"Savage Nation" ???

Zander

March 9, 2003, 02:30 AM

My point was that I think Savage lives up to his name.I agree. That's what makes his message so refreshing. He believes that most commentators are encumbered with the inability to overcome the PC-speak that infects his "competition". One of his primary assertions is that we should be more pro-active in ensuring our country's defense. That's a good thing, isn't it?

He's rude, obnoxious, annoying, and makes the poster child for right wing radio seem like a centrist by contrast. Well, I'd like to hear your comparison to left-wing radio, but that seems to be confined to taxpayer-supported outlets like PRN. Given that ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN are enablers for the DNC, what's wrong with a little balance in the video spectrum?

To my knowledge, no one who carries water for the sociofascists has been able to make it commercially except in local markets inhabited by the rude, obnoxious, annoying elitists who would like to legislate "right-wing" commentators out of existence.

I guess it's that 'tolerance' thing, huh?

David

March 9, 2003, 03:08 AM

Did you see the opening of the show?

It was great!

A San Francisco cop pulls Savage over -- to get him to sign her copy of his book, The Savage Nation.

It did not appear to be a set-up.

I hope they open his show with that video clip every week. :neener:

pax

March 9, 2003, 03:15 AM

Zander,
I'd like to hear your comparison to left-wing radio...
That's the funny thing. My husband was sitting behind me while I was posting on this thread before. He listens to talk radio at least 6 hours or more a day (got a job that involves a lot of driving, often late at night). He can name all the talk show hosts out there, tell you who's coming up and who's fading away, tell you what any one of them is saying this week.

Anyway, asked him about Michael Savage. He replied, "Savage? He sounds like a liberal."

I said, "Whaaaaat? Are we talking about the same guy?"

He said, "Yeah. I mean, his opinions are conservative and all that, but he sounds as insulting and condescending as the liberal hosts. You know how mean and nasty some of the liberal talk show hosts are, like Tom Lykas? Savage is just as mean as one of those guys. Conservatives don't have to be so mean, and usually aren't."

He pointed out that Savage, because he lives in San Francisco, has to endure a lot of very constant and very personal attacks from liberals, which might explain some of his meanness. Guess anyone who is constantly attacked might get that way.

That doesn't explain why so many of the liberals are so nasty, though, does it?

Gordon,

Why do you think his show is the fastest growing radio show despite so much opposition from the left?
His isn't. That distinction belongs to either Mike Gallagher, or Sean Hannity -- depending on who is doing the measuring and how they're doing it.

pax

The liberty of the press is most generally approved when it takes liberties with the other fellow, and leaves us alone. -- Edgar Watson Howe

Pendragon

March 9, 2003, 03:18 AM

I first started listening to him and I thought he was kind of insane.

After a week or two, I realized that he is actually completely right and the reason he sounds insane is that we are conditioned to "tone it down" and "play nice" and "use tact" and "not be hurtful" etc :barf:

If you think he is a big jerk, then you are not listening to what he says. He is proud of the fact that he is an immigrants son and he does not oppose immigration - only illegal immigration.

He has said that he is a sexual libertarian and does not care what people do in their bedroom as long as they are not proslytizing children.

He has spoken long about the great contributions to civilization that were made by Arab culture - be he says they are one of the few major religions that has not had a reformation movement and they desperately need one.

He is not against muslims and has had sensible muslim clerics on his show speaking out against the 10% of muslims who want to kill all us infidels. He calls them islamo-fascists which is exactly what they are.

Michael Savage is a very educated and intelligent man - I believe that he actually cares about his message more than his medium. He sounds beligerant and rude because he believes that nobody on the right is speaking out against the most vocal and radical segments of the left wing.

Yet, as usual, some dislike him and feel free to say so without any kind of cohesive argument or concrete example as to what he says that is so wrong.

100% predictable. 100% typical. 100% lacking in substance.

Pendragon

March 9, 2003, 03:20 AM

In the war for the soul of America, "niceness" is over rated.

You know what? I feel like Michael Savage talks. Thats why he is so popular. Because we on the right have had it up to here with the America hating rats and we have no patience and no tolerance for them.

They need to see how it feels to be shouted down and spoken out against and called names - whatever. The fact is, they are rats, they are scum and thats how it is.

The left has got where they are because they are not afraid to play mean and dirty - but conservatives - oh, we have to be nice.

Look at what they are doing to hold up that conservative judge in the Senate. The Republicans are too soft and too chicken to do something like that - and that is why they get their buts handed to them even when they win the elections.

Time to take the gloves off and play to win.

jmbg29

March 9, 2003, 04:16 AM

What Pendragon said.

Wildalaska

March 9, 2003, 05:07 AM

Trash talk is low class, immature and disgraceful whether it comes from any political persuation...and just because liberls/conservatives do it doesnt mean conservatives/liberals should do it...

And ya know what..in the fight for the soul of America, its not gonna be the ones who hurl insults and garbage speak who win over the hearts and minds of the great undecideds..

So y'all go shouting your hatred speak..after a while normal people will just tune ya out and your message will be lost...just like some of Savages good ideas...lost....

WildpreferscivilityAlaska

Drjones

March 9, 2003, 05:59 AM

What Pendragon said.

The biggest problem with gun owners is our complacence.

I also think that's a huge problem with conservatives, seeing as how the liberals are so populous and vocal today.

Savage is angry, but he is correct.

Anyone who thinks he spews "hatred" is too PC to understand what he's saying anyway...

I think we all could use a bit more anger.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[/quote]He's just mad as hell seeing his beloved country go down the crapper as mush mouthed appeasers stand by and approve such acts of depravity and treason. Why do you think his book is the number uno best seller?[/quote]

Ditto.

I was thrilled to hear his book is selling well.

I plan to get it, after I finish "What's Wrong with America" by Dinesh D'Souza.

Sergeant Bob

March 9, 2003, 06:00 AM

Wild, would you consider this to be an insult or trash talk?
I hear that line from that nut case Mike Savage...the Rush Limbaugh for the intellectuall;y challenged...
I consider it insulting as may several other Savage listeners. Now who said that??? Isn't this the part where you disappear?
SergeantborderslanguagecultureBob (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5513)

Pendragon is soooo right!

SergeantI'm mad as h*ll and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!!Bob

dinosaur

March 9, 2003, 07:25 AM

I watched the show. I`ve never heard him before and I thought he was flat. He made good points but it`s not anything I haven`t heard before. Maybe he just needs to get his "legs". TV is a tough medium.

Does he have guests on his radio show?

faustulus

March 9, 2003, 07:43 AM

Mom always said there is never any reason to be rude.

Besides if get angry you are already half way to losing the arguement.

griz

March 9, 2003, 08:18 AM

Some of you guys are missing the point Pax is making. She's not saying he is wrong, she's saying he is rude, obnoxious, and annoying. Those are entirely different things. There is nothing wrong with listening to him, but he is preaching to the choir. I'll listen to somebody less savage who can make a point without making insulting the listener.

Dannyboy

March 9, 2003, 08:43 AM

I was looking forward to watching it but I totally forgot about it. I'm curious, though, is it like Howard Stern and Imus? I mean is it a radio show that gets filmed or is it an actual TV show?

Gordon

March 9, 2003, 10:34 AM

The guy is a well published phd so hes not a leering shock jock like stearn or Imus. He was raised in Brooklynn , I love the accent with something other than liberal drivel behind it. If you live in the Bay area you know it's crazyness and he comments on it. He has had a muslim cleric guest, who is one of only ones who speaks out. He believes in the American 'melting pot' , which I grew up getting taught on before the current socialist experiment.You don't like him go listen to your NPR and say hello to Hillary for me.:neener:

bad_dad_brad

March 9, 2003, 10:45 AM

He used to be a semi-regular pundit on NEWSMAX.COM, but I think he is even too wacky for them as I have not seen a posting there for awhile. I dub him an emotional conservative, like Limbaugh, and I think his rantings do more harm than good.

BigG

March 9, 2003, 10:54 AM

Pendragon's comments are pretty much on target. I took him for a New Yorker with the rude, in your face style but if he's from SF he's one in a million. Dirty Harry's evil twin? :D

pax

March 9, 2003, 11:19 AM

Yet, as usual, some dislike him and feel free to say so without any kind of cohesive argument or concrete example as to what he says that is so wrong.
Pendragon, at no point have I said a word about his message, nor was I intending to do so. My posts were addressing his style, as I'm pretty sure most realized.

My husband's critique of him as "sounding like a liberal" was right on target -- as you yourself agreed. His style matches the style of the angriest of the liberals. Apparently you think this is a good thing. I do not. I find it annoying to listen to someone froth at the mouth. Even if it weren't annoying, I don't believe it is an effective way to persuade people. Why offend people with style when you can instead offend them with substance?

But back to the idea of "sounding like a liberal." The reason so many liberals sound so emotional is because they have no logical arguments to which they can appeal. They are angry because they "feel" they are right but have no ammunition other than anger with which to back it up. (Isn't that what we are always saying about arguing with a gun grabber? That they have no arguments, only anger?)

I'm out of words of my own, so I'm going to indulge myself by posting a few quotes. :p I cannot divine how it happens that the man who knows the least is the most argumentative. --Giovani della Casa

We are not won by arguments that we can analyze, but by tone and temper; by the manner, which is the man himself. -- Samuel Butler

Neither irony or sarcasm is argument. -- Rufus Choate

He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak. -- Michel de Montaigne

When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry. -- Thomas Chandler Haliburton

Remember, it's not whether you win or lose. It's how many cheap shots you can get away with. -- Maxine in _Crabby Road_

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him. -- John, Lord Morley

If you can not answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard

As for your contention that the folks Savage shouts down are rats, scum, etc. See my sig line.

pax

When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite. -- Winston Churchill

ReadyontheRight

March 9, 2003, 12:10 PM

I realized that he is actually completely right and the reason he sounds insane is that we are conditioned to "tone it down" and "play nice" and "use tact" and "not be hurtful" etc

Exactly. Savage is perfectly willing to point out shortcomings and hypocracy on both sides of the aisle. I don't agree with all he says, or necessarily the way he says it, but he makes a good reference point for current topics - despite his fascination with meatballs.

I missed his first show - does anyone know if there will be a rerun?

ravinraven

March 9, 2003, 12:42 PM

To a Liberal, the truth is "rude, obnoxious and annoying." Liberals call Rush and Savage and the rest "Hate" radio. They are right! Liberals hate the truth so truth radio is "hate" radio.

You can speak the truth in a low whisper, while smiling and waving a bunch of posies in the air and the Liberals will still call you R,O&A.

matis

March 9, 2003, 12:45 PM

Count me in with Pendragon.

I loved his message from the beginning, but was a bit uncomfortable with his style: he's a bit :D egotistical and he "doesn't suffer fools gladly".

But I got over it. His radio stats and best-seller book prove that he's getting the job done.

And this job desperately needs doing, doesn't it?

More power to Michael Savage and I hope his TV show does as well.

Matis

seeker_two

March 9, 2003, 02:19 PM

Pendragon got it in one...:D

Radio hosts like Michael Savage & Glenn Beck use the same arguement style that the liberals use--but they push conservative ideas. They do what many of us WISH other conservatives would do--turn the passion & fury that the liberals beat us down with against them. I listen to both daily, and I enjoy the fact that liberals squirm when these two attack their "sacred cows".

Times have changed. The duel is set. Liberals chose the weapons. Now it's time for conservatives to turn & fire...:evil:

jmbg29

March 9, 2003, 03:06 PM

He was raised in Brooklynn Small quibble. IIRC he was raised in the Bronx, and then in Queens.

Wildalaska

March 9, 2003, 03:25 PM

Yeah what Pax said! Some of you guys are as bad as the enemy you profess to hate...

WildpoliteisniceAlaska

Gary H

March 9, 2003, 04:17 PM

Savage started as a local radio host on a small S.F. A.M. station. The station has since become a major player in the local A.M. market and Savage has gone national. I use to have a really difficult time listening to him, but have since realized that much of what he says is right on and that some of what I found offensive was his VERY dry sense of humor. He doesn't interact in a way that I would advocate for myself, but his message is an important one without polically correct B.S.

I can't listen to Rush. He mostly spouts the Republican message and then beats his topic to death.

I would like to see a TV show with Halle Berry on the screen 100% of the time. I'd just turn the sound off.

jimpeel

March 9, 2003, 05:39 PM

CNN and MSNBC were sniveling about how to bring up the ratings and listenership? I guess MSNBC was listening when we said "Get some Conservative hosts."

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 03:01 AM

Ok, I read all the comments and the way I read them, they essentially boil down to "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar" and "good guys should play nice".

I respectfully disagree.

Michael Savage is a man on the radio. Some liberals do listen and "See the light" as it were. I imagine this happens to some extent with all hosts.

However, Micheal Savage is a touchstone for the angry and isolated Americans. I was angry before I listened to Savage. Lots of us were - but we were told that our anger is unreasonable.

Our anger is completely reasonable. It is so much more than reasonable. Look what they are teaching our children in school. Look at what they are doing to the constitution. Look at the people who spit on the graves of our heroes.

How can reasonable, American patriots not be seething with anger and rage at what the leftists and the communists have done to this country in the past 40 years?

Anger is a form of fear. It is an emotion and an appropriate reaction to certain situations.

Savage is angry because he sees that this country is being destroyed and weakened from the inside.

Our borders are uncontrolled and anyone can and does literally walk into this country. Leftists in California are paying for every service imaginable for these people - and I get to support them with my taxes.

Should I just politely raise my hand and say "uhm, I am uncomfortable with this arrangement..."

Savage is angry because we are losing our language. Have you ever gone to the DMV in California? You can apply for your CDL in upwards of a dozen languages. Why is this necessary? Why should I pay for this? The leftists insist we educate children in their first language - at great expense and at a great disadvantage to the student. These are the "multiculturalists" he speaks about with such venom - because they believe it is more important to support and promote "diversity" than it is to help that child integrate and become functional in our society. These people are anti individual - they are worse than racists because they do serious harm under the banner of trying to help these people.

"uhm, could you guys please cut that out please?"

Savage is angry because we are losing our culture. Our culture is our history, our heroes and our way of life. As the Western US becomes over run with illegal aliens and they assume more power, we see movements to celebrate "heroes" of other countries and cultures. We see people trying to supress American holidays and heroes as "divisive". We see the multiculturalists starting slow - claiming that certain patriotic things make people of other cultues feel bad because they are not American. A people that does not know and understand our history are incapable of preserving our freedom and our way of life.

"would you mind not doing that please? it makes me kind of a little bit uncomfortable - thanks"

Why should he be angry? Why should anyone be mad about any of that stuff? You are right, we should just chill out, calm down and "talk it out".

I am sure that when he gets re-educated by the leftist rats to sound like an NPR radio impersonality, he will be ever so much more persuasive and compelling. :barf:

I like my anger. It keeps me warm. I do not yell at people, but I will if I get the chance. I am not afraid of them and I am not afraid of getting in their face and calling them rats and worms and cowards and a waste of skin. Thats what they are.

Drjones

March 10, 2003, 03:15 AM

Pendragon once again nails it perfectly.

Wow....

On that note, here's something I'd like to share with you all:

http://multiculturalism.aynrand.org/newsletter_multiculturalism.pdf

Hope you find it as interesting as I did.

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 03:17 AM

Yeah what Pax said! Some of you guys are as bad as the enemy you profess to hate...

WildpoliteisniceAlaska

Polite may be nice.

Nice did not defeat Hitler.

Nice did not win the Cold War.

Nice did not conquer the original inhabitants of this land.

Nice did not free France and Poland.

Nice did not abolish slavery.

Nice did not stop WWII with nuclear weapons.

Nice did not take the beaches of Normandy.

Nice did not defeat the Taliban.

Nice did not stop Flight 93 from becoming a cruise missile.

Nice did not capture the man who planned 9/11.

Nice did not fight to the last man at the Alamo.

Nice does not stop murderers, rapists and thugs.

Nice is for children and greeting cards.

Freedom is won with blood and violence.

When I was in my 20's, I tried very hard to be nice. I wanted people to like me. Very often my concern with being "nice" made me incapable of doing what I call "the hard, right thing".

My civility has a limit and I know exactly where it is. Politeness is the grease that lets imperfect humans get along in a civilization. It is not an excuse to ignore sedition or treason or tyranny - no matter what the scale. For too long, such words have been used to make good men avoid confrontations lest they appear "impolite". Those days are over.

jmbg29

March 10, 2003, 03:30 AM

But Pendragon! Think of all of those "nice" blackhearted bastard Kommiefornians that have finally driven you out of Kommiefornia and away from some of your family. Aren't they nice? Oh so polite and well spoken, oh yes, yes indeed.

NICE!:barf: Ptui!!!!

As he said, if you want nice, put the local National Propagandist Radio station on.

Then you can have the choice of shooting yourself, or just wait until the "nice" people's thugs do it for you. :fire: :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

pax

March 10, 2003, 03:40 AM

Nice did not defeat Hitler.
Piffle.

No 'nice' involved in WWII? Here's a story for you.

On December 8, 1941, Winston Churchill dispatched a letter to the Japanese Ambassador. Churchill’s letter noted that the Japanese had just bombed Singapore and Hong Kong, and therefore, His Majesty’s Ambassador at Tokyo was instructed to inform Japan that a state of war existed between Great Britain and Japan. Churchill ended the letter with these words:

I have the honour to be, with high consideration,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Winston S. Churchill

Churchill commented in his wartime memoirs that “Some people did not like this ceremonial style. But after all when you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.”

Imagine that. Churchill led his country through "its finest hour" and somehow managed to become the century's most well-known radio voice without losing his civility -- though it is safe to say that he was very angry.

A polite declaration of war. I like that. The man had style.

I'm done with this topic.

pax

The pen may be stronger than the sword... but I'd rather have a sword in a dark alley. -- Andrew Warnick

jmbg29

March 10, 2003, 04:15 AM

The pen may be stronger than the sword... but I'd rather have a sword in a dark alley. -- Andrew WarnickI'm not sure that most folks would find sword-weilding "nice". wouldn't it be better to simply reason with them in a quiet corner somewhere? Maybe some nice mint tea and a cookie?

Piffle indeed.

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 04:47 AM

Winston Churchill was a gentleman. He was writing a Japanese Ambassador. To write "and you guys are doodie heads" would have been beneath him.

Michael Savage does not address (usually) heads of foreign states. He does not make pronouncments of war for his nation.

His anger is directed toward ignoble enemies - leftist celebrities, communist lawyers, multiculturalists, etc.

These enemies are beneath contempt. They are not worthy adversaries with whom we maintain that most civilized state of simultaneous enmity and admiration.

They are liars, cheaters, traitors, cowards and the worst of humanity.

When they "demonstrate", we should counter demonstrate. When they shout out their "message", we should shout back. "SHUT UP!" "GO AWAY".

We should avoid their movies, we should enact tort reform, and we should declare war and arrest some of the people for sedition.

The students and the idiots who just love a good demonstration would be less enthusiastic if every time they were out, we were out and up in their face, telling them to go home and to ST*D and ST*U.

Why do people demonstrate? To be seen on the news and the street - to make it seem that LOTS and LOTS of people think a certain way. Demonstrating has a certain cachet with the left - it makes them feel like they are getting something done.

We should be out there raining on their parade, opposing them to their face and letting them know that we think they are rats.

Do I advocate this as the sole method of opposition? Hardly. But this is an arena where they have no opposition and that needs to change.

Sergeant Bob

March 10, 2003, 04:49 AM

A polite declaration of war. I like that. The man had style.
Yes, he was very polite in his declaration of war. Then he sent the ever so polite Royal Marines and Royal Navy to politely kill them.
It's easy to be polite when you're not the one in the trenches.

matis

March 10, 2003, 10:33 AM

I'm not going to quote you 'cause I'd just have to repeat everything you wrote!

If we can find even a few others who can think and write like you do, we have a fighting chance. We could circulate "pamphlets" like those that lit the fuse in 1776 -- only this time in technicolor, with electronic power and speed.

If you organize it, I'll join it!

Matis

P.S. If you don't write for a living, then I'm sorry but you've missed your calling.

Tamara

March 10, 2003, 10:55 AM

I'm not sure that most folks would find sword-weilding "nice". wouldn't[sic] it be better to simply reason with them in a quiet corner somewhere? Maybe some nice mint tea and a cookie?

I must've missed where she suggested that.

A true Southerner is someone who will be polite to you right up until he's mad enough to kill you. --Florence King

Selfdfenz

March 10, 2003, 11:34 AM

And yet another vote for Pendragon. And Ready.

It's pretty clear that may posting here have issues with MS because they don't listen to him very often, if at all. He is "in one's face" at times, but not always. He is loud at times, but not always. He says emotional things at times, but not always.
To characterize him as R,O and I is a clear indication that the evaluator is not a regular listener.

Pax, how much have you actually listened to the radio show? I'm not too concerned with what you husband thinks if he is not responding to this thread.
Wildalaska are you a regular listener.

Rush Limbaugh had a excellent show at one time. Anyone that remembers his Environmentalist Updates and reports on the actual activities of our elected reps will remember. His show has moved much more to the middle of the road in many ways. He spends much too much time reading the opinion pieces published by someone else and following that with his opinion of their opinion.
As a moderate, I'm not sure Rush has much to offer the conservative movement. At least M. Savage is crystal clear on where he stands.

S-

longeyes

March 10, 2003, 04:37 PM

Count me as another fan of Savage, whom I discovered about three years ago on a trip up to Oregon. Pendragon has summed up the man's appeal quite effectively. Savage is "over the top" but in a time of political lies and a narcotized public you need first to wake people up. And Savage has apparently awakened around six million so far. Personally I believe he is the precursor of a budding political movement that will, sooner rather later, rock this country to its foundation.

sonny

March 10, 2003, 04:44 PM

Savage:)

Drjones

March 10, 2003, 04:46 PM

Personally I believe he is the precursor of a budding political movement that will, sooner rather later, rock this country to its foundation.

Thank you so very much for saying that. Really.

Since I heard that his book was flying off the shelves, it has given me hope.

I believe that the vast majority of the people in this country are people who, when properly informed (read: not brainwashed by the liberals and their media) and who, when it comes down to it, are people we'd all be proud of, for the most part.

I believe that most of what Savage says rings alarm bells with many people (as is evidenced by his popularity) and that hope is not lost for America.

I often get despondent after reading or hearing of all the garbage that liberals do.

Then I think of all the people that listen to Savage (as well as people here) and I feel better.

:)

DRC

March 10, 2003, 05:02 PM

"Trash talk is low class, immature and disgraceful whether it comes from any political persuation...and just because liberls/conservatives do it doesnt mean conservatives/liberals should do it...

And ya know what..in the fight for the soul of America, its not gonna be the ones who hurl insults and garbage speak who win over the hearts and minds of the great undecideds..

So y'all go shouting your hatred speak..after a while normal people will just tune ya out and your message will be lost...just like some of Savages good ideas...lost....

WildpreferscivilityAlaska"

Look what it did for Liberals. Now very few believe a word they say and have no faith in their ideologies or their ability to make decisions :-) I like Micheal Savage but I don't always agree with him or his ideas, but he is a straight shooter, but I'm sure he turns some people off.

Wild,

I hear what you're saying but we are in the middle of an uprising to combat the liberal voice that has gone unchecked for so long. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar for sure and I agree but there are quite a few vocal, angry folk out there taking a stand and with good reason (IMHO)

Take care

DRC

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 05:12 PM

The purpose of the angry talk, the names and the confrontation is not to "win the hearts of the undecided".

It is to threaten, rebuke and warn the anti America crowd.

They need to understand that we are serious. Right now, they have decieved themselves and are incapable of hearing the truth.

I guarantee you it is far more civil to oppose them this way now. If they get their way, we will not be shouting at them, we will be shooting at them.

Freedom loving Americans are very angry right now and with good reason. The left needs to understand that we are not willing to let them have their way. It does not matter how loud they are or even how many they are. Some things are not subject to majority vote - much less, mob rule.

If they think they hate America now, how will they feel when the second civil war starts? :evil:

griz

March 10, 2003, 05:40 PM

Pendragon
When they shout out their "message", we should shout back. "SHUT UP!" "GO AWAY".

This gets to the heart of what we’re talking about. Ones volume has nothing to do with his reasoning. If shouting and "R, O, and I" is all you bring to the argument, you score no points with me.
While in this thread you have been passionate in your point of view, you’ve still been civil. If Mr. Savage was reasonably polite, as you have been, I might listen to him.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

labgrade

March 10, 2003, 06:02 PM

I am the consumate talk-show/TV-newz junky. I'll have 2x radios (different stations) & the TeeWee going - channel surfing betwixt 'em all throughout the day ... (besides the 'net). I know = get a life. ;) Have one, thanks, I just like to "hear the noize."

I love Mike's passion.

He is extremely well-educated/versed, & I believe, has a real handle on "most things."

His exhortations are a frustration much like my own (Dennis Miller on acid), but with a huge difference.

Savage has an inclination to take much of what this country was founded upon & use it to prevent many from exercizing those same rights - invoking sedition laws to curtail accusatory speach.

Indeed & just what the Dr. ordered. (sigh)

:rolleyes: in case anybody missed the sarcasm.

I want no zealot, from any side who would purport to be the True Cause - none of 'em are - him, you - or me.

Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage all have good enough stuff in their stuff, but ya gotta siff it to find the nuggets here 'n there.

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 06:24 PM

I have been civil to the reader of my writing - unless the reader is an anti American leftist or a communist, etc.

I have openly called those people rats, scum, a waste of skin, etc. I have also made thinly veiled statements that could be read to imply that I think violence is an appropriate response to people who wish to destroy this country.

You think I am civil because I am not using swear words and I am not shouting or using large fonts.

Michael Savage does pretty much the same thing on his radio show.

I believe that the people I described are essentially cowards. They are against the war because they are either afraid to fight or die or because they are incapable of sorting humans into the simple categories of "people that need killin'" and "people that don't need killin'".

They are incapable of doing this in no small part to relativist philosophy. They cannot side with us because to them, our people and our culture and our way of life are no more worthy that the Islamo-fascists.

For them to be pro war or pro USA would mean that they would have to acknowledge that we are a soverign nation, that we have a right to exist and that we have a right to assert ourselves against other cultures that threaten us.

Most people on here take that at face value, but "they" see it as anathema. In their mind, this is a case of one culture of great strength attacking another culture of lesser strength - they cannot oppose the Islamo-fascists because they are the under dog and in a war between cultures of equal value, they feel they have to side with the underdog.

I wonder how much courage one can muster when they do not believe in the soverignty of the individual? I presume they believe that it is better to live on ones knees than die on ones feet. Regardless, we should be out there - we should be loud, angry, in their face, mocking, counter demonstrating, ridiculing, obstructing, etc.

Let them exercise their freedom of speech and let us exert ours to drown them out and shout them down, dilute their message and make them realize that any progress they want to make will have to be through us.

They should be afraid. They are the second half of "enemies foreign and domestic". Think about where they want to take this country. Think about what we should do if they try.

These people are unworthy adversaries. They should be given proper spankings and put to bed without dinner and the grownups should return to running the country.

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 06:27 PM

The sedition law is as appropriate as a law saying you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Note that other than sedition, I do not think these people should recieve government action. I think concerned citizens should be out in the street staring them down, telling them "shame!" and frustrating their little "marches".

labgrade

March 10, 2003, 06:40 PM

"The sedition law is as appropriate as a law saying you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater."

But, PD, you most certainly can yell fire in a theater - IF there is a fire, & even w/o the fire, it's still only a reason to charge someone with "whatever nuisanse law" on the books. It cannot prevent one from actually yelling fire. & if a fire exists, those yelling might save a lot of lives.

These folk yelling, posturing, whatever against the war are most certainly entitled to their rants as much as is Savage in his - we call it The First Amendment here.

I'm all for Mike's "language, culture, borders" rants, & the his methodologies, but to invoke sedition against those who don't expouse his ideals is de facto calling the kettle black.

pax

March 10, 2003, 06:46 PM

Selfdfenz,

I said I was done with the thread, so it was unfair to ask me another question! :D

It's pretty clear that may posting here have issues with MS because they don't listen to him very often, if at all.
Well, duh! :D :D

I don't like hitting myself on the head with a hammer, either. Oddly, this means I don't usually make a practice of doing so.
However...
Pax, how much have you actually listened to the radio show?
I'm married to a talk-show junkie. Even though I do not listen to Savage voluntarily, I still get exposed to his obnoxious style at least an hour a week.

That's plenty.

Oh, and Pendragon? The purpose of the angry talk, the names and the confrontation is not to "win the hearts of the undecided".

It is to threaten, rebuke and warn the anti America crowd.
Something like that was the approximate purpose of Churchill's declaration of war, too, you know. :neener:

pax

The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time. -- George Bernard Shaw

Gary H

March 10, 2003, 06:57 PM

This thread has been rather informative. It has encouraged me to think about the issues raised.

It is clear that M.S. voices the frustration of many and this has resulted in his success.

He offends some/many that are exposed to him and frankly, that doesn't matter one bit. Why doesn't it matter? I believe that many of those offended would not be particularly persuadable, even if his message was given with sugar coating. On the other hand, his passion emboldens others to press forward and to be more aggressive. His approach may influence politics, but his methods will not be used by any successful politician. I think that he fills an important niche. If you don't like him, then don't listen, or you might find, as I did, that the more I listened, the less he offended me and the greater my alignment with many of his positions.

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 06:59 PM

``Teaching people that the government is bad in the abstract is a constitutional right, but once you go beyond to an agreement to commit crimes, that becomes clearly punishable,'' said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

You should read up on the Sedition Act. It is not for locking up run of the mill war protesters.

I do enjoy your posts pax. Much more than the posts of those who agree with me (but don't stop agreeing wither ;)).

When I used to play games online, I had a lot of "virtual friends" who were fun, but playing cooperatively with friends was never nearly as enjoyable as playing against a worthy rival. You come to understand the concept of admiring your enemy. Admittedly, the chance of injury or death was remote (well, carpal tunnel excluded) but it was interesting that I often "loved" my adversaries more than my friends because my adversaries made me better.

As do you my dear pax. :)

Shalako

March 10, 2003, 07:00 PM

I listen to Savage every day. Pendragon summed up the appeal very nicely. In addition to that I would just like to add that Savage is foremost an entertainer. He has captured nicely the disenfranchised silent majority market of this country by echoing the anger and frustration that we feel.

That takes us to the root of my problem. Whenever I come home from work riled up and angry, my girlfriend can tell that I’ve been listening to Savage. Now sometimes he is a little over the top just to keep the intensity level up. But most of the time he is right on target with such topics as the pacification and feminizing of America’s young male population. This topic makes my blood boil and Savage is right on when he illustrates cases where horseplay, cops and robbers, playing army and simple fidgeting are seen as masculine traits that feminized teachers want to treat with medication and sensitivity counseling. :cuss: sensitivity counseling. But on one such occasion, when Savage stated that instead of worrying about being sensitive to others, we should focus on building up thick skin to armor us against the world, I came home steaming about sensitivity and professed to my girlfriend and her conservative sister that I believed the increased PC/sensitivity in our culture was instigated by an increased feminine role in our society. I equated masculine tendencies such as determination, focus, and force to men and feminine tendencies such as caring, compassion, social activities, and sensitivity to women. Therefore, excessive sensitivity was caused by women. My Savage induced theory bombed so badly as I cannot even to this day assess the utter contempt with which it was received. I came off as a bigot. I still believe my theory, but have since learned that no one wants to be “put in a box” or stereotyped and that if one wasn’t sensitive to others, they would be a big bully and everyone would shun them. I have to repeat this part daily as part of my penance.

But I still listen to Savage, and I really am angry!

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 07:09 PM

Shalako,

I am so on board with that it aint even funny. My son, Ronan is 15 months old and having a child, I think especially a son will make this stuff bother you 1000X more.

The use of the term feminization is perhaps unfair. My wife and I hold the same libertarian views on guns, freedom, religion, violence, etc. She is a very feminine woman who enjoys lace and antiques and dishes more than guns by a mile, but she absolutely believes in the idea of "manly men". We are determined to raise a MAN, not a wussified male humanoid.

Luckily, I think this will be easier to do in the South (Florida) than in PRK.

Remember that these people who pacify younf boys are just as anti woman as they are anti men. They are distorting what it is to be a real woman even as they try and damage our young me.

If they do any of that crap with my son, they are going to get Holy Hell and and the Devils entourage - and then my wife will call me to go pick up the pieces :D

Shalako

March 10, 2003, 07:37 PM

Hat's off to you Pendragon! :D
Also, that is a good point that the leftists are anti-woman as well. They want everyone to be the same mindless endrogenous weakling fascinated with fun, pleasure, and their feelings. Savage always bashes the hip hopsters with the saggy pants, but what about the young women with the exposed midriff display? That is -not- ladylike. It is none of my business to tell any young woman how to live their life but... what ever happened to promoting a classy image? Dignity, respect, class, ....chastity. :eek:

Instead of raising youth to become young ladies and gentlemen, our left promotes a self depricating cheapness of pure hedonistic pleasure.

Oh shucks, better get the flame suit on....

Pendragon

March 10, 2003, 07:48 PM

Well, if I ever write a book, it will be about civilized people needing to reclaim the tool of violence and put it to good use.

This reminds me of the folksy story my dad told me:

The dad was wresteling around with his sons on the lawn. The mom comes out and yells "quit doing that! you're tearing up the lawn!"

"Honey, we are raising boys, not grass"

My boy is goint to get martial arts training and know how to use firearms. He is going to know the constitution and not be afraid of liberal wussies. I am going to tell him that if anyone attacks him, he has my full blessing to defend himself - zero tolerance be damned. I do not care what the consequences are - if he gets suspended for doing that, I will take a week off and we will spend the time together. Whatever - they can inflict consequences, I will raise my kid the way I want. But I am going to make the commies at his school understand that they better leave my kid alone - just walk away, look away, whatever. As far as I am concerned, it is unrestricted warfare if they mess with your kids - lawsuits, complaints, endless paperwork nightmares, - heck, I would even run for school board - whatever it takes. :fire:

MeekandMild

March 10, 2003, 08:11 PM

Pax,

When I read your first question 'way back at the beginning of this thread I thought to answer you, but it seems your husband did so much better than I could have done. Indeed Savage does sound like Larry King from the 60's or Jesse Jackson from the 70's or Al Sharpton from the 80's, back when they were trying to build audiences. :)

I would conjecture that it is all homiletics and is designed to to just that, build an audience. The message is the same as the one Dr. Walter Williams, that most peaceful and erudite man, presents, but people enjoy listening to 'hellfire and damnation' preaching. They enjoy the words, the presentation and the fact that Savage says what they would like to say themselves if only they had the speech training for it. Listening to Savage is like listening to Shakespeare's tragedies, there is poetry of tone, emotion and unadulterated dyanamic. :D

If one listens to him from purely the viewpoint of information exchange they find his views are pretty much centrist, even more so than that stand up comedian Al Gore. ;) But there is the basic difference that he preaches individual self determination instead of the Nanny State.

I would also conjecture that the people who hate him either hate the homiletic style of his presentation or hate the fact that he presents arguments they can't deny. :uhoh:

I also noticed that people just love to stereotype and defame and several of the other posters here have done both to Mr. Savage. :confused:

Gordon

March 10, 2003, 10:02 PM

Would the communists' attempting to 'shut down nation' first ammendment rights be violated by my truck tire rolling over them when they attempt to block the road? Or are SOME(pc) peoples rights more valuable than others. Why oh why did the US gubbamint train me to kill commies when I can't try this at home? :evil:

Greybeard

March 10, 2003, 10:36 PM

DRC - In the midst of all this, I saw the post above was your numero uno. So, welcome to The High Road! Sorta jumped in on a fiesty one, huh?

I too was initially turned off by Savage's style and foul language to the point that I probably missed the message ... and simply changed the dial.

Thread here though has me making a mental note to give another listen next time handy ...

ahenry

March 10, 2003, 10:48 PM

I understand Pax’s position. In fact, while I often fail, I always strive to be polite and consider that the highest complement I could be paid would be to be called a gentleman. My entire life I have looked up to and tried to emulate men who were modern day examples of the character of George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Stephen F. Austin. Men who stood fast in their convictions and never caved to pressure yet remained polite and gentlemanly their whole lives. Now, with that said, I actually agree with Pendragon. I always strive to make my conversation polite, but then my conversation is always made with a bent towards changing minds or at least presenting a respectable front to a view that otherwise might be less favorably seen. Michael Savage serves a different purpose. He gives voice to a group of people (of which I consider myself to be a part) that are fed up with the attacks on, and the destruction of, America done by liberals. There is a time and a place for anger, and my personal conversations with people are not it, but Michael Savage’s broadcast is.

Perhaps I can illustrate my point. I am sure every single one of us here have had moments in the privacy of our homes where we have read a newspaper article, or watched a new broadcast and jumped of from our chair to tell the TV or newspaper just what we think of it. We might read that same article or watch that same report in a busy airport, and our feeling would be the same but our response would be different. This is as it should be. Our anger is justified and perhaps even righteous, and there are times that that emotion needs to be brought to the forefront of public conscience; Savage does just that.

ahenry

March 10, 2003, 10:54 PM

I’d also like to say something about the “feminizing” of our culture. I’ve known many women. Some embody femininity some do not. Some of the most feminine and genteel ladies I know also have reserves of strength “we manly men” can’t even begin to comprehend. In fact, my personal opinion is that when tapped, women, generally speaking, have far more intestinal fortitude than most men. For instance, my mother is a wonderful example of a lady. Growing up, my friends always told me that she was just exactly what they would imagine a mid 1800’s Southern lady was like. I think the only person I’ve ever met that was more tenderhearted and soft spoken than my mother is her mother. At the same time however, that sweet gentle little lady has run a burglar right out of her house with nothing more than the mettle of her voice and fury of her anger (she later told me she wished she had time to go grab a shotgun and handle it properly).

Masculinity in society is vital, but unbalanced by femininity it creates a worthless society. Femininity in society is vital, but unbalanced by masculinity it creates a worthless society. I would not say our society has become too feminine, I would say that our society has lost its understanding of the right balance between femininity and masculinity.

Wildalaska

March 11, 2003, 12:32 AM

If they get their way, we will not be shouting at them, we will be shooting at them.

Pendragon, some of us, ie those who dont agree with your views who are thefore anti american who accordingly should be executed in your view, will be shooting back, dont you worry..

I find your homicidal hostility to those you dont like to be beyond childish, I think it discredits this entire board, the pro gun movement, and decent people everywhere.

Wild:cuss: Alaska

Drjones

March 11, 2003, 12:49 AM

Wild, as I think I have said before, I really enjoy hearing your opinions which are contrary to most people on this board.

Honestly.

However, your reaction to Pendragon is just nonsense.

The left is destroying our country.

Gun control laws, lawsuits against car makers, gun makers, fast food companies, affirmative action, welfare, drivers tests in every different language, benefits for non-citizens paid for BY citizens, flag burning, and so on and so forth until I puke.

I like to think that there are more Americans than leftists in this country.

And there very well may come a point when we say "NO, we will NOT take this any more. We will NOT stand idly by and allow you to dismantle this great country, the finest country and civilization that has so far graced this planet, that so many people have died for."

There are twisted people in this country.

Perhaps this passage from a reading I have to do for a class at school will show you the people we would be shooting.

"Regardless of the angle from which you view the matter, the liberation of Native North America, liberation of the land first and foremost is the key to fundamental and positive social changes of many other sorts.....A preliminary formulation for those serious about achieving radical change in the Untied States might be "First Priority to First Americans." Put another way, this would mean, "U.S. Out of Indian Country."

Inevitably, the logic leads to what we've all been so desperately seeking: The Untied States - at least as we've come to know it - out of North America altogether. From there it can be permanently banished from the planet. In its stead, surely we can join hands to create something new an infinitely better. That's our vision of "impossible realism." Isnt' it time we all went to work on attaining it?" (Emphasis mine)

THOSE are some of the filth we are waging our war against.

:cuss:

:cuss:

Wildalaska

March 11, 2003, 02:06 AM

Doc..

Shooting...always shooting....

I really enjoy hearing your opinions which are contrary to most people on this board.

Yep thats right I dont agree that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, just like other rights. I dont beleive in "shooting" my enemies...I intend to fight for what I perceive to be justice.....

That makes me an "enemy" in Pnedragon's mind...and yours too...so I should be shot right?

Gun control laws, lawsuits against car makers, gun makers, fast food companies, affirmative action, welfare, drivers tests in every different language, benefits for non-citizens paid for BY citizens, flag burning, and so on and so forth until I puke.

So you want to shoot anyone who supports these precepts?

And there very well may come a point when we say "NO, we will NOT take this any more. We will NOT stand idly by and allow you to dismantle this great country, the finest country and civilization that has so far graced this planet, that so many people have died for."

Sound familiar...do I hear echoes of the 1930s..."shoot the traitors"

Perhaps this passage from a reading I have to do for a class at school will show you the people we would be shooting.

Oh, so now you are narrowing it down...enlighten me then..who are you and your buddies gonna shoot? Who is gonna decide who the enemy is? How about my mom, she hates guns and voted for Lautenberg...put her up against the wall?

Hey I know..how about those real "enemies" of freedom..the Ninth Circuit....gonna shoot some Judges?..gonna line some of them judicial traitors up?

You guys are scarier that your so called enemies. Its as I always said, the radical right is the true danger to freedom in this country..they will come out shooting, the left will just talk and litigate you top death.

By the way, I support some gun control laws. I beleive that the 1st amendment protects Flag Burning> I also support some affirmative action. Want my address to come shoot me? I'll be waiting.....after all Im just filth right?

Drjones

March 11, 2003, 02:30 AM

*sigh*

Issues like these are probably too touchy to be discussed on an internet forum. (At least without someone coming out looking like a nutjob.)

Wild, no.

I don't want to shoot you nor anyone else for supporting *some* (key word) gun control laws, or even flag burning.

As sick as I think it is, if we ban flag burning, there is nothing stopping us from banning other types of unsavory speech.

Though I really wouldn't care if a flag burner got a good beating for doing that. :evil:

Seriously, all those communist America-haters have just as much right to say what they want as I do. It is a free country, and we must take the bad with the good.

Where do we draw the line?

I dunno....I raised that exact question in another thread. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=1375&goto=newpost

I think we will know the line when it has been crossed.

Drjones

March 11, 2003, 02:33 AM

Rather than shoot the leftists, we could just shower them with pictures of evil, gas-guzzling, terror-supporting SUVs and Evil Black Rifles and just scare them all to death!!!

:evil:

No hard feelings, I hope...

And I hope you don't think I'm a true nut....I just get angry....

Pendragon

March 11, 2003, 02:59 AM

Wildalaska,

I have no intention of shooting those I disagree with or those I percieve to be fools.

In my view, the USA is great because it puts the individual ahead of the state - unlike every other state that has existed. The radical left has gained a lot of ground in getting this concept reversed - or as they would consider - "corrected".

I said we should oppose the people who support the eradication of the individual in favor of the clan, the creed, the sect, the tribe, the race or the state.

I also said, perhaps not clearly enough, that we have the moral responsibility to oppose them now when it is an adversary of words and marches and slogans and mean looks. We must oppose them now, because to let them have their way would put freedom loving people in the situation of having to water the liberty tree back to life. As was said, it is watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.

It is very simple - freedom is worth fighting for. Many who consider themselves libertarians are fairly tolerant of encroachements into their liberty. We are prone to be too tolerant and let things get too far out of hand - to the point where bloodshed may be necessary to restore liberty. This is the second worst possible outcome - the irretrievable loss of liberty being the first.

As for wanting to shoot you - I have never met you. I currently live about 3,000 miles from you and by fall, it will be over 5,000 miles.

But let me say this - I did not steal anyones land and I doubt anyone stole land from you. You may see me or other people in this country as responsible, but only if you believe in cultural guilt and cultural victimhood. You are free to believe in these concepts, but in my opinion, they reduce their adherents to the lowest level - that of brutes and racists.

So do I stay up worrying about bands of people of Native American descent coming to reposess the 8,000 square feet of land my house sits on? Please.

As I said before - ultimately, the land belongs to those who can take it and keep it. The Europeans took it from the previous occupants. They held it and the land became what it is today. If you want to take it back, you will have to do it by force. Even if you try and evict the US from the land it now occupies, you will still only have a court order - and you will have to enforce it.

I am not worried about shooting you because the layers of armed men between you and your goal are immense. Certainly one of them will shoot you first. If they don't, and it is down to you and me, then - how preposterous is this?

It is very easy to post on a forum and say "I would kill Al Quaeda" or "I would kill my grandmothers rapist!" etc, so on. I imagine most people can come up with a number of scenarios where they would be willing and feel justified in taking a life. I am more interested in defining where the boundaries are and exploring how we would get to the point of a second civil war or an uprising of some sort.

Men kill. Always have, always will - I am no different and neither are you. This is so mundane it makes me sleepy.

Yet you called me on the carpet for saying that we should defeat people with words before they get out of hand and we have to defeat them with arms. Please explain the poverty of my position.

As for the 9th Circuit - perhaps you should try spending a few years in California or Illinois or New Jersey and see what you think. I spent 5 years in Alaska and I loved it. There is no other place like it on earth and I would imagine if I lived there my whole life, I would have trouble fully comprehending what it is really like to live in a state like California where you are regulated, taxed and taxed beyond imagination.

Well, I have been back here for 15 years and I have had enough. The liberals and the communists and the radical multiculturalists and the anti individualists can have this state. I am leaving. I am moving to Florida to get out from under their thumb and the mess they have made of this place. I could just load up my handguns and go postal - right? Is that what I said?

Like I said, I have a line. It is very well defined and I know exactly what it will take to make me believe that we need to use force to enact change. As bad as California is, they are still pretty far from my line - but close enough to make me leave my whole family and move away in disgust.

Now excuse me, there is a man outside with Barbara Boxer sticker on his car and I need to go sacrifice him on the Altar of Michael Savage :rolleyes:

Wildalaska

March 11, 2003, 03:29 AM

I guarantee you it is far more civil to oppose them this way now. If they get their way, we will not be shouting at them, we will be shooting at them.

Your words not mine...disavow them do you?

I am not worried about shooting you because the layers of armed men between you and your goal are immense. Certainly one of them will shoot you first.

O really so there are more of you out there? And by the way what is my goal? I already know yours...shoot those who YOU perceive to be a threat in the realms of your own mind....

Men kill. Always have, always will - I am no different and neither are you

O yes we are..I dont go on to a message Board and spout off that I am gonna kill those who disagree with me. I dont intend to kill anyone until such time as I am protecting myself from an iminent use of unlawful deadly physical force. I sure as hell arent gonna kill anyone who wants to enforce multiculturalism.

I challenge you again...I beleive in reasonable controls on firearms. If I had the power I would impose them. Ya gonna shoot me? I know good, lawabiding citizens that honestly and reasonably beleive that very strict firearms laws should be imposed. Ya gonna shoot them? And if the SCOTUS rules that the second amendment is not an idividual right, ya gonna shoot them too?

All your highfalutin rhetoric about watering the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants does not disguise the fact that you are threatening other peoples lives. Disgraceful.:cuss: :fire:

Pendragon

March 11, 2003, 03:47 AM

I do not disavow a single word.

I also went out of my way to point out that I do not believe in shooting people who disagree with me. Frankly, I could not afford the ammo ;)

Let me ask you this - is there not any circumstance where you would resist the government? Perhaps just passivley resist by hiding, perhaps actively resist by shooting the men who come to put you in a camp or "re educate" you - perhaps strategically resisting an evil government by trying to destroy its leadership.

Is there any scenario where you could see yourself doing something like that?

Do you have any children? What if they said that you culture/religion/politics were unacceptable and your child had to be removed from your home so the government could educate them "properly". Would you comply peaceably?

What if the government said that certain types of people - say those of Native American (I am assuming this describes you) are a risk to national security and must be put into a camp - or a maximum security prison. Would you surrender?

What if the country was fractured and we reverted to feudalism and the "Lord" or your serfdom demanded relations with your wife - or worse, your 13 year old daughter - as "rent" on the land you live on. Would you hand over the good? Would you kill the bastard? Would you try and kill him after he did it to your neighbor but before he did it to you?

Are any of those sufficiently provcative to get you to do a personal "preemptive strike" on a "tyrant"?

If you say yes, then you do have a line - same as me - we probably just disagree about exactly where it is.

Pendragon

March 11, 2003, 04:23 AM

Well, I hate it when people do not answer my questions directly, so in the interest of not doing the same:

1. I do not disavow any of my words.

2. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not worried about shooting you because the layers of armed men between you and your goal are immense. Certainly one of them will shoot you first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O really so there are more of you out there? And by the way what is my goal? I already know yours...shoot those who YOU perceive to be a threat in the realms of your own mind....

My point was just that if you tried to assemble a band of people to reclaim lands belonging to your ancestors, that there would be so many LEO and State Guard troops to put you down that it would never come down to "would I shoot you". For the record, I hope you live a long and peaceful life devoid of gunshot wounds :)

3. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men kill. Always have, always will - I am no different and neither are you
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O yes we are..I dont go on to a message Board and spout off that I am gonna kill those who disagree with me.[Good, neither do I] I dont intend to kill anyone until such time as I am protecting myself from an iminent use of unlawful deadly physical force. I sure as hell arent gonna kill anyone who wants to enforce multiculturalism. [Ah, the finer point here is that I am not interested in killing multiculturalists [i]per se but when you say "enforce multiculturalism" I get worried. Anyone enforcing any "isms" on my and my own are on very thin ice.][quote]

4. [quote]I challenge you again...I beleive in reasonable controls on firearms. If I had the power I would impose them. Ya gonna shoot me? I know good, lawabiding citizens that honestly and reasonably beleive that very strict firearms laws should be imposed. Ya gonna shoot them? And if the SCOTUS rules that the second amendment is not an idividual right, ya gonna shoot them too?

First, everyone who believes in any level of gun control believes that the level of control they want is what defines "reasonable".

Second, you do not have the power. Additionally, California does have the power, and I have opted to remove myself from their jurisdiction - so my first instinct is... not to shoot!

Thirdly - addressing your "law abiding" citizens who want strict gun control (I am presuming you mean full confiscation): I will not shoot them for wanting it. I am unlikley to shoot them for passing it. I would be curious if the people passionate enough to enact it are passionate enough to die for it.

I think that most anything worth perishing for is also worth killing for. I am - insofar as I am able to determine - willing to do both; are your "law abiding citizens" willing to kill me to enforce it or willing to die to see it enforced?

5. And if the SCOTUS rules that the second amendment is not an idividual right, ya gonna shoot them too?
The SCOTUS can do whatever they want. They do not enforce the law. At the same time, their ruling that the 2ndA does not recognize an individual right to arms does not deprive me of my right to arms. Only force can do that. See: "Personal Soverignty" and "Inalienable Rights", also "Natural Rights"

6. All your highfalutin rhetoric about watering the liberty tree with the blood of tyrants does not disguise the fact that you are threatening other peoples lives. Disgraceful.

You are correct. It does not disguise it - It actually explains it. Nothing I said is radical. Nothing I said is out of line with the charter of the United States of America.

This government was founded to promote personal liberty. When it becomes destructive to that end, the people have a right and duty to abolish it and begin anew.

If you find me radical for believing that literally and being willing to take part in the abolishment phase, then you do not understand what America is about.

Gordon

March 11, 2003, 06:54 AM

Here here Pendragon, I loved your literate rant, I've got your six.:)

Shalako

March 11, 2003, 01:10 PM

If I may briefly interrupt your spirited debate, did anyone catch Savage last night? It was all time (great)! A caller presented the best 'anti-war with Iraq' argument I have heard yet. The caller agreed that Sadaam had to go but the severity of the planned offensive was too great. Innocent lives would be lost. Savage respectfully asked what the caller would propose instead. The caller recommented small groups of elite forces go in and off Sadaam. Savage then asked him to put a number on the amount of troops to use. They then went round and round trying to get the caller to list a defensible number and explain why it would work. The caller couldn't do it. He had a great argument but it fell short. Then Savage asks the guy if he has EVER shot a BB gun. The caller says "no". Savage says THANK YOU FOR CALLING THE SAVAGE NATION. Click. End of story. That was so cool and to the point that I was proud as heck of Mike Savage. How could a guy direct others on how to do dirty work with weapons if he has never even touched a BB gun? Ha ha.

Now back to your previously scheduled spirited debate :rolleyes:
*cough*troll *cough*

Pendragon

March 11, 2003, 01:22 PM

I caught that as I was driving the last few blocks home.

The guy sounded like a person whos sole knowledge of force is derived from video games and comic books.

The way he answered the question - the tone, I literally laughed for 3 blocks until I pulled into my drive way - and I chuckled all the way to the door and told my wife about it.

The guy first said we did not need a war - we just need to send in "elite troops". How many? "uh, I dont know - a few thousand..." like... three thousand? "yeah"

Savage got him to admit that three thousand American troops could not take Iraq. He kept insisting that war was not necessary. Savage pressed him - you say war is not needed, but we should get rid of Saddam - tell us how, we are all listening.

"I don't know! - thats what the military leaders are supposed to figure out!" :rolleyes:

Thats when he asked the BB gun question - that was radio perfection right there.

Now back to you previously scheduled spirited debate

Didn't you get the memo? Its not a debate, it is me explaining how I want to murder everyone I disagree with :rolleyes:

That, and me weeping uncontrollably at the invincible logic of my debating partners. :neener:

DRC

March 11, 2003, 02:41 PM

Hello too all,

Pendragon,

I do like what you've said so don't get me wrong here but Wild doesn't want to understand, is not going to understand now and will never understand what you're trying to say. I've dealt with people like this time and time again and all you will do is beat your head against a wall. 90% of what WildinAlaska quoted from you was taken out of context so that they could pull your opinions into an arguement of nonsense. I agree you have to take these people on and you have to do it with well thought out arguements and facts. What we hope to do is leave them speachless with jaw agape after we hit on the quintasential truth that is life which on the surface it would appear you've done. However I would venture a guess that Wild has simply shut you off and stopped listening. So let me throw my hat in the ring if I may :)

Wild,

As nicely as I can say this I will. You don't get out much do you? :D If you want to burn a flag and think it's protected by the Constitution to do so then by all means knock yourself out, but don't be shocked when someone cleans your clock or hauls you into court for doing it. If you're for gun control then don't get excited when the next thing on the agenda is taking away your freedom of speech, your right to own land, your right to live freely or any other rights you possess under the Constitution of the United States of America. In order for you to have these rights those rights were fought for and must be defended by wars being fought in the present as well as the future but verbally and with force. Otherwise people willing to fight for a cause (and or shoot at you) will come take them away from you and me.

Taking away my rights also entails taking away your rights. That is something that many on your side of the issue never think about. When my rights are infringed upon so are yours you just might not see it that way or care much about it, but you have taken away one of your own rights.

You cannot have peace through negotiation alone. You have to defeat the opposition first and THEN negotiate peace; otherwise you have the UN ;)

A funny little side note here. I saw a mention of the Native Americans and how the settlers stoled their lands and killed them. My brother has studied Native American history and culture, the Souix in particular. He's grown quite a fondness for these people as well as the Navaho. The intresting thing is that when only tribes of Native Americans lived on this soil they fought, killed, tortured and stole from each other as a way of life and to aquire land for hunting and farming. Oddly enough my brother, even though he believes peace is the only way anything can be resolved, hates other tribes that would war with the tribes he's taken a liking to. My brother would say everything you've said here but when it comes right down to it would live a double standard life if put in that position. This is called hypocracy. It was the same infrastructure that exists today. Amazingly the only thing that really changed was the nationality of the land owners which was still as diverse as the number of stars in the sky.

As has been mentioned already but I'll echo I've never stolen land from anyone, have never owned a slave and no one living today has ever had land stolen from them personally or been held as a slave personally so that arguement is useless at best. If a Native American wants reparations for stolen land then lets get it for them! Let's go get the money from the French, the British and the Spaniards for starting this whole thing. If a person wants reparations for slavery then I'm all for it. Let's go get the money from Spain and hold them accountable for what they did. What do you say? ;)

Hello Greybeard,

I registered yesterday and figured I'd get my feet wet. In all honesty this is a heated debate compared to our other home but it's pretty tame compared to some other places I've been. What's amazing is that this type of forum was shot down (no pun intended :) on the other board because it was said that it wouldn't generate any intrest. Seems to generate plenty of intrest over here ;)

Sorry I didn't make it to the last match. I had to be out of town. Heard Steve won that one on a new rig? Good for him. I'll talk to you later and hope to see you at the next match.

DRC

Wildalaska

March 11, 2003, 02:55 PM

If you want to burn a flag and think it's protected by the Constitution to do so then by all means knock yourself out, but don't be shocked when someone cleans your clock or hauls you into court for doing it. If you're for gun control then don't get excited when the next thing on the agenda is taking away your freedom of speech, your right to own land, your right to live freely or any other rights you possess under the Constitution of the United States of America. In order for you to have these rights those rights were fought for and must be defended by wars being fought in the present as well as the future but verbally and with force. Otherwise people willing to fight for a cause (and or shoot at you) will come take them away from you and me.

There ya go DRC....you dont like flag burning so IN YOUR VIEW its not protected...now assuming for puropese of argument SCOTUS says otherwise? Now what do you do..

Ditto "gun control"...what you and Pendragon are saying that assuming for purposes of argument SCOTUS decides that the 2nd am is not an individual right. If a law, passed by the majority of OUR LEGISLATORS calling for confiscation of lets say AK47s is passed and upheld by the Supreme Court as constituional, then you and Pendragon and others are going to start shooting any attempts to enforce it...

The bottom line is...Mr P and yourself (by way of the last post) are the ones who DECIDE what laws are valid or not. You are laws unto yourselves. And all that stands between me, who may disagree with your position, and being executed by you is your good graces.

Sorry, I will fight for freedom, Im not just gonna let you decide what it is...

Pendragon

March 11, 2003, 03:28 PM

I do like what you've said so don't get me wrong here but Wild doesn't want to understand, is not going to understand now and will never understand what you're trying to say.

shhhh! ;)

I am prolonging the fight because I can see that you need the practice. - Zorro

David

March 11, 2003, 06:06 PM

There are 2 other posts that clearly make the point why someone like Michael Savage and Savage Nation are needed.

-- Post One is about the Mexican army and police entering US territory......perhaps to help drug dealers......and nothing is done about it.

-- Post Two is about 2 FBI agents who were beaten and dragged into Mexico by Mexican bandits trying to rob a train in the US -- and now, Mexico is complaining WE violated their sovereignty.

:banghead:

:cuss:

What the heck is going on!

Just my 2 cents...

Selfdfenz

March 11, 2003, 10:56 PM

"The bottom line is...Mr P and yourself (by way of the last post) are the ones who DECIDE what laws are valid or not. You are laws unto yourselves."

That does happen at times and it can have a bad outcome and I will admit that, however, P is discussing civil disobedience in the face of an oppressive government as best I can determine rather than hunting you down. He's been amply clear on that point.

There are also instances where the outcome of being a law unto one's self was altogether first rate. The Boston Tea Party and the Alamo are a couple of examples you might be trying to overlook.

Or would you rather the American Revolution had not taken place?

Pendragon, Wild, and all....great exchange, just like the old TFL at its best.

S-

DRC

March 12, 2003, 12:03 PM

"There ya go DRC....you dont like flag burning so IN YOUR VIEW its not protected...now assuming for puropese of argument SCOTUS says otherwise? Now what do you do.."

Let me preface this by saying thank you for "showing" instead of saying that you don't get out much :) Where to begin? Oh where to begin? In my view flag burning is an a** kicking offense (pardon the vernacular) Do I think it's protected by the Constitution? Hmmm. Good question. Go give it a try and see what happens. I'll be more than happy to wait for the results. Keep us informed on how it goes :) Actually what I said was if your belief is that flag burning is protected (and it may very well be if you get a very warped and sleezy lawyer to twist it that way in court) it's based on no more proof than I have other than what's written in the Constitution. BUT if you do it and offend people by doing so (which you will, common sense will tell you that) don't be surprised if someone verbally or physically assaults you for doing it and don't be surprised if you end up in court over it and get charged for your actions. Will it happen if you do such? I don't know. But like I said, give it a try and see how it goes. Put your money where your mouth is and keep us posted.

"Ditto "gun control"...what you and Pendragon are saying that assuming for purposes of argument SCOTUS decides that the 2nd am is not an individual right. If a law, passed by the majority of OUR LEGISLATORS calling for confiscation of lets say AK47s is passed and upheld by the Supreme Court as constituional, then you and Pendragon and others are going to start shooting any attempts to enforce it..."

Um...No. What I said was that if it is decided that my right to own an AK47 is taken away it doesn't just affect me or Mr. Pendragon it affects you also. Even if you don't own or never intend to own an AK47 it's not just my right that is taken away, it's yours as well. I don't own an AK47 so it would be easy for me to say "Well, it really won't affect me since I don't own one." But it does affect me and everyone in this country YOU included, you just don't see it as a big deal. What it does; however, is start the wheel turning more easily for other freedoms to be taken away that WILL affect you directly while at the same time affect me either directly or indirectly.

"The bottom line is...Mr P and yourself (by way of the last post) are the ones who DECIDE what laws are valid or not. You are laws unto yourselves. And all that stands between me, who may disagree with your position, and being executed by you is your good graces."

Nope, that would be left up to the law makers but we all have a voice and a say in the whole matter, again yourself included. As to being laws unto ourselves no but we too will fight for our our rights because we feel it to be unjust for them to be taken away just as you feel it's unjust for us all to have them. It's your right to protest what you feel is wrong and it is our right to look at you funny and say things like "That poor child. They must be a product of public schools." :) Seriously it is our right to counter your protest. This is Amercia after all. Remember? Home of the free and what not. I truly like your last line in that paragraph, it's so utterly absurd that it's funny. It's so insane I have to wonder the same about you and your views and it's so child like as an arguement that all I can mentally think about it a childs excuse of being chased by a killer robot but just before they got to you they ran out of batteries. If you truly believe that's what myself and others think then I'm afraid you have much more to worry about than guns and freedom, you have your own paranoia to concern yourself with.

"Sorry, I will fight for freedom, Im not just gonna let you decide what it is..."

I'm sorry as well, I too will fight for freedom and I will not let you decide what it is either. ;)

Take care and seriously let us know how the flag burning goes, have a friend take pictures please :)

DRC

MeekandMild

March 12, 2003, 02:46 PM

Sadly this thread has degeneratged to a flame war. :uhoh:

People like to listen to Savage because he is a good speaker who can arouse the audience... for a brief and limited time...and inspire them by the force of his rhetoric. They don't, however, particularly like to read endless argument with a fifteen year old liberal who has delusions of moral superiority.

So the independant referee's decision is for Pendragon by reason of technical foul. BakedAlaska, go sit in the corner for a while! :banghead:

Drjones

March 12, 2003, 03:00 PM

DRC,

MAN I'm gonna love having you around here!!!

Glad you found us!!!

Welcome!

:D

Wildalaska

March 12, 2003, 04:31 PM

DRC, you avoided my points....

But lets talk about this one:

Actually what I said was if your belief is that flag burning is protected (and it may very well be if you get a very warped and sleezy lawyer to twist it that way in court) it's based on no more proof than I have other than what's written in the Constitution. BUT if you do it and offend people by doing so (which you will, common sense will tell you that) don't be surprised if someone verbally or physically assaults you for doing it and don't be surprised if you end up in court over it and get charged for your actions. Will it happen if you do such? I don't know. But like I said, give it a try and see how it goes. Put your money where your mouth is and keep us posted.

I may be wrong, but Flag Burning is already protected speech. Accodingly what you are saying is you reserve the right or approve of violence against someone who is doing something that is entirely lawful...

Now to the converse...assume it is lawful to seize firearms. Tghe SCOTUS says so. You gonna shoot then? Answer the question.

By the way your arguments were better before you started flaming. Thats Mike Savages technique. Then again I was raised to be polite, Im not from Texas.
:D

DRC

March 12, 2003, 06:01 PM

Not sure where anyone sees a flame war, but if telling the truth equates to flame wars then I'm guilty and damn proud of being so. :) I like a little humor in with fact from time to time. It helps keep things intresting and light.

Actually Wild the jury is still out on whether flag burning is "protected speach" or not but regardless let's put it to the test. Go burn one and then report back on how it went (and burning one out in the middle of nowhere with no one around to see it isn't allowed. It needs to be done publically. And No, video taping it out in the middle of nowhere and showing it publically will not suffice either. :) You have one side (your side) calling it freedom of speach and the otherside (my side) calling it disrespectful and unconstitutional. The constitution does not say whether you have or don't have the right to burn a flag. People with twisted sensibilities utilize the right of free speach to justify it (read, keep themselves out of jail for doing it) But burning a flag is not speach at all it is merely a symbol, just like bra burning. All that did was leave women running around sagging :)

Hmmm. Approving of violence against someone doing something lawful? It's a figure of speach (which I have freedom of btw ;) more than a threat but if burning a flag is legal I reserve the right to make sure that you hold onto it for the duration of the burning, otherwise I believe it is illegal due to city limits burning ordinances and or littering which is illegal in both cases I would think. To actually commit violence against someone for doing something legal and lawful would be illegal and would get one in big trouble. Being a law abiding citizen of the US of A I wouldn't do that unless I told you not to prior to you doing it then it would be a civil law situation and I'd probably stomp on ya. But I wouldn't advocte that to anyone other than myself. So in answer to your question of would I advocate violence against someone doing something legal? No. But flag burning is a gray area where law is concerned, so I would think by my making my displeasure known to you in as severe a way in which I would take you buring a flag, that too would be a gray area :) After all you wouldn't be doing anything illegal by burning it so why would I be doing anything illegal by defending it? Think about it.

I'm not sure why you think I would shoot anyone, unless of course they were threatening my life. If a law was passed making gun seizure legal I would comply and then I would fight like blue blazes to get that law overturned. Now does that mean that I wouldn't still own guns? No. Criminals will still have them and so will I. I can guarantee that if this law were to ever be passed, the next election time would never seem anyone other than an ultra conservative candidate elected in the House, Senate and White House and that law would be dismantled so I'm not too worried about it. Would I shoot them if they came to take my guns? No, that would be stupid, almost as stupid as the question, but not quite. Remember I'm not calling you stupid only the question.

If you've misunderstood my postings to you I'm sorry that you did. As to "flaming" I've seen more of your remarks cut deeper than my own but never considered them "flaming" in any fashion, only an exchange of ideas both good and bad. Mike makes some good points but as I've already said I don't always agree with him or his technique. He does make some good points though.

"Then again I was raised to be polite, Im not from Texas." And Texas thanks you and is a better place for it. You hold on to Alaska for us and if anything bad happens there we Texans will come save you from it. We're just neighborly that way :)

Thanks for your thoughts, keep Hope alive and give pea's a chance.

DRC

trimation

March 12, 2003, 07:43 PM

I don't understand why wildalaska is even here in this forum. He sounds more like a liberal gun grabber than anything to me.

Wild,

You'd probably be the first person giving up your guns if the second amendment was declared a non individual right and nation wide confiscation attempts ensued wouldn't you?

Wildalaska

March 12, 2003, 07:52 PM

DRC
So in answer to your question of would I advocate violence against someone doing something legal? No. But flag burning is a gray area where law is concerned, so I would think by my making my displeasure known to you in as severe a way in which I would take you buring a flag, that too would be a gray area After all you wouldn't be doing anything illegal by burning it so why would I be doing anything illegal by defending it? Think about it.

OK just so Im clear you consider physical assault an appropriate reaction to flag burning? Lets say it is patently illegal...you would take it upon yourself to assault someone over property damage?

And lets take it further..nowSCOTUS has ruled its protected speech...now what do you do?

Would I shoot them if they came to take my guns? No, that would be stupid, almost as stupid as the question, but not quite. Remember I'm not calling you stupid only the question.

Well thats a change...since you are new here let me tell you that numerous posters have said they would shoot...so therefore I must assume that you are on the same side as I am...ie, the rule of law....

You hold on to Alaska for us and if anything bad happens there we Texans will come save you from it. We're just neighborly that way

Reminds me of the Texans we had hunting up here..."y'all mean ah have to climb that there heel? Whaa dont y'all have some Mehicahns draav us up thar in a peekup truck? Whaat? Y'all wahnt us to carry thaht out on our backs?":neener:

NIGHTWATCH

March 13, 2003, 01:08 AM

We better get savage or we will perish as a nation against the liberal assault on our borders, language and culture. Thats the underlying theme of his book, which cover too many topics to mention. One being his support of the RKBA.
Im learning so much from this guy its incredible. He will open your eyes too. BUY THE BOOK. :cool:

Gordon

March 13, 2003, 01:18 AM

I think SCOTUS ought to interpret the "living" constitution to outlaw lever action Marlins and switch barrel rifles. Maybe average joe citizen can't afford one and can be convinced to let a corrupt politician with a private axe to grind to usurpt the founding fathers ideas. It's amazing how when your own chicken is plucked you start to see who the thieves are.:neener:

Wildalaska

March 13, 2003, 01:35 AM

No offense Gordon but that post not only make no sense, it is not even germane to the issue at hand..

WildpuzzledAlaska

Zander

March 13, 2003, 01:59 AM

Reminds me of the Texans we had hunting up here..."y'all mean ah have to climb that there heel? Whaa dont y'all have some Mehicahns draav us up thar in a peekup truck? Whaat? Y'all wahnt us to carry thaht out on our backs?"Blatant bigotry. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but given your posting history, I'm not.

Fortunately, I know many Alaskans and can aver that they...and the majority of Alaskans, I'd suggest...don't cater to your nonsense.

Just out of curiosity, were you born in Alaska? I'd bet not...

Wildalaska

March 13, 2003, 02:16 AM

Blatant bigotry. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but given your posting history, I'm not.

O really whats my posting history? Not agreeing with you? Keeping an open mind, yes that must be it that makes me a bigot..

QUOTE]Fortunately, I know many Alaskans and can aver that they...and the majority of Alaskans, I'd suggest...don't cater to your nonsense.[/QUOTE]

O really...and what sort of nonsence dont us Alaskans cater to? Freedom of speech?

Get a sense of humour by the way..look for the smileys in posts it will make your life a lot more pleasnat....:D

Pendragon

March 13, 2003, 02:58 AM

OK just so Im clear you consider physical assault an appropriate reaction to flag burning?

I would think that most men who call themselves men would be willing to deliver a good woopin to someone who asked them nicely enough.

Remember - flag burning is "speech" right?

...you would take it upon yourself to assault someone over property damage?

Well, you seem unsure about this - but lets go with the notion that burning the flag is "speech".

What is speech? It is communication. At least, thats more or less how the courts have defined it. TV shows, pictures, sculpture, movies, T-shirts - all these things are protected and considered to be speech because a legitimate argument can be made that ideas are communicated through these media.

So when you burn the flag in front of a man who has lost family and friends for the sake of that flag, what are you "saying"?

What idea is it that you are trying to convey?

Is it just "Me make fire!"?

Hardly. Nobody ever wants to burn a pillow case or a pair of overalls. If the message was in the fire, people would just burn what was handy.

Must be that the message has something to do with the flag - since the flag is required.

So let us consider, what do we burn in our society?

Fuel for heat, candles for ambience, dead bodies and trash.

Can we assume that the the flag is not needed for heat? I would imagine that there are not a lot of therms in your average flag and flag burning does not seem to coincide with hypothermia very often.

What about ambience? Maybe the flag burner just wants to create a certain kind of mood. Perhaps - we burn candles because they smell nice, they give off a soft glow and can often burn for hours. On second thought, these effects do not really describe a burning flag.

So maybe the flag burner is trying to say that the flag is a dead body. I am not a flag expert, but I understand that there is a flag burning ceremony whereby flags are sent to their reward via some kind of fire. Could it be that the flag burner just wants to retire the flag in the proper way to avoid defiling said flag by letting it touch the ground or letting some other insult befall our treasured banner? You think?

My grand parents had a burning barrel behind their home when I was a young child. I remember because once in a while an aerosol can would find its way to the barrel. They burned trash because they lived in a very rural area without regular trash pickup. It was a quick and easy way to dispose of trash and waste. My grand parents lived through the great depression so they never wasted anything if they could help it. Only the most foul and useless material was sent to the burnin' barrel.

My best guess is - people who burn the flag are trying to tell us that they think the flag has no value and perhaps they are trying to say it stinks. They consider it to be trash so foul that it must be immediately incinerated to provide relief from its offensive presence.

People do not burn the flag because they like fire or because they want heat or because it is "just property". They burn the flag because they know most people see the flag as the symbol of our country. They know that a majority of Americans love our flag, they respect it and it stirs great pride and love of country when they see it. Our national anthem and our flag are inextricably linked and many people cannot hear "The Star Spangled Banner" without welling up at the thought of the brave people who gave their lives so we can live in freedom.

So when you burn the flag, you are slapping the face of the patriots and the heroes of the greatest country that has ever existed.

Do not be suprised if we slap back :fire: :cuss: :fire:

Zander

March 13, 2003, 03:09 AM

Keeping an open mind, yes that must be it that makes me a bigot..There is nothing "open-minded" about insulting citizens from Texas who come to Alaska to hunt or pursue any other activity.

O really...and what sort of nonsence dont us Alaskans cater to? Freedom of speech?I said your nonsense, not all Alaskans. I don't think for a minute that most Alaskans subscribe to your sort of bigotry. Unlike you, they tend to be very open-minded and reluctant to condemn an entire class of people.

Get a sense of humour by the way..look for the smileys in posts it will make your life a lot more pleasnat....Since when does the :neener: icon equate to a "smiley"?

My sense of humor seems to be a lot more substantial than your ability to offer a logical argument.

And your refusal to answer my question re: whether or not you are a native Alaskan is answer enough.

Spew your insults as you please...that's your privilege on this board so long as you follow the rules. But don't pretend that you speak for Alaskans in general. You don't...