
Qusus,
You should go ahead and ignore these posts if you want to. Nothing says you can’t skip them. If you are going to respond to me though, please read what I have to say. I never said Savage’s position was rational.
Jkross,
I don’t think you were responding to my post, but I have to point out that “getting the west out of the oil consumption business” is no answer. Oppression can take place with or without oil money.
And finally, Carlos.
As I said in my post, I can’t stand to listen to Savage. I read the tag lines even though I believe Media Matters is a subversive group determined to undermine serious discourse in our country.
I found lot’s of stuff where he equates Arabs with Nazi’s and other crap, but I still do not know his real position. If he did indeed say Arab’s are “non-human”, then that would be offensive. However, is that bombast, or the total summation of his position? I suspect it’s the former.
Seriously folks, I will stipulate that Savage is all sorts of bad things. My point is that no matter how rotten the guy is, he may still be correct. I don’t know who everyone used to compare people to before there were Nazi’s, but I do know that people who told the truth about Nazi’s before WWII were called all sorts of names.
The merit of an idea is seperate from its source. Saint or Satan may speak it, but the idea stands alone. I will not boycott Savage’s sponsors because he calls names. I expect him to call names, and so should anyone who chooses to listen. I reserve my actions to fight people and ideas that are likely to have a serious, negative effect on our lives.
The only people I know that listen to Savage are quite intelligent. Savage is not subverting anyone. He is venting an anger which these people share. Everytime anyone attacks them they only get worse. If the Left started actually showing tolerance at all, Savage’s ratings would indeed drop. Instead, the best the Left can offer is condescension, and that REALLY doesn’t help.
I’m not arguing against his position on Islam in my post, I simply find Savage’s position ironic considering that he called for the use of the very same tactics he now faces. I say nothing about it because its not relevant to my point.
In any case, his position on Islam is indefensible.
SAVAGE: I’d like to see them [Muslim extremists] hanging from lampposts in the entire Middle East. I’d like to see the Muslim world rise up en masse. … [T]hen I as an American will believe — and you know what I’ll believe? I’ll believe there’s a difference between the two. Not until then. Otherwise, until I see that day, that they’re strung up from lampposts, they’re lying to me. And that they’re really secretly getting off on these murderers, because they don’t have the guts to do it themselves. Okay, that’s when I’ll believe in the heart of hearts — when I see them hanging from lampposts, with their guts hanging out, then I’ll believe that there’s a difference between radical Islam and the rest of Islam over there. But if I don’t see that — if I don’t see the massive uprising against them, I can only assume that they’re the shock troops of all of Islam in the Middle East. How do you like that? That’s my opinion. I’m not George Bush running for office, and this message was approved by Michael Savage.
In essence, that is his entire stance. All Muslims are terrorists.
His stance on Muslims is so completely ridiculous that it should not take more than a cursory analysis of his material to discern its nature draw a conclusion. The ideology he is espousing led to some of the darkest chapters of American history with the construction of our very own concentration camps. He is certainly free to espouse his ideas, but he shouldn’t expect advertisers to share his views.
Let’s face it folks. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, left, right, center… even ‘pistonhead’ is a very poor generalization of the completeness of a single human being. Most of us here already realize that. There is simply no depth of character or susbtance in demonizing entire populations. I think we simply out to ignore all of these bastards instead of giving them our time.
The winds of emotion and hate will always be with us unfortunately. But all the rhetoric in the world has never amounted to a hill of beans and besides, I’m far more interested in debating motor oils than political pointlessness.
Landcrusher,
I have no idea if Michael Savage is an unsavory character or not, since I don’t know him personally so I couldn’t make any assumptions about that. If I had to guess I’d say he’s probably not that bad in person and most of his radio personality is an act.
And yes, it’s quite obvious the merit of an idea is separate from it’s source. Presumably, Savage also believes in gravity; and him in believing in it does affect the actual validity of gravity itself. The problem is Savage’s ideas’ aren’t any good either.
Why do you think that Savage is “merely venting anger” and that ignoring him would cause his ratings to decrease? I didn’t realize that simply by ignoring people like Savage he would stop railing against the entirety of Islam. (Though I agree organizations like CAIR probably aren’t helping the matter at all… and I’m not implying anyone should boycott his sponsors in retaliation. I’m only speaking specifically on Savage’s motives and arguments.)
And lastly, I think you would make a rather brilliant commentator. You simultaneously plead ignorance (“I can’t stand listening to Savage so I have no idea what he really means!”) while implicitly endorsing him (“the only people I know who listen to Savage are intelligent! He’s only venting anger! Just ignore him!”) AND manage to blame “the Left” (“by attacking him they only make it worse! They need to show tolerance.”). You’ve really got all your bases covered there, not an easy thing to do at all.
KBW,
It was clear that you were responding to my post. Since my post was about the fact that no one was discussing the position, your new claim to not be commenting about that seems strange.
You now do note his position and mischaracterize it. If you sift through all the anger and bombast his position is not simply that all Muslims are terrorists. His position you quoted appears to be that since all the supposed non-extremist Muslims are doing little or nothing to punish the extremist Muslims, then they must support the actions of the extremists. Since there have been Islamic organizations make very strong statements against terrorism, he is going too far. Still, there is a grain of truth to his point because there really does appear to be a lot of support for the terrorists from many places in the middle east.
The question this raises has to be did CAIR say that they object to his tone or to his challenge of their position on support for terrorists? If they make a public statement against terrorism, and then call for him to retract, they have a good point. However, it seems from other posters here that they are not a tolerant group at all. So it’s nut vs. nuts?
Stephen,
I suppose you don’t remember when Ford vs. Chevy arguments could end in fisticuffs? :)
Qusus,
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I am not nearly bombastic enough to do it full time. I had hoped someone would fall even harder for my Coulter-esque scheme. I used to get mad about that stuff, but now I see it for what it is. It’s a natural reaction to the PC movement. Make a good argument that punches their buttons and watch them make fools of themselves. The brilliant part is that the pundits get their enemies on the left to give them press so that the attacks against the left get heard by even more people. All the while they sell books and get paid to talk on TV and Radio. Brilliant.
You now do note his position and mischaracterize it. If you sift through all the anger and bombast his position is not simply that all Muslims are terrorists. His position you quoted appears to be that since all the supposed non-extremist Muslims are doing little or nothing to punish the extremist Muslims, then they must support the actions of the extremists. Since there have been Islamic organizations make very strong statements against terrorism, he is going too far. Still, there is a grain of truth to his point because there really does appear to be a lot of support for the terrorists from many places in the middle east.
That may be the case, but until evidence of such a position is found, I will stick with my analysis. All of his other statements lead me to the conclusion that a more nuanced position is not to be found. Not with quotes such as:
You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That’s what I see — how do you like that? — a hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children. Don’t give me this crap that they’re doing it out of a sacred ritual or rite. It’s not required by the Quran that a woman walk around in a seventh-century drape. She’s doing it to spit in your face. She’s saying, “You white moron, you, I’m going to kill you if I can.” That’s how I see it! What do you want me to do, mince words with you? I’m not going to mince words. We’re too far gone in this country.
I really don’t see the alternative interpretation here.
The question this raises has to be did CAIR say that they object to his tone or to his challenge of their position on support for terrorists? If they make a public statement against terrorism, and then call for him to retract, they have a good point. However, it seems from other posters here that they are not a tolerant group at all. So it’s nut vs. nuts?
CAIR does not support terrorism.
CAIR coordinated the release of a fatwa (religious pronouncement) that stated in part, “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram or forbidden – and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs.”
In any case, you are quite correct about the merits of an idea being more important than the messenger. It does not really matter who or what CAIR is. The fact of the matter is that Savage’s comments are completely illogical and indefensible. His broad generalizations of Muslims are an affront to anyone with two neurons to rub together. The fact that he has such a larger listener base is frightening and bodes ill for the future of American democracy.
The fact that an ideal can be distorted in the hands of of a sufficiently charismatic person was proven in the last century (i.e. Hitler convinces a Christian country that Jews are subhuman). People need to be aware and educated in order not to become the sheep of ‘evil shepherds’. This applies to Americans and Muslims equally. Those who “choose” to listen to provincial rhetoric are merely choosing to be led for their own entertainment, as accepting ideas that are counter to closely-held beliefs are not as “entertaining”. People are slow to accept ideas that appear to be complex or nebulous, and quick to join the “group think”, as it gives them comfort in a swirling world of ideologies; this is where the battle truly lies — to get enough people on all sides thinking in the “middle ground” on cultural issues. Of course once “black and white” becomes “grey”, this is where the work truly begins. To create a loose connection to the automotive arena: Our energy policy and foreign policy are so interlocked that our purpose in the world has been seen (rightly and wrongly so) as the sworn duty of America to subvert governments, supply regimes freindly to our need for oil with weapons (despite their being “secular”, thus less tolerant of Islam). So, when we “cry foul” because of terrorist attacks, there’s much less sympathy from mainstream Muslims due to our piss-poor reputation in their world. This by no means puts them on the side of terrorism, but their silence is a chilling reminder of “we reap what we sow”. Still, there are surely elements in this country that are avowed to use subversion of the Muslim population to ‘avenge’ our misdeeds — shepherds need sheep.
KBW,
Sounds like we have found middle ground as we agree Savage is a nut. When you point out that my version of his position is nuanced it really frames up many of the shock pundits. They take a really nuanced position and then run around it screaming their heads off. When attacked, they use some verbal jujitsu to retreat to the nuanced postition, parry the attack, and then run back out scream and yelling again. Still, if the posts here are to be believed, CAIR is a propaganda group with a nefarious agenda.
Shaker,
This thread is coming to a close, but your post is enough to break it wide open again.
First, Savage is not charismatic, he grates on the nerves.
As for people needing to be educated, is that code word for indoctrinated? I mean if you are going to follow that thought with the line about how people join group think rather than learn to accept complicated ideas you sound like a fascist yourself. I am a very educated man. Most complicated ideas are false. The truth is usually quite simple. Sometimes reality can be counter intuitive, but it doesn’t take too much explanation to communicate the truth when you know it.
People don’t need to think in the middle ground on cultural issues either. They need to be grounded in an ethical ideology which should include tolerance, but NOT relativism. There are matters that are clearly right and wrong like theft and murder. Customs like dress and table manners are different. Religion gets to be a sticky subject, but let’s not give up our ethics. I may be a Christian, but I don’t give up my opinion of right and wrong to a church. People doing that are at the root of most of our troubles.
As for foreign policy, you overstate your case. Anyone in the world who just wants to focus on our faults is NEVER going to like us. The biggest problem with our foreign policy is the failure to recognize this and act accordingly. The United States has been, and continues to be, the greatest force for good in the history of the world. We are not perfect, but the bar was set damn low.
Finally, your last paragraph makes no sense at all. I suppose I must need to go to an education camp to “get it”.
Landcrusher:
Charismatic: (to his target audience).
Educated: Having enough knowledge to realize that there are as many points of view as there are people and cultures, and that “right and wrong” are situational (although in the extreme cases of theft and murder, the situations narrow considerably, but hey, even our legal system has first, second and third degree levels of murder). Using “right” and “wrong” to forward a flawed agenda or idea seems to be very popular these days.
Religious: Considering one of a differing faith as somehow less deserving of respect and humane treatment is “wrong” (with the possible exception of cannibals, I suppose)
Foreign Policy: We have managed to squander the goodwill earned in WWII; as progeny of the “greatest generation”; we’ve managed to turn the respect that our fathers earned through sacrifce into a reputation of “assumed entitlement”; that somehow the rest of the world can just “f*** off” if they don’t like the way we live.
As to being a fascist (?); all I have is a keyboard and an opinion — but no desire to go any further than commenting in blogs — sometimes the people at my local tavern just won’t play along so I can get this out of my system.
If this set of alternate opinions makes no sense to you, well, different strokes…
And (as many have noted) the “opening up” of TTAC has resulted in some decidedly political commentary; but automobiles (unfortunately) have become political (as well as social) statements lately.
Happy Holidays
shaker
When you point out that my version of his position is nuanced it really frames up many of the shock pundits.
I did no such thing. His positions are as nuanced as a pile of dog excrement. Certainly there may be twists and turns on the exterior of the mound, but that doesn’t change the fact that its still just a pile of turd.
KBW,
I see you what you meant now. Not sure we are really far off on that in reality. I mean to say that my version of his point is more nuanced than his may be in reality. Still, I think most of these guys have EXTREMELY nuanced positions. That’s how the trick works. At the core of their arguments there is always a sound bit which they then expound and flex in strange ways, but when challenged, they often retreat to the core, or they depend on their listeners to do it for them in their minds while they go off on a rant.
Shaker,
Let’s agree to disagree on charisma.
Educated does not, nor has it ever, meant having a belief in situational ethics. Our legal system may have different levels to describe degrees of wrongness, but those things are all still wrong. The motivation to instill situational ethics in the population is so that a ruling class can do whatever it pleases and then justify it with rhetoric. Educated people, going by the real meaning of the word, should not be fooled because they should be able to better judge the rhetoric using a knowledge of history, logic, mathematics, science and philosophy – and REJECT it.
Using right and wrong to justify an agenda is perfectly legitimate. The point is that it is up to the listener to reject the description of right and wrong, and henceforward be skeptical of the source.
Your definition of “religious” is offensive, and incorrect.
Your description of our foreign policy is reactionary, infantile, and incorrect. Just because you are not happy with it you trash it? Perhaps you should use some of your relativism to compare our foreign policy to other countries’, now and in the past. Don’t make better the enemy of good.
Fascist is perhaps not the correct phrase, but you do share a lot of beliefs with those who wish to control others under an oppressive government. Having nothing more than a keyboard is no defense. What did Hitler, Mao and Stalin have when they started? The beliefs you espouse are just the beginning of what inevitibly takes a country down those horrific paths.
Did you read Orwell’s 1984? Animal Farm?
Landcrusher:
UNCLE! UNCLE!
I’ll just stick to automotive topics when possible…
And your “talents” are wasted here, go pick a fight with someone else.
I am properly humbled.
I used to listen to Savage regularly. My favorite segment: Savage’s guest was a spokesman for some antipornography group, and they were talking about how important it was to get porno out of motels where it corrupted “innocent traveling salesmen”. A caller sweet-talked his way on and then said: “Michael aren’t you going to be at the Playboy Mansion next weekend?”
Savage: “Yes. Yes I am. And I’m very conflicted about that. But we’re not talking about that right now, we’re talking about getting rid of pornography that is killing this country.”
I almost died laughing.