Predictions for Bush second term

It won't work again. Savage's popularity is skyrocketing.

Perhaps if he got fined by the FCC, the stations running his program would take notice. But that is NEVER going to happen as long as Bush is President.

Savage calls for Senator Pat Leahy to be assinated, and it's not big deal. Stern talks about his penis and that is suddenly the FCC's top priority.

By the way, I think that in the MSNBC case, it wasn't necessarily a public outcry, it was simply that the producers and executives at the network found his statements objectionable.

In any case, in the "post-9/11" world, it is perfectly acceptable to talk about setting up concentration camps for Arabs. Hey, we're at war, right?

Although Savage's views are only become more extreme, he is quickly becoming mainstream, as so many Americans are quickly "catching up" with him.

 

Just curious, but what is your evidence that his popularity is "skyrocketing"? Since first reading your posts on this I have been doing an informal survey, both online and off, on your assertions that Michael Savage is better known and more popular than pundits such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Why? Because your rather insistent assertions got me curious.

Now I realize it wasn't a scientific polling process but still, the results don't even begin to prove your hypothesis. Of the approximately 200 people I asked, everyone was familiar with Bill O'Reilly, almost everyone was familiar with Sean Hannity. Only two people were familar with Michael Savage and both offered unsolicited comments regarding the fact that they believe Savage is a nutcase who is never to be taken seriously and that his opinions must be taken from the source which they personally consider to be borderline insane. Of those who were not familiar with Michael Savage only one asked who he was, the rest were more interested in talking about Bill O' Reilly or Sean Hannity and their agreements or disagreements with those two. I was glad for those reactions, since it meant my own curiousity in asking these questions did not result in any sort of 'free advertising' for Savage. But that brings up another curiosity ....

I hate feeling suspicious but at this point am beginning to suspect, as another poster has suggested, that you might possibly be rooting for Savage in some odd way. Is that true? If not then why do you keep insisting his popularity is "skyrocketing" and that his views are becoming "mainstream" even though facts don't seem to bear that out.

If you are sure of this and can document it, such as program times and dates, then I suggest you write to Sen. Leahy with your concerns. It doesn't matter if he is your state's senator or not, if what you're asserting is true then perhaps Sen. Leahy needs to be aware of it so that he and his staff may choose to take appropriate action to such threats.

Certainly the MSNBC executives were a factor in Savage's dismissal, but why do you think that was? Because in addition to finding his statements personally and organizationally objectionable, they were concerned about the public outcry they would likely receive and did receive anyway, despite the fact that were already seriously considering cancelling his show.


Kit

 

This is completely and totally false. Where do you get your information? Have you spent time with Republicans? I am a member of my county GOP and we have regular monthly meetings and various other get-togethers.

No one hates homosexuals. No one calls them names. As a matter of fact, it's not even an issue we discuss. We discuss terrorism, Iraq, education, equality, the economy, freedom speech and thought, and a host of other issues.

We have never, in my nearly four year's of involvement in my county club ever discussed this issue. Nor did we discuss it when I was active in Michigan or Mississippi.

 

Carefull Kit, grgrwll will say you're lying.

He would like to see Savage become the #1 ranked jock. Because in order for the left to advance their agenda, they need bad things to happen. More death in Irag, Declining Economy, "Hate" Crimes, etc.

 

From an earlier post.

I posted evidence that shows Savage sells more books, has a much larger radio audience, and has greater name recognition than Hannity or O'Reilly.

Perhaps Amazon.com, Arbitron, and various polling companies are in a big conspiracy to make Savage look more popular than he is. Or perhaps your sample was not very representative. Ever heard of Occam's razor?

I guess we have different definitions of facts. I have shown you the facts to support what I am saying. You have "refuted" them by asking some of your friends. And if your friends are right, then it means that all of these other sources are mistaken or lying.

This started by me saying that Savage is one of the most popular right-wingers in this country. I thought that was self-evident. Other people insisted I was wrong. I simply defended what I said by providing facts to back it up.

It was on Friday, October 29 at approximately 6:15 pm local time. I have already contacted Leahy's office, the FCC, and the Department of Homeland Security.

That's probably true.

 

Of the people in my corporate office, I believe 6 voted for Bush, I being one of them. None of us hate homosexuals (in fact, there are two homosexuals on our corporate executive staff that are friends with all of us.) None of us go hunting or target shooting, only three are white men, only one earns six figures or more (owner of the company), and only one of us, me, attends church regularly and could be considered an evangelical. Until the liberals stop boxing the "right" into "white wealthy men, gun lovers, and extreme religious fanatics" they will remain out of touch with the majority of the american public.

Pug

 

And as long as the radical left continues to denigrate people of faith, they will continue losing national elections.

America is a nation of faith. We are not fanatics. We are not nuts. We are not extremists. Remember, President Clinton and Hillary attended church regularly while in the White House.

This is a nation of faith!

 

Absolutely correct. The constitutions of ALL 50 STATES make reference to God. ALL 50 STATES! Please, doubters and skeptics, confirm this for yourselves at (http://www.neprimer.com/50StatesAcknowledgeGod.htm).

It's really time we stop acting like the constitution, at the national and state level, demands a separation of church and state. This country was built on a faith in God. That's a fact. If we no longer want or like that idea, then we change it by ammending the constitution through our elected officials, NOT through liberal judges pushing their personal opinions. That's what is great about a democracy...if enough of the people don't like something, we have the power to change it. When we have judges that assume that responsibility instead, it does violence to our democracy and unravels the checks and balances the founding fathers intended and established.

Pug

 

Historical nonsense. The doctrine of separation of state is as old as the first generation of governments under the Constitution. This country grew up with a SECULAR government, not a theocracy.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a democratic government that has its roots firmly planted in Christianity is the same as a theocracy???????? There is a HUGE differance here! I never suggested that America was formed as a theocracy. I am pointing out the historical FACT that America was formed with an open acknowledgement, acceptance, and reverance of God. To now pretend that it wasn't is to ignor everything around you: the U.S. Constitution, the constitution of all 50 states, the writings and diaries of our forefathers, the statue of Moses on the front of the Supreme Court, the 10 Commandments hanging inside the Supreme Court, being sworn under oath with the words "so help me God", Christian chaplains being hired with tax payer funds to serve in the military and in the halls of congress, George Washington leading a 2 hour prayer and worship service following his inauguration, creationism being a mandatory subject in our earliest schools, public school text books referencing Bible verses to help children learn their ABC's (A is for Adam, E is for Eve, M is for Moses, etc.), etc.

Pug

 

Heres a guy who would probably like a theocracy:
http://www.bju.edu/letter

 

John Jay :

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Daniel Webster:

"Let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."

The Declaration of Independence includes four references to God.

 

Well, you can pull quotes 'til the cows come home. Note, however, that the nation adopted the anti-establishment clause very early in its history. Also note, please, that our U.S. constitution preamble says that the PEOPLE, not God, ordain and establish the constitution. Sovereignty belongs to the people alone. God isn't even mentioned.

Now, when the slaveholding South adopted their Confederate constitution, those folks spread God references throughout that document. Somehow seems inevitabe to me...

 

In 1797, President Adams signed The Treaty of Tripoli which stated:

"...the United States is in no sense based on the Christian religion".

Of course, I'm sure the right-wingers on this board know far more about the U.S. Constitution than this joker who actually helped write it.

Certainly, God was important to the founders. But how many of the founders believed in the divinity of Christ? Not many. And of those, how many believed that their Christianity should be forced upon people who don't agree with them? None.

 

But you're saying two different things here, which leads one to believe there's an important distinction you're missing. God (or "Creator") is indeed mentioned in the federal Constitution and the state constitutions. However "church", whether in general or as a designation of any particular demonination is not mentioned. There is indeed a separation of church and state, just not a separation of God and state. There are examples.

One, the federal Constitution states that there shall be no establishment of religion by the government, and this is echoed by state constitutions. So by constituion the federal or state governments cannot establish any particular religion or church as the 'official' religion or church of the country or of any state. This insures freedom of religious practice instead of forcing all to either practice or financially support the religious practices of any particular church.

Two, the pledge of allegiance includes the words "under God". It doesn't say "under Christ" or Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. (It's also noteworthy to remember that the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge sometime in the 1950s during the Eisenhower administration. Previous to that the pledge did not contain that phrase.)

Three, our currency contains the words "In God We Trust". It doesn't specifically refer to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. It only refers to God.


So that pretty much covers everyone except the atheists. Of course the atheists are still free to believe (or not believe) anything they choose, just as adherants to any particular religion or denomination of any religion are also free to believe what they choose.

As nosborne has said, you can pull spoken quotes from many that mention particular religions. What you won't find is reference to any particular religion or any particular church in the constitutions. Only references to God. There is a distinct difference.

Kit

 

The Great Seal of The United States, which appears on the back of the $1 bill is emblazoned with the words:

Novus Ordo Seclorum

New Secular Order.

In case you missed it, that's *SECULAR,* as in "non-religious in nature."

 

It also says Annuit Coeptis which means "Providence has Favored our Undertakings". and...

The eye above the pyramid represents the eye of God.

So what's your point?

 

Actually you have it wrong

You have a mistranslation here:



Thomson coined the motto: Novus ordo seclorum.
The accepted translation is: A new order of the ages.

 

No, the U.S. constitution does NOT mention God or Creator or any other religious thing until the First Amendment, where ALL it does is forbid Congress from lending support to any religion.

The New Mexico State constitution does mention God in its preamble but later it makes a flat prohibition against ANY sort of religious test to vote or hold public office and it also forbids governmental support for any kind of religious activity (except military and legislative chaplains)

Sounds pretty SECULAR to me!

 

Why, you're absolutely right! In the last post I was confusing a phrase in the Declaration of Independence with the preamble of the Constitution. The phrase I was thinking of:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator at all. My mistake. Yes, we do indeed have a SECULAR government. I wasn't disputing that fact. But thanks for the correction on the Constitution, it provided the perfect excuse to go read it again.

In reference to your comment on military chaplains, it has been pointed out previously that Christian chaplains are provided to the military and paid for by tax dollars. That statement is true. What was left out is that chaplains from other religions are also provided for the military and paid for by tax dollars. Such as Jewish chaplains, Muslim chaplains, etc.

Kit