Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly Must Go

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2007.


Michael Savage thinks gay parenting is child abuse and Bill O'Reilly boasts of being part of the "white, Christian, male power structure." It's time we build a new structure.
Advertisement

I wanted to talk to Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly -- but they were too busy talking to talk.

I wanted to ask talk show host Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) about his continuing attacks on gay parenting and LGBT people in general. And I wanted to ask talk show host O'Reilly about the "white, Christian, male power structure" he says he's a part of.

But first Mr. Savage Weiner. His daily syndicated radio show 'Savage Nation' appears on about 350 stations, reaching an estimated eight million listeners weekly. The program is syndicated by Talk Radio Network, which also distributes Laura Ingraham's right-wing chat show.

Savage Weiner was up to his usual, well, savage tricks on Savage Nation last week, again calling gay parenting "child abuse," echoing remarks he originally made during the February 26 program.

This time, Weiner's savagery was unleashed in response to remarks by Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney, whose stance on gay issues apparently varies depending on which office he's currently seeking, responded to a mother from New Hampshire who asked about his opposition to gay marriage by referring to same-sex parenting as part of "the American way" and an example of "freedom of choice."

Cynthia Fish, a lesbian mother of a 6- and 8-year-old, asked Romney to "explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?"

According to the Associated Press, "Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.

"Wonderful," Romney said. "I'm delighted that you have a family and you're happy with your family. That's the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that." He then stated his belief that "Marriage is an institution which is designed to bring a man and woman together to raise a child and that the ideal setting for society at large is where there is a male and a female are associated with the development and nurturing a child."

But -- to the dismay of Savage Weiner -- Romney didn't stop there.

"There are other ways to raise kids, that's fine," Romney continued. "Single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That's the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice."

To Savage Weiner, however, the only "proper answer" for Romney would have been to tell Ms. Fish that her parenting is "child abuse." What is needed, according to Savage Weiner, is "a conservative candidate all the way who would say to a gay woman: 'You know what? I'm very sorry for your children. I think it's child abuse for you to raise children.' "

He added that truly conservative candidate would have also said, "Marriage is a fragile institution and I think you're making a mockery of it in this manner by doing this."

Savage Weiner is nothing if not consistent. On the February 26 edition of his show, he said: "I want to puke when I hear about a woman married to a woman raising children because, frankly, I think that it's child abuse to do that to children without their permission."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: michael savage

Filmmaker and journalist Rory O'Connor writes the Media Is A Plural blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Liberal hypocrisy
Posted by: White middleclass male on Jun 12, 2007 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some loud mouths with a BMI of 50, like Rosie O'Donald or Oprah are heros, but anyone that expresses an opinion liberals don't like has to go.

Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly are on the air because they make money. They make money because a good number of American listen to them and support what they are saying.

Last time I check descent was not treason regardless of what side of the political coin you are on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: halweiner
» Being somewhat... Posted by: Bbear41
» RE: Leftists always get caught up in semantics Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» I want them silenced alright Posted by: Iconoclast421
» Thanks for the lesson teach. Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: Thanks for the lesson teach. Posted by: helenwheels
» Here we go again -Part I Posted by: LMNOP
» Here we go again -Part II Posted by: LMNOP
» This will have to be it Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: ekwhite
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: nonaste
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: dlf
» Well Beck Because Today is English 101... Posted by: White middleclass male
» RE: Well Beck Because Today is English 101... Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Please, more posts on grammar Posted by: helenwheels
» Plainly or just plain dumbly Posted by: Domokun
» RE: mind games? Posted by: wushih
» you just made my point in spades Posted by: gerdhansel
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: scruffstuff
» RE:I LIKE BILL...... Posted by: kbest
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: butaijdb
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: Pepper56
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: lydia cypher
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: freedom38
» The Time for Debate is Over Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: Liberal hypocrisy Posted by: tya
hell no, they won't go!
Posted by: Alec Freeman on Jun 12, 2007 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Misfits such as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and O'Donnell will, sadly, always be with us because they have huge audiences of misfits. As much as I'd be tempted to wipe these clowns off the face of the earth, more would just spring up -- like weeds. The American (and for that matter, international) populace is riddled with homophobes, xenophobes, chauvinists, racists, and all other forms of garbage. This is what sustains the O'Reillys and Savages of this society. N.B. - Notice I have equal contempt for blowhards on the Left. (e.g., O'Donnell [the FBI blew up the World Trade Center and our troops are terrorists); Al Sharpton (Mormons don't believe in God); Michael Moore [the white male passengers on the planes in the 9/11 attacks were cowards)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hell no, they won't go! Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Hesperophobes! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Hesperophobes! Posted by: lessbread
» RE: hell no, they won't go! Posted by: schokoprinz
» And from the Truthers Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: And from the Truthers Posted by: schokoprinz
» RE: Freeman Blows Hard Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: hell no, they won't go! Posted by: Kodiak44
The 40%
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Jun 12, 2007 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not too familiar with Mr. Savage Weiner, except for what Dan Savage, the gay sex advice columnist (whose name really is Savage), writes about him.

But I estimate about 40% of Bill O'Reilly's audience to be present for the amusement value. He's quite funny. Is it intentional, a la Stephen Colbert (whose frequent guest he is, and who calls him Papa Bear)... or unintentional, which would arguably be even funnier?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 40% Posted by: Morell
» RE: The 40% Posted by: helenwheels
» Ideally you would be correct... however... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Republitards
Posted by: Klaus on Jun 12, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am always amused at the issues Republitards get excited about. Going to war over lies... no problem, bomb Iran... yeah lets do it, global warming.... liberal conspiracy, a complete imbecile for a president.... we love him. But gay marriage, sweet jesus, god save us, the end of the world is coming!!! Pathetic!!! The truth is heterosexuals are the ones making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Divorce rates are over 50% with the worst divorce rates being in red states. This is yet another glaring example republitard hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Republitards Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Republitards Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: epublitards Posted by: EinMD
» RE: epublitards Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Republitards Posted by: wonkywriter
» RE: epublitards Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: epublitards Posted by: babs
they have to fill an entire hour every day... and then some
Posted by: jingles on Jun 12, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the talkers, on radio and tv, talk, they rarely, if ever, say anything beyond one idea (the homos, the far left, the immigrants). They will always be "reticent to talk" because they have to stay in control of the conversation; if they go off message / idea, they become faceted, fracturable non-monoliths (aka a human). To sell themselves as important, they must convince their audience that their (single) torch is so bright, so obvious, that if you don't believe it, you are a lamewad, and if you do believe, well, thank goodness, you're so awesome smart and cool.
Its not about left and right, its about showmanship and convincing an audience that it is stupid.
And for those hours and hours, it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocrits.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jun 12, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA has much biggest problems than "gay marriage (something I support)."

The USA is rouge nation, invading without justification, and killing their citizens. Our economic industrial base is being shipped to our long time sworn enemy "Red" China. We are truly selling them the rope which will be used to hang us.

Romney is just another shill of the military industrial complex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocrits. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Hypocrits. Posted by: RGD-5
How to get rid of the hatemongers
Posted by: sfortuna on Jun 12, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fastest ways to make xenophobic, warlike hatemongers disappear from the airwaves is to impact their revenue stream. Like children throwing tantrums, they are looking for a verbal response, so don't validate them. You aren't going to change their minds any more than you can cure psychosis through persuasion. Circulate a petition to their networks and advertisers, telling them you are boycotting them until they stop endorsing hate speech. Get your friends and family and co-workers to do the same. Live your life with love and compassion. Show the world an accepting, tolerant lifestyle is healthier, happier and more productive. STOP BUYING AMERICAN GASOLINE and fast food. Citgo is the only oil company not lobbying Congress for endless war and appropriation of Mideast oil supplies.

Perhaps someone on Alternet can compile a list of hate mongering sponsors and post it on the site? I have a pretty good idea who they are, but I buy locally and try to live 'off the grid' as much as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberals gone wild!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Jun 12, 2007 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So lets get this straight. liberals are all for censorship. Liberals best friend is Chavez.. Chavez cant take oposing views so he eleminates them.. Liberals in thi country want only ONE view..theirs..so they want to get rid of anyone with an opposing view..

Consider this..Kieth Olbermann comments regarding Ann Coulter.."I want to shit in her heart. Olberman's response to Coulter"" - and you want O'Reilly banned???.

When was the last time you saw a lberal media outlet give both sides of a story.. Fox news does it on a regular basis..Liberals are afraid of debate, threatened by opposing views..Conservatives seem to enjoy it! Liberals hear somethig that doesn't agree with their view and they go wild..riot, take to violence.. Columbia university students response to pro conservative speakers are a perfect example

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: jingles
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: dbsholes
» Truck drivers are uneducated??????????? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Satisfy my curiousity? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Liberals are shitty drivers! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
» RE: Oh, come on, conservasaurus..... Posted by: Conservasaurus
» As usual, Conservasaurus Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: As usual, Conservasaurus Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Liberals gone wild! Posted by: yellow
Shooting fish in a barrel
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on Jun 12, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article troubles me. Is Alternet calling for the goverment or the FCC to ban these two guys from the public airwaves? These guys have an audience and they make money for advertisers. If you don't like what they are saying don't listen.

Besides, it doesn't take much in the way of ace reporting skills to come up with stuipid things that these two, or almost any other talk radio personality, has said in the past. Are you guys just phoning it in today or what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Phoning it in Posted by: kepstein7777
The real "America-Haters"
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Jun 12, 2007 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's people like Savage, and O'Reilly - and Hannity and Limbaugh - and the rest...that are the real America-Haters in this country.

They claim that all those who oppose this government and its criminal wars are with the terrorists, hate america, want us to "lose," and the like, but the reality is quite different.

These people are willing to throw away everything that's good about this country - equal rights, the rule of law, and the Constitution - to satisfy their quench for power, profits and war.

Some follow-up reading on this:

"The America-Haters Strike Again" - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Child abuse
Posted by: kelt65 on Jun 12, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a gay man and was raised by catholics like Wiener, now that was child abuse. I'd have certainly been better off raised by two lesbians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am curious
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 12, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author cited a study that O'Reilly engages in 8.88 name calling incidents per minute, but provided no link. I find that very hard to believe. I can't stand him, but that number is very high. I don't consider "shut up" name calling, it make him sound very stupid and childish, but not name calling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am curious Posted by: roc
Easy breezy kiddo!
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 12, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to volunteer to help break down that structure as well. So here's a question for two top talkers too reticent to talk: Where do we sign up?

Stop listening, and don't buy the products that are advertised on their show!

If you're really, really, really t.o.'d about the fact that a few folks in a nation of 300M are ignorant, hateful, and/or have poor reasoning skills, then you might even consider finding the six other people who favor furthering the Bush Police State model to join in on an effort to clamp down on free expression via the heavy hand of government.

Personally, I favor rolling back recent developments, but again, that doesn't stop a few ignorant or hateful people, or those afflicted with poor reasoning skills in a nation of 300M from looking at Bush and daydreaming at yon keyboard about what great Deciders they'd make.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The complained of conduct is no stranger to Alternet.........
Posted by: ekipnrut on Jun 12, 2007 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing espoused by Coulter, Malkin ,Savage, O'Reilly et al has not found fairly frequent expression right here on Alternet through the posts of some 'commentators' and for that matter in some of the articles themselves.Putting a reverse spin to Ol' Archie Bunker..'Ya got yer white supremacists...yer Bible thumpin racists...yer fascists Lite..yer kindly affable sociopath hate/warmongers'. And just as the call in shows have 'zap' buttons to dispose of calls that don't 'fit in with' the agenda du jour (usually served with a generous side of caprice crackers) of the host...non 'PC' posts here may get a visit from Mr. Eraser....if the poster is perceived as 'not playing well with others'.You see all viewpoints and styles of comment are con- sidered 'equal'...some are just a little more equal than others. For example some members of the Black community,although not aggressively 'antigay', nevertheless don't place 'LGBT issues' as priorities within the black community.And I would expect that some of those who are the most vociferous in denouncing intolerance of their 'lifestyle' would be the least tolerant of those who refuse to embrace it with wholehearted approbation. As I have expressed in prior posts on the Imus issue, one recourse for the 'offended' is to register their concerns with the sponsors of these 'hatecasts' , i.e. pull the $$$ rug out from under the hosts; in the case of Imus that apparently had some effect. This circumvents the thorny censorship issue by essentially REQUIRING unpopular- to some- POVs to de facto establish a baseline of unwavering support as witnessed by continuing sponsorship. Now in order to provide a counterbalance on behalf of those who do NOT have access to mega corporate/K St. underwriting , the entire
Fairness Doctrine could be revisited and appropriately conformed to current media platforms to guarantee their open
availability and use by citizens regardless of POV and or economic status. Here's a link to a FAIR (the organization) overview of the Fairness Doctrine history.
FR
note for the acronym challenged... POV: Point(s) of View(s)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No More Married Men To War
Posted by: LeaderofMen on Jun 12, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is needed, according to Savage Weiner, is "a conservative candidate all the way who would say to a gay woman: 'You know what? I'm very sorry for your children. I think it's child abuse for you to raise children.' "

---------

Here's the question to ask ALL conservatives, neocons, and all conservative politicians.

Do you support a federal law that outlaws married men and women with children to be allowed to serve or be drafted into a war. Yes or no.

The answer MUST, by neocon definition be NO. Here's why. If a married man or woman who has children is sent to a war there is a significantly higher probability that that person will be killed or die in the numerous accidents that are inherent in fighting a war. Sending any married man or woman who has children into a battle situation will raise the probability of them dying, thus significantly raising the possibility that their children will be either fatherless or motherless.

All conservatives must support a NO resolution on this issue because it is consistent with their argument. If they don't support said resolution or law then they are simply blowing smoke up our collective asses.

Oh, that's what they're doing anyway with respect to this issue. Because you know for a fact that they can't support such a resolution. It's anti-war. And as we all know, neocons by their nature are never going to fight in one. They just want your sons and daughters to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No More Married Men To War Posted by: peacefullaim
Don't Take Their Bait
Posted by: mgloraine on Jun 12, 2007 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These so-called conservative talk-shows have no actual news or information to present, they do not engage in interesting or productive discussion, so why tune them in?

The only "action" on any of these shows is when some buffoon calls in and attempts to actually discuss the issue at hand in any terms other than "mega-dittoes". That's the cue for the host to start spewing hateful jibberish - racist, sexist, homophobic propaganda for the most part.

Some folks find this amusing, somewhat like a Three Stooges episode with Moe slapping Curly and poking Larry in the eyes. Or Archie Bunker verbally abusing his family: "Stifle yourself, Edith!! Shut up, Meathead!!" Ha ha ha...But it's pretty low-brow humor, without much substance.

Liberal commentators and liberals in general would probably do well to stop tuning in to their show, stop attempting to address their speaking points, stop responding to their outrageous drivel, stop wasting any energy on them whatsoever. No one has to respond to them or acknowledge their existence.

If there is no "action" between the host and liberal dupes, the Fascist Half-Wits Club can sit and exchange "mega-dittoes" for the whole show, unimpeded by reason or reality. Kind of like the "700 Club".

The force most likely to remove guys like this from the air waves is disinterest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Take Their Bait Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Don't Take Their Bait Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Don't Take Their Bait Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Don't Take Their Bait Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Don't Take Their Bait Posted by: DaBear
Savage, transsexuals & gay starlet pics
Posted by: Kathy in Philly on Jun 12, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huh? We're so powerful that the few of us can effect those we've never even met or conversed with? If only it were true!

What can one say about Mr. Savages odd perceptions and pronouncements? Because there is a health care facility in the state that serves us - we are responsible for the Columbine tragedy? Using this standard - Foucs on the Family is located so much closer to Columbine.

Mr. Savage has also supported the muder of a transgender woman by saying her mere existence was an invitation for the crime. By that standard - isn't he responsible for all the murders of transgender people that happen in the future since his statements justify them?

But really - the thing that always cracks me up about him - here's a guy who had naked pictures taken of himself and the most famous gay man in America at the time - and used to hand them out as calling cards. And he's repressed himself so much he changed his name to remove himself from any association with weiners.

A psychologist could make a career off of profiling this man.

Notes on his gay starlet pics:
Ron Russell, "Inside the Savage Nation", SF Weekly, July 19, 2006.

David Gilson, "Michael Savage's long, strange trip", Salon.com, March 5, 2003.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many children have you adopted Savage and Riley?
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Jun 12, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your always running your mouth, put your money where you mouth is. You and Riley both need to adopt some children and show the world that you really care about them, instead of grandstanding about an issue you really know nothing about, according to your limited, hateful views, even Cheney, your leader has one in his family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liberal Dilemma
Posted by: dover23 on Jun 12, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you believe in and support a large coercive government for whatever reason (wealth distribution? education? security?) then you must accept the fact that scumbags like Weiner and O'Really will always exist with the purpose of getting this massive amount of power to work for them and their masters.

Evil people will always exist... it seems logical that the goal should be to limit the damage they inflict on our society, and it should be painfully obvious by now that the most damage is done via politcal structures that exist for "good intentions".

Weiner and O'Really are nothing more than chirping monkeys given relevance not only by simpleton emotional masses but also by the people that hate them the most, the superior intelligentsia... you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

20 comments or so...
Posted by: jroth420 on Jun 12, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And nobody has said a damn thing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 20 comments or so... Posted by: jroth420
» RE: 20 comments or so... Posted by: deltadancer
BILL O AND SAVAGE
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 12, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God neither of them is secretly gay!

What would their followers do if they learned something like that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plainly or just plain dumbly
Posted by: Domokun on Jun 12, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, manipulating language is one thing--I'm thinking Heathers as a good example. Screwing grammar and word usage up is an entirely different matter, and since you had to insist that you've got the Masters, and since you don't care about language/grammar/typos, none of us should, too.

Oh, and you have to bring Socrates out to somehow defend your English Good You Have So Whatever idea...great, just great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a Bad Topic/Thead....
Posted by: CatDad on Jun 12, 2007 11:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"O'Reilly Must Go" How? Do we on the Left have the ability to censor him? People like Coulter, O'Reilly and Savage thrive off of making inflammatory statements which put them in the news. This post/thread is giving them exactly what they want and it has led to a predictable Left vs. Right shouting match, with little or no substantive debate taking place. This is exactly how our ruling elite wants "debate" in this nation to take place.

..C'mon Alternet....How's about replacing this thread with a real topic like Dafur, BigPharma or any of the bottomless pit scandals in our military junta in Washington???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fox Cops
Posted by: aussidawg on Jun 12, 2007 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody hear the one about Bill O'Reilly and (drum roll....) FOX SECURITY? This is serious stuff folks and you need to be careful of what you say if you call BillO as a commentator! Especially be sure not to say "Keith Olbermann."

I saw a You Tube several weeks back in which a caller called Bill O'Reilly to ask why he disliked Keith Olbermann so much. Bill cut the guy off immediately after he mentioned Olbermann's name and told him he was gonna sic Fox Security (O'Reilly's private police force) on him. The guy later actually got a phone call from his local police and they said that Fox Security was filing an obscenity complaint. For mentioning Keith Olbermann? So, now we have a new cuss word...Ke*th Olberm*&n!

I just wanted to warn all of you folks out there to watch the Olberm*&n out for FOX SECURITY!!! If you say something they don't like, they will brow beat the crap outta you! In extremely serious cases, you might even get written up or spanked and sent to the corner!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So go back to O'Lielly Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: The Fox Cops Posted by: Sandyj
I was really furious
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 12, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when Oprah had on Bill O'Reilly as an expert on child pornography and abduction!!!! Bill O'Reilly? This was after there was a story about the discovery of two little boys who had been discovered living with a predator who had abducted them. Idiot Bill-o said they probably enjoyed it, after all they didn't have to go to school. This is a VERY sick man. Anyone who listens to his garbage is just as sick and idiotic as Bill and his network.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -