[Sp5]

(01-15-2015 10:18 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 03:59 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Another Vietnam-era draft dodger who's now a staunch right-winger and warmonger.

I know a bunch of older right-wing warmongers who served in the military and some even in Vietnam. Them having that experience doesn't magically give them more credibility.

If you don't really know the cost of something and were unwilling to pay the price yourself, how can you sell it? Personal experience of war and the proven courage to fight for expressed convictions lends credibility to opinions about possible wars.

It's not magical credibility, it's the same with any person's experience. Priests and nuns talking about sex is a similar issue, or academics talking about business or practically anything.

It certainly gives you less hypocrisy.

[TheWastelander]

(01-15-2015 11:09 AM)vinman Wrote:  

I disagree Wastelander. I fucking HATE War Hawks. They always want to send in the troops, but they've never raised their right hand and sworn the oath.

They're called chickenhawks and they're fools.

Crowing about them never having served is stupid. Attack the arguments, not the man.

And it's my personal opinion that warmongers who have tasted war are often maniacs and much more dangerous (ex: McCain, West), but because of the troop worship in this country it's harder to call them out because they wrap themselves in the flag and their service.

Anyway, not trying to derail the thread but it's the second or third time I've seen Sp5 use it to dismiss someone's views.

[Sp5]

(01-15-2015 11:26 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:09 AM)vinman Wrote:  

I disagree Wastelander. I fucking HATE War Hawks. They always want to send in the troops, but they've never raised their right hand and sworn the oath.

They're called chickenhawks and they're fools.

Crowing about them never having served is stupid. Attack the arguments, not the man.

And it's my personal opinion that warmongers who have tasted war are often maniacs and much more dangerous (ex: McCain, West), but because of the troop worship in this country it's harder to call them out because they wrap themselves in the flag and their service.

Anyway, not trying to derail the thread but it's the second or third time I've seen Sp5 use it to dismiss someone's views.

It's the second time I've used it. The first time was with that piece-of-shit Ben Shapiro, who had a perfect opportunity to fight for his convictions as a 2004 college grad, yet as Vox Day once pointed out wanted to invade several countries for "empire." It's absolutely legit to call him out as a chickenhawk.

Thinking about it, it might be somewhat unfair to use with Savage, who I think did advocate a pull out from Iraq and Afghanistan pretty early on and may have even been against the Iraq war. He is a bloodthirsty mofo in other ways, though.

I agree with you about McCain and West: two guys who war might have driven off the deep edge into mania. McCain in particular has gotten worse since he lost in 2008.

[Seth_Rose]

I was truly surprised to see that no threads had ever been stared on Michael Savage since I stared listening to him all the time a few months ago. Savage is literally the only political pundit who I have any respect for and can stand to listen to for several reasons:

1.) He's Red Pill/ Not-PC: The fact that this man has a national audience should give hope to guys on here who want to preserve (at least what's left of it) the traditional nature of this country. He hates the far-left and all associated movements such as feminism and LGBT.

He's also not a traditional conservative/republican in that he blasts the likes of McCain and Boehner on the regular.

2.) He's Intelligent: In my opinion, Rush and Hannity are not intelligent men. They represent to me the worst of the conservative base, that is, people who endlessly push the same old washed up Republican agenda. Savage has Ph. D in botany, and while unrelated to politics, you can tell he's a bright guy.

3.) He gives a damn: Most politicians and pundits are like carboard to me, they're standing there talking but there's no passion behind what they say. While Savage goes over the top, at least he cares about what he's saying.

Of course he's not perfect. He's the textbook definition of a narcissist, berates his callers, and goes overboard with the Obama hatred, but at the end of the day he is an entertainer and he does that well.

[TheWastelander]

(01-15-2015 12:30 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I was truly surprised to see that no threads had ever been stared on Michael Savage since I stared listening to him all the time a few months ago. Savage is literally the only political pundit who I have any respect for and can stand to listen to for several reasons:

1.) He's Red Pill/ Not-PC: The fact that this man has a national audience should give hope to guys on here who want to preserve (at least what's left of it) the traditional nature of this country. He hates the far-left and all associated movements such as feminism and LGBT.

2.) He's Intelligent: In my opinion, Rush and Hannity are not intelligent men. They represent to me the worst of the conservative base, that is, people who endlessly push the same old washed up Republican agenda. Savage has Ph. D in botany, and while unrelated to politics, you can tell he's a bright guy.

3.) He gives a damn: Most politicians and pundits are like carboard to me, they're standing there talking but there's no passion behind what they say. While Savage goes over the top, at least he cares about what he's saying.

Of course he's not perfect. He's the textbook definition of a narcissist, berates his callers, and goes overboard with the Obama hatred, but at the end of the day he is an entertainer and he does that well.

As you listen to him longer you'll also start to notice he's schizophrenic on some of these issues. One day he'll support something and then a few months later he'll be against it for completely different reasons.

This is what led me to believe Savage is either an act or a little crazy. Whatever the case may be, he's entertaining but I wouldn't take anything he says as gospel without doing your own research first.

That pretty much goes for all political pundits on TV and the radio.

[vinman]

My argument is that they don't have to carry the burden of their decisions to engage in military action. They don't have a head full of nightmares, or maimed bodies from combat. But they'll send the sons of others. And I agree with you on McCain, and West. Those guys aren't right. In my experience the guys most afraid of war are the people that have been, because they know what to expect. I'm at a point in my life where I'll fight if I have to, but I will do everything in my power to avoid it. But when the fight starts it's "Game On", and I'm going to end it as quickly and cruelly as possible. I just hate to see all of the lost potential from dudes getting fucked up and fucked over when the shooting stops.

[Quintus Curtius]

These types of people may (or may not) be amusing to listen to for a few minutes. But beyond that, they offer no redeeming value to anyone seeking real knowledge. They cater to the basest sentiments. They are embraced by the ignorant, the uninformed, and the marginalized. I don't want to offend anyone here but I can't sit here and see one post after another praising this vicious guttersnipe and not respond.

Every era has a version of this type of person.

1980s? Morton Downey Jr. Remember him?


1930s? Father Coughlin..the radio demagogue.


1850s? Know Nothing Party.


It's always the same story. Hate, paranoia, ignorance, and bigotry masquerading as "information."

Coughlin:
   

Downey:
   


Know Nothing Flag from the 1850s. Same message, different era.
   

[Lion of Judah]

I used to listen to him to him a lot when I was much younger and immature. I agree with him on closed borders, disagree with him on pretty much everything else. He pretty much sounds like a deranged, unhinged neocon most of the time. Plus it's a little ironic that he used to hang out with Timothy Leary and Allen Ginsberg (and had a romantic relationship with the latter).

[Seth_Rose]

(01-15-2015 04:44 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

These types of people may (or may not) be amusing to listen to for a few minutes. But beyond that, they offer no redeeming value to anyone seeking real knowledge. They cater to the basest sentiments. They are embraced by the ignorant, the uninformed, and the marginalized. I don't want to offend anyone here but I can't sit here and see one post after another praising this vicious guttersnipe and not respond.

The problem is today our society doesn't value profound, erudite knowledge. No proponent of such knowledge would garner a significant following, let alone a national audience of millions.

I suppose that's why people worship celebrities, and when it comes to pundits people like Limbaugh who can communicate to the average American on their level.

The reality is that there will always be people who have the collective attention of the nation, and I'd rather it be someone who shares my ideals and views of the world.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I'm a big fan of those weird, lost mysterious oldies that fall in the cracks between the Elvis '50s and the Beatles '60s. It's an era maligned by rock critics, but one of my favorite times for pop music (along with the hair band '80s).

Anyway, what I like about Savage is that he goes on rants about how bad everything is today and then starts saying "Help help! I can't take it anymore!!" and insists on playing one of those oldies to take him back to better days.

It an amusing routine and he and his producers sometimes dig up pretty cool stuff.

[Maciano]

A good troll, but not one you should listen to for more than a few times.

[DJ-Matt]

(01-15-2015 06:06 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I'm a big fan of those weird, lost mysterious oldies that fall in the cracks between the Elvis '50s and the Beatles '60s. It's an era maligned by rock critics, but one of my favorite times for pop music (along with the hair band '80s).

Anyway, what I like about Savage is that he goes on rants about how bad everything is today and then starts saying "Help help! I can't take it anymore!!" and insists on playing one of those oldies to take him back to better days.

It an amusing routine and he and his producers sometimes dig up pretty cool stuff.

Yes!

And sometimes about a minute into the song he'll go crazy again and yell "TURN OFF THE MUSIC!"

[Easy_C]

I find him entertaining, but he's still a demagogue in that he can be easily coaxed to support anything as long as it plays to his prejudices. For example he's recently been arguing in favor of militarized police because it's somehow necessary to protect us from the radical muslims. He also seemed utterly convinced that Ukraine was a "CIA plot" in spite of massive evidence that suggests they moved in only after the initial uprising(for starters, the rioters weren't using the fancy equipment usually found with CIA backed movements).

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-15-2015 09:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

I find him entertaining, but he's still a demagogue in that he can be easily coaxed to support anything as long as it plays to his prejudices. For example he's recently been arguing in favor of militarized police because it's somehow necessary to protect us from the radical muslims. He also seemed utterly convinced that Ukraine was a "CIA plot" in spite of massive evidence that suggests they moved in only after the initial uprising(for starters, the rioters weren't using the fancy equipment usually found with CIA backed movements).

He sounds like a guy used to being able to defend any position he chooses by being good at debating and intelligent enough

[Vaun]

Ultimately he's a bitter old man, that appeals to other bitter old men, who make up his listener base on AM radio. His entire message is exclusionist, and I would caution any young listener from adopting his worldview, that 99.98% of other people you will encounter will look at you cockeyed and write you off as crazy, if you share those views. And will ultimately alienate you from others who participate in real debate and civic participation.

Basically, its a guilty pleasure for old married men to listen to in their garages and in their cars away when away from their wives.

[GeroMeroHero]

(01-15-2015 09:43 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

Ultimately he's a bitter old man, that appeals to other bitter old men, who make up his listener base on AM radio. His entire message is exclusionist, and I would caution any young listener from adopting his worldview, that 99.98% of other people you will encounter will look at you cockeyed and write you off as crazy, if you share those views. And will ultimately alienate you from others who participate in real debate and civic participation.

Basically, its a guilty pleasure for old married men to listen to in their garages and in their cars away when away from their wives.

If anyone said half of what they say on this board irl, people would look at them weird.
People do think Roosh is a secret rapist after all

[Slim Shady]

These people lose me every time when they say that there is a western conspiracy AGAINST Israel. LOL.

[vinman]

(01-15-2015 09:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

I find him entertaining, but he's still a demagogue in that he can be easily coaxed to support anything as long as it plays to his prejudices. For example he's recently been arguing in favor of militarized police because it's somehow necessary to protect us from the radical muslims. He also seemed utterly convinced that Ukraine was a "CIA plot" in spite of massive evidence that suggests they moved in only after the initial uprising(for starters, the rioters weren't using the fancy equipment usually found with CIA backed movements).

This is a conversation of the American Ambassador probably leaked by Putin.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26072281

Also one group of protestors was paid by NGO's to protest.

[TigerMandingo]

It seems like there aren't any non-wackjob conservative radio hosts around.

Dennis Miller maybe? I like his humor and delivery.

[speakeasy]

(01-15-2015 08:58 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

Yes!

And sometimes about a minute into the song he'll go crazy again and yell "TURN OFF THE MUSIC!"

Yeah, lol. I've heard him start screaming over top that Flamingos song and the juxtaposition is so hilarious. Yeah, he's an asshole and demagogue, but there's really no one else like him. He's a guilty pleasure for sure. To me he's like the way a bad boy is to a chic. She knows he's a piece of shit, but can't help but get sucked in by the drama and excitement because he's never boring and makes her laugh.

Btw, someone should start a new thread on those doo wop treasures from the 50s. I love that shit too.

[enderilluminatus]

[Capitán Peligroso]

My $.02:

Tuth and QC made some good points earlier in the thread. But the bottom line for me is this guy is a bitter asshole and the more you listen to him, the less you will get laid. The existential question of this site for me is "what kind of man do I want to become?" What and who we become is influenced by our consumption choices, what we eat and drink, whether we go to the gym or sit on our asses and eat cheetos and drink gatorade in front of the idiot box, who we spend time with, who we fuck, and what we read and listen to.

We always have these WB/WNB debates on the forum. I think we should apply WB/WNB to everything we consume and ask ourselves: "is this going to help me become the man I want to be, or not?"

WNB Michael the Savage Weiner even once. Garbage in, garbage out.

[007]

I don't agree with some of his beliefs, but his hate for liberals and sjw's is admirable. Check out this video of some of his legendary liberal ass whoopings.

[Easy_C]

(01-15-2015 10:02 PM)vinman Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:10 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

I find him entertaining, but he's still a demagogue in that he can be easily coaxed to support anything as long as it plays to his prejudices. For example he's recently been arguing in favor of militarized police because it's somehow necessary to protect us from the radical muslims. He also seemed utterly convinced that Ukraine was a "CIA plot" in spite of massive evidence that suggests they moved in only after the initial uprising(for starters, the rioters weren't using the fancy equipment usually found with CIA backed movements).

This is a conversation of the American Ambassador probably leaked by Putin.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26072281

Also one group of protestors was paid by NGO's to protest.

Dates are important.


The protests had become extremely tense LONG before anyone over here even had a clue that Ukraine was a hotspot....and the date of that call is well after the protests began.

It's pretty clear that the CIA missed the boat on the initial protests and was scrambling to find a way to take advantage of a rapidly escalating situation.

[Vaun]

(01-18-2015 12:19 PM)007 Wrote:  

I don't agree with some of his beliefs, but his hate for liberals and sjw's is admirable.

Its not whether I agree or disagree with him, its his delivery and the relentless bitching and moaning day in and day out, stemming from getting passed over for teaching gigs at Berkeley. Capitán Peligroso said it best, the more you listen the less you will get laid.