What do you guys think of Michael Savage?
Posted October 27th, 2009 by Boru
Personally, I like Michael Savage. Sure he is an Israel firster and quite obnoxious, but he seems to hit the nail on the head better than any other radio show host.
Plus, he is most interesting radio show host by far. He has led a diverse life. He can actually speak about subjects other than politics and still be interesting.
output
I have not listened to him for years.
Thank God for internet radio as I listen to no commercial radio now. When I did hear Savage, I despised him for his name-calling. The way he would demean people, even those with whom I disagreed, by calling them names, I found repugnant. This kind of behavior is so low. He also would never give people enough time to express themselves. Why is it that most of these "hosts" just use the callers as seconds of time to sprinkle amoung their hours of pontificating?
I realized a long time ago that talk radio is just another way to sell advertising time. In no way do Limbaugh, Savage, O'Reilly & others really change things at all. They just make their listeners think they're really in the loop by being their sycophants. In reality, they're just another breed of sheep. Bread & circuses for the masses.
Cynthia Kennedy
Sheepdog
He is
a zionist shill, he never had a good word for RP. He is a piece of $h!t!
Neocon warmongering scum. That`s about it.
" The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception that proceded it"
B. Bonner
this guy is a nutter of the worst type
he gets things right sometimes, but he doesn't come anywhere near passing the litmus test.
More like an Israel fister
With a capital "Z".
He understands Israel goes, the USA goes
And he's angry because he believes most Americans are really stupid and can't connect the dots because they think America is cracked up to be what the US framers of the Constotution said it is, and not what it really is, Ground Zero for the NWO.
Israel goes, Allah wins. It's really that simple and Savage is very entertaining on getting that message across.
woa--
it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--
Israel loses, Allah wins?
if I had a choice between Zionist Israel (not the real Israel; doesn't anyone on here listen to the 'real' Jews who read the Torah) and Allah, I think I would take Allah--
I am a Christian, and I see a lot more good coming out of the Muslim world than out of "Israel", the rogue state, not the people--
anyone who supports Israel has a scary agenda; the Muslims have been there all along and are trying to survive--
If, now and again, someone Islamic becomes as crazy as some Christian evangelists and fundamentalists, why are we surprised? It's the blow back Dr. Paul talks about--
But to support a country founded merely on religion?
NOT constitutional--
sorry to turn this into a rant about Zionist Israel; I am with Rabbi Weiss--
and with the Palestinian Christians who risk their lives to go into Israel and help Messianic Jews conduct church meetings--
He's one of the worst!
I can't stand the guy, he's a fascist! During Bush's terms, he was calling to restore sedition act and throw all anti-war protestors as well as newspaper editors in jail. http://www.infowars.com/p...
He said Ron Paul was not fit to run an abortion clinic, http://www.youtube.com/wa...
and said autistic children were faking being autistic. Not only that, but told a gay person they should die, and has screamed at US citizens who were anti-war or gay to "get out of MY country!" as if he owns the US.
What bothers me most is that he claims to be for free speech and the Constitution, yet wanted sedition, and anyone who does not agree with his ideology he does not think deserve to have rights.
"Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies."
He's another neocon shill.
I used to listen to him. Then when I realized that he treated Dr Paul with disdain, just like Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck & Limbaugh, I turned them all off and bought an XM radio. My blood pressure went way down.
*****The Federal Reserve is neither.*****
Too chaotic to even place
Too chaotic to even place anywhere. He does occasionally hit the nail on the head, often being in a small minority doing so, but so much of his game is simply angry rants and madness. Popular, though. I think he's still number 3 on the air after Rush and Hannity.
It is all about hate.
Can anyone honestly present any other interpretation of this person?
In a moral world the media would not demand that we focus hatred on our brothers and sisters.
Compassion is strength. It is eternal.
He is very similar to the Oscar winning character in "Gangs of New York" This is a tune the men in power have been playing for centuries. After you shut off the TV, walk across the room and shut off the talk radio. Media is how we are controlled.
Savage is playing you.
he expresses love a lot on
he expresses love a lot on his show but yeah the hate and anger is certainly mixed in-with a healthy load of xenophobia
he supports isreal blindly,
he supports isreal blindly, that prety much ended my listening to his program.
we should cut all ties with isreal and sanction them for not signing the nuclear non proliferation treaty asap.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato
Same here
He drank the AIPAC cool-aid.
My opinion is that maybe he
My opinion is that maybe he wants to support RP but cant. Savage today was talking about the "money changers" he brings up the NWO. The Constitution, Founding Fathers etc etc.. But Savage is an Israeli-firster. And RP would not have supported Israel had he become POTUS. Plus, it was the modus operandi of Conservative talk radio at the time. Savage could of been the ONE Conservative talk radio head to support him, hes always trying to distance himself between Hannity and Limbaugh anyways- but he blew it. I will say, i was listening to Mike Gallahger the other day, and he had some very nice things to say about RP-
neocon
he drank the Bin Laden kool-aid.
nuff said. seriously, I can't stand listening to him. Generally, he starts off with a good premise, but by the time he is through, he is so thoroughly wrong, he makes me tired, just thinking of all the errors in logic he made to get there.
Somewhere between
Limbaugh and Hannity on the annoyance scale, with Beck being the most 'tolerable' and O-Reilly the worst.
He is engaging, but he is an idiolog.
He has his own agenda of furthering himself, before anything else. No mention of ending the Fed. He previously trashed Ron Paul.
He is like the rest. On particular issues, he is excellent. In the bigger picture, he is not.
entertaining...
but his solution to everything seems to be to nuke every muslim on the planet. Mikey boy is an entertainer and he makes mucho denaro for his efforts.
Nasty and boorish
I watched him on MSNBC when he said he thought all gays should "Get AIDS and die!"
The man is just no good in my book.
He Is Full Of Hate and Xenophobia
I know a lot of folks on this site are anti-Hispanic immigrant, but the reason you take this view (a view which is quite inconsistent with both free market and Christian principles) is not out of hatred of immigrants (well, at least most of you anyway), but rather your concern over the welfare state burden. Not so with Savage. The man loathes everything from South of the border. He is the most vile, hateful, xenophobic talk show host on the radio. He is also an unapologetic warmonger and protectionist, and constantly makes fun of welfare recipients (at least the poor, non-white ones). To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, I wouldn't say he doesn't have a libertarian bone in his body, but I would say nine out of ten of his bones aren't, and I wouldn't inquire to closely into the case of the tenth.
Mark
Anti-hispanic immigrant?
Anti-hispanic immigrant? Don't think I've heard anyone(except maybe once in a great while someone will pop up) complaining about legal hispanic immigrants. Illegal aliens in general, yes. Ron Paul has spoken out many times in opposing illegal immigration, favoring secure borders and opposes giving citizenship to illegal aliens, so it would not be surprising that alot of us here agree with Ron Paul's views on this.
You Are Missing The Point
You say, "I support legal immigration, but oppose illegal immigration." As if the advocates of the free market position on immigration (open borders) support "illegal immigration." That is a real twisting of the language. The advocates of open borders would make all peaceful immigration legal, thus eliminating even the theoretical possibility of illegal immigration by peaceful people. It is the the advocates of the socialist position on immigration (legal restrictions on peaceful immigration or even outright closed borders) who not only create the possibility of illegal immigration, but make it inevitable because the economic demand for a freer, more prosperous life will cause people to break the law to achieve their goals.
How would it sound to you if I said "I wish to keep medical marijuana illegal because I oppose illegal medical marijuana use, but support legal medical marijuana use."? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Anyway, please read what I said. I acknowledged that the opposition most of the DP readers had toward freer immigration came out of a concern for increased demands on the welfare state, NOT because of xenophobia. I understand your concern. I am just saying two wrongs don't make a right. The welfare state is tyrannical. So are legal restrictions on peaceful immigration. One should not endorse the existence of one form of tyranny (legal restrictions on peaceful immigration) because of the existence of another form (the welfare state). Abolish the welfare state. Limit GOVERNMENT, not PEOPLE.
Not everyone here subscribes
Not everyone here subscribes to the libertarian party position, that nothing should be done to stop illegal immigration, that giving citizenship to illegal aliens isn't a bad thing, and there should be open borders, including Ron Paul himself.
You turned things around on me to say, you make it sound as if you support illegal immigration. Well, you started off by saying alot of us here are "anti-hispanic immigrant", which makes it seems like we are opposed to all hispanic immigrants, whether they came here legally or not. And that is a common tactic of leftist democrats, to make it seems as if people who are opposed to illegal immigration are "anti-immigrant", in others words, people who oppose ALL immigration and that they are all or mostly xenophobes, racists, kkk or whatever unfair, untrue and misleading terminology they choose to use.
I'll give an example of my own, if I'm opposed to people hunting on other people's private property, in other words being anti-illegal hunting, and then you call me an anti-hunting gunophobe because I oppose people illegally hunting on other people's private property, that is misleading, unfair, untrue and possibly even underhanded.
So, I believe you started the twisting of language here, by using that misleading term, anti-hispanic immigrant, which leads people to think the people you are referring to oppose all hispanic immigration even the legal kind, which is not true. If you want to use correct and honest terminology, label those of us who oppose illegal immigration(including Ron and Rand Paul) anti-illegal immigration.
You Didn't Deal With My Point
Which is that the advocates of the pro free market, open borders position do not support "illegal immigration." As I tried to explain, in a totally free society illegal immigration by peaceful people would be theoretically impossible, while in a less free society with legal restrictions on peaceful immigration, illegal immigration would not only be possible, but inevitable due to economic forces.
I apologize for the comment with the label "anti Hispanic immigrant." I wrote it out of anger. It's just that it frustrates the heck out of me how people who otherwise have the good will and intelligence to support liberty and the free market in all other areas can be so terribly inconsistent on this issue. What possible motivation could they have? If it is not partially xenophobia, then what is it? I am willing to give you folks the benefit of the doubt, so chill out.
I am not even close to being a liberal Democrat ideologically. I would venture to say that on the issue of supporting the free market and private property rights, compared to me most people on the DP are flaming Marxists. Your analogy regarding hunting on someone else's private property is false. Let's make it more relevant to the discussion. Let's say I own a road that crosses the border, and I own a house and factory on that road on the US side of the border. If I choose to allow a Mexican worker to cross the border on my road, rent a room in my house to him, and hire him at my factory, what gives anyone, including a socialist federal government the right to tell me I can't do that? Who is the more consistent advocate of liberty and the free market here, myself, who voluntarily exchanges with the Mexican worker what is rightfully mine, or you, who would call in the heavy hand of your precious socialist federal government to prevent it? What possible motivation could you have for making a legitimate market exchange illegal? I said I would give you the benefit of the doubt, and I will. But I am left a bit unsatisfied by your constant reference to "illegal" immigration without you even attempting to explain why you think any peaceful immigration should be illegal.
Seriously, I am open minded and would love to hear you defend your position. The only even remotely possibly valid reason I have ever heard anyone offer is the welfare state burden argument, but it could just as easily be applied to native born US welfare mothers and Goldman Sachs. Should we deport them too? Please, let's ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE and quit using its existence as an excuse to scapegoat immigrants and deny them their liberty.
I listened to him tonight he
I listened to him tonight he said "tax the pot heads to pay for pot care" lol he's entertaining. he is good for these reasons: generally opposes war in afghanistan (though not because he doesn't want to kill muslims) is very fiscally conservative, outwardly Pro 2nd amendment, first amendment activist (banned in Britain), hates the left and the neo con wing of the republicans. he didn't support mccain in any meaningful way and actually spoke with disdain. He is the constant target of censorship (his flagship station in san fransisco just dropped him as many others were adding his program. He is old enough to not care what happens to him so he jsut literally speaks in stream of conscious-kinda like ron paul. the reasons he sucks- he is rather anti youthculture in that old man hating punk kids kind of way. he ignores Ron Paul generally. He has 8 million listeners so theres no telling who supports him directly but its safe to say that many of them listen even though they dont really agree. I'd say his pros generally outweigh his cons. We'll lose a potential ally whenever he dies(he must be pretty old by now) oh and one more bad thing.. if u listen to him you will hear about his botany phd a lot.
He's a half truther
very frustrating.
Used to listen to Savage back in the day (pre-9/11)
Post 9/11 Savage ( what Ive heard) is a bit much for me. I will say that he had some of the best bumper music in talk radio.If youre not on board with his personal religious views, then the whole show unravels.
All I ever hear when I listen to him is ...
hate and rage.
He does a lot of name calling, fairly similar to AJ.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
reply
We have trolls in the threads tonight stumping for Savage and Gingrich, why are they being bumped?
Screw him..
He is a hypocrite and a half. Today he talked about how mexico handles prescriptions and France.. but knocks Marijuana use.
I dont like him. I just listen because its on when I leave work sometimes.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
I used to listen to Savage
I used think he was a true voice of liberty as he seemed to beat up both parties from time to time. Then I discovered Ron Paul, and noticed Savage never talks about him, or I don't tune in enough to know. Seems I heard him bash Paul one night, but I only listen briefly while driving, so I don't know what he really thinks, as Savage will go on rants.
I do appreciate his background in health and natural medicine.
I do think he is entertaining.
I do not think he is a true voice of liberty, but compared to what else is on the radio when I am driving home I have to admit I still tune into Savage from time to time, but since finding a true voice for the people that is actually in gvmt I rarely listen to any of the blow hards on the radio.
Anyone ever hear Savage speak kindly of our movement, or are we as bad as the Red Diaper Doper Babies? LOL
If I remember correctly
he also has bad mouthed Paul.
He is literally a National
He is literally a National Socialist. He is bought and paid for by the GOP and AIPAC. You can tell when their checks bounce because he will bash Israel and GOP candidates sometimes. He bashed McCain and Bush every day until a few weeks before their respective elections. I will give him this, he is HILARIOUS and he taught me to think freely. I listened to him religiously for 3 years. The sad thing is that even though he is not a libertarian but is a fascist, he knows the truth regarding the powers that be yet rarely speaks it.
He's a jackass.
Once in a while, he's right about something, but it's a rare occasion.
-jcr
He is too caught up in
Religion if you ask me, and unfortunately so are most of those that think war is great in the middle east...He seems very hateful. I have been accused of being racist by not wanting foreigners to cross our borders illegally, but this man is over the top with his religious hatred towards those from Arab countries.
he is a shithead? along with
he is a shithead? along with michael medved and mark levin ... those guys are an absolute waste of carbon and water
I think that he is depressing
I think that he is depressing and disrespectful to his callers. To me he's always he a bad mood and I don't like listening to him. He always thinks he's right about everything and cuts his callers short when they express something he doesn't agree with. I can very definitely do without him. Besides that, he's not a Ron Paul supporter! If you want to get in a bad mood, just listen to him.
Medved and Levin....
are the worst.
Savage at least is entertaining.
He's a weener who fancies himself a savage
Absolutely pathetic.
I've only listened to him
I've only listened to him briefly. One of the few times when I did he was saying how he thinks that we need to censor the internet. I turned it off after that.
_________________________________________________
A recent history of the US economy - http://www.youtube.com/wa...
I like him.
He comes off as a truly genuine man. I disagree with some of the things he talks about, but at least he's honest. I find that he has the most interesting perspective on the world today. He's not my favorite talk show host, but I'll gladly listen to his program over Beck,Limbaugh, or Hannity any time.