Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on April 03, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
-
New York Times bestselling author Michael Savage‘s 27th book – which he considers his most seminal – is chock-full of documented reasons why America should not re-elect Barack Obama as president, but it boils down to one stark warning: “An Obama victory in 2012 would doom this country.”
“It’s a do or die situation,” Savage told WND in an interview. “You can see the trajectory of Obama’s regime thus far.
“Imagine your worst fears, and you’re going to have some or all of it if this man is re-elected.”
Savage’s “Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama’s Dream Of The Socialist States Of America” is scheduled for release Tuesday by Harper Collins. The author of six New York Times bestsellers, his third-ranked national talk show, “The Savage Nation,” has more than 10 million listeners. He made his fiction debut last fall with Abuse of Power,” which began at No. 4 on the Times list and became Amazon.com’s No. 1 bestselling hard-cover book.
Savage explains why he wrote the book in its opening pages: “The American people have been kept in the dark about what I’m going to reveal to you in this book. They’ve been fed an endless stream of lies.”
Get Michael Savage’s “Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama’s Dream Of The Socialist States Of America” from WND’s Superstore
He begins with “advice to the next president,” asserting that the nation needs someone “the exact opposite of Barack Obama.”
He recognizes Mitt Romney doesn’t fit that bill, but he will vote for him anyway if the former Massachusetts governor becomes the Republican nominee, because the alternative is unacceptable.
But while the nation’s economic woes offer an advantage to Romney, Savage fears Obama could be re-elected anyway, noting today’s news that polls in swing states show women have moved in Obama’s direction, giving him the lead.
Women are flocking toward Obama, Savage said, because they look at the Republican field and “see a nightmare.”
“Romney says nothing, Santorum is nauseating, Gingrich is physically repulsive,” he explained. “So women are saying, ‘You know, I’ll stick with him.’ It’s all style anyway.”
Savage said it’s still unclear who Romney is.
“Romney has no traction with the American people, because there is no there there,” he said. “Where is he? Who is he? The Etch-a-Sketch wasn’t a bad metaphor. Who is the man?”
2008 playbook
Savage fears a repeat of Sen. John McCain’s failed 2008 presidential campaign.
“Romney is already following the McCain playbook, which is that Obama is a good man, he just doesn’t really quite get it, or he isn’t up to the job,” Savage said.
He said that if Romney wins the nomination, he would vote for him “strictly on the issue of national security and taxation.”
“But as far as the essence of what I really believe in. The pride of a nation, etc. – he’s not there,” said Savage.
Savage had dinner with Romney in 2010 and found him a likeable person, but Romney won’t go on “The Savage Nation” radio show.
Savage thinks Romney simply doesn’t “understand America.”
“I believe he’s part of the establishment, and the establishment has contempt for the average person,” he said. “They don’t even understand who they are. They sneer at them, they look down upon them, and they follow their advisers’ suggestions without even understanding.”
Savage said that if he were running for office, he would have a clear and understandable slogan that sums up his platform – his familiar “borders, language and culture.”
“Can anyone say that they know what the Republicans stand for other than defeating the Democrats?” he asked. “Where is America in any of their sloganeering.”
‘The new Chavez’?
Supported by nearly 300 pages of footnoted documentation of Obama’s radical ideas and actions, Savage makes a bold declaration in “Trickle Down Tyranny”: “If Barack Obama is elected for another four-year term, he’ll be president for life. He’ll be the new Hugo Chavez. He’ll do away with the two-term limit and win the 2016 election with 90 percent of the vote.”
Savage goes on to warn: “We have less than six months to make sure this doesn’t happen.”
Asked if he believes Obama intends to extend his power like Venezuela’s Chavez, or whether the statement is rhetorical, Savage replied: “I don’t know. I have no idea. I don’t know. Anything is possible with this gang.”
“Can anyone admit that honestly that they are not afraid of this administration?” he asked. “Can anyone admit to themselves that they feel more free than they did when this gang took over the country?”
Even if a Chavez-style America isn’t a literal reality, he said, Americans should recall that many of the liberal social programs established by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s and by President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s are still in place.
(Much more in the link)
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/michael-savage-its-do-or-die-for-america/ (http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/michael-savage-its-do-or-die-for-america/)
Ten million listeners. Number one selling books. And it's ridiculous rhetoric. Obama the next Chavez? Seriously?
Too many Republicans are influenced by this kind of hackneyed garbage. And too many swing voters are sickened by it.
The Democrats may be wrong, but they're at least presenting their wrong ideas in a level headed manner.
-
http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/michael-savage-its-do-or-die-for-america/ (http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/michael-savage-its-do-or-die-for-america/)
Ten million listeners. Number one selling books. And it's ridiculous rhetoric. Obama the next Chavez? Seriously?
Too many Republicans are influenced by this kind of hackneyed garbage. And too many swing voters are sickened by it.
The Democrats may be wrong, but they're at least presenting their wrong ideas in a level headed manner.
Cue at least four different posters to defend this shit as the Gospel.
I 100% agree (with you, not Savage).
-
The real problem is that if these two (Obama-Romney) are the best this country can offer. Than were fucked either way.
-
The Democrats may be wrong, but they're at least presenting their wrong ideas in a level headed manner.
Ever hear of Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken, Rachel Maddow or Al Sharpton? I mean, that's level headed stuff right there. I don't care who y'are... at least... :rolleyes:
-
Cue at least four different posters to defend this shit as the Gospel.
I 100% agree (with you, not Savage).
Aside from you conveniently forgetting and excusing the moonbat extremist viewpoints from the Left, I do admit that these doom-and-gloom guys are annoying. Beck is probably the worst followed closely by Savage... I still find Savage occasionally entertaining, but I honestly can't remember the last time I've heard any of his show.
-
Ever hear of Bill Maher, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, Al Franken, Rachel Maddow or Al Sharpton? I mean, that's level headed stuff right there. I don't care who y'are... at least... :rolleyes:
Touche, salesman.
-
The extreme left, and the extreme right, are just that, extremes. They are also the one's most passionate about their agendas, they often do nothing else but work their agenda, and thus, the viewpoints we hear most are from the extremes. Americans are largely moderates. Some leaning left a bit, some right, some have "pet issues" that are personal to them that may appear to define them as conservative or liberal, but don't give you the full picture. And, sadly, the largest percentage of folks don't pay that much attention, and that's how a guy like Obama gets elected on nothing but the promise of "change."
-
I am to the point now where I would say let Romney win and give him a repub senate and house and give him his 4 years. Same shit different day bounce them all out and try something new. They way were are going now ain’t working.
-
I am to the point now where I would say let Romney win and give him a repub senate and house and give him his 4 years. Same shit different day bounce them all out and try something new. They way were are going now ain’t working.
At least Romney stops the bleeding.
THS, Chizad - no one says its Gospel, but Chavez did start out with the same exact policies. Ther Germans also said it would never happen to them in the late 30's. I'm not saying it will happen, but you also can't dismiss it totally either since there is a precedence of it happening before. There is a fine line between treading reality and paranoia. People like Savage and Alex Jones tend to be a little paranoid. Breitbart was more my style.
And the dems as levelheaded? You've lost your fucking mind.
-
And the dems as levelheaded? You've lost your fucking mind.
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001705005/266157157_5063414753_e192d55cc2_xlarge.jpeg)
Slow your fucking roll, there, bitch. I am as level headed as they come on this side of the debate.
(http://www.theweedstreetjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/barney-frank.jpg)
Tho am I. Heyyyy wait... do I thmell a dick? Yummy.
(http://educationviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/harryreidap.jpg)
My head is so level you could balance a plate on it.
(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/jacksonlee2.jpg)
I DID balance a plate on my level fucking head. It's a BLACK plate you racist!
(http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_arts_john/020811keith.jpg)
Tha fuck you mean I'm too left to be on a left-leaning network? The fuck you say.
(http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/al-sharpton-244x300.jpg)
Preach that shit brother. Preach it.
(http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2254442.jpg)
What I believe my excitable brother is trying to communicafy is the verra real conceptualization that Mister Olbermann should not be considered to be the extremist opposite tangent of the triangulary position on the other side of conservativeness. Either that or it could be the fact that I look like I belong in a Star Wars cantina. Can't comprehend the totality of that.
-
Now that's some funny shit
-
And the dems as levelheaded? You've lost your fucking mind.
I think I know where I went wrong.
I think I've gotten to the point where I ignore the left extremists. They simply don't exist to me. The Sharptons and Pelosis are so far beyond help that I choose to forget that they know the English language.
Because of this, my view of Democrats is shaded and comforting. I take their talking points as if they are outlining a proposal intended to help the country. I, being level headed, then take each talking point with a grain of salt. Then I analyze them and decide whether or not I agree or disagree with them. Because I've removed all of the crazies from the discussion, emotions aren't invited.
Further, I still look to the Republican party as the only true majority party with any chance of saving the country. So I therefore have a much higher set of expectations for anyone associated with it. But they've left me thirsty and scrounging for water.
The right's best options seem to be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox News, Savage, Hannity, and Beck.
When Romney emerges as the only viable member of the Republican party, I start to question its future.
-
I think I know where I went wrong...
So, you've become desensitized to Liberal extremism and believe the Right should be above all of this.
I agree...
-
So, you've become desensitized to Liberal extremism and believe the Right should be above all of this.
I agree...
Yep.
I'm definitely more conservative than not. And as for most social issues, I simply don't care to see the government involved.
-
Yep.
I'm definitely more conservative than not. And as for most social issues, I simply don't care to see the government involved.
Same here, despite what many here choose to believe of me.
I guess my thing (which I've said before here) is that it seems to me like conservatives used to be the level-headed ones, and the majority of counter-productive extremists making logically fallacious arguments were for the most part on the left.
Something happened when Obama took office, and it seems to have reversed, IMHO.
-
Same here, despite what many here choose to believe of me.
Of course, the tone of your posts usually suggests otherwise. Just calling a spade a spade...
I guess my thing (which I've said before here) is that it seems to me like conservatives used to be the level-headed ones, and the majority of counter-productive extremists making logically fallacious arguments were for the most part on the left.
Something happened when Obama took office, and it seems to have reversed, IMHO.
It's always been there. With the Supreme Dictator in office, it's just getting more attention now. How dare anyone criticize the exalted one! We can always count on the lamestream media to play the sides especially when someone dares to disparage and castigate their hero.
-
I think I know where I went wrong.
I think I've gotten to the point where I ignore the left extremists. They simply don't exist to me. The Sharptons and Pelosis are so far beyond help that I choose to forget that they know the English language.
Because of this, my view of Democrats is shaded and comforting. I take their talking points as if they are outlining a proposal intended to help the country. I, being level headed, then take each talking point with a grain of salt. Then I analyze them and decide whether or not I agree or disagree with them. Because I've removed all of the crazies from the discussion, emotions aren't invited.
Further, I still look to the Republican party as the only true majority party with any chance of saving the country. So I therefore have a much higher set of expectations for anyone associated with it. But they've left me thirsty and scrounging for water.
The right's best options seem to be Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Fox News, Savage, Hannity, and Beck.
When Romney emerges as the only viable member of the Republican party, I start to question its future.
The old JFK Democrats are far and few. Most of the Democratic party is run by leftists. Look at your President, Former Speaker (Pelosi) and Senate Maj Leader (Reid). There are a few old school democrats like Lieberman, Manchin and Shuler, but they are far and few. If you look at the GOP, the extreme right are the minority actually. Cantor, McConnell and Boehner are far from being to the extreme right. Romney either. The Limbaughs, Palins, Savages, Becks are not the majority - although I dont think ALL of their views are bad. Rush nails it pretty dead on correct most of the time, it's just his delivery that agitates people. He is also not a politician making policy.
I think the extreme left represents a higher % of the Dems than the extreme right represents the GOP. And it isnt even close.
-
(http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2254442.jpg)
What I believe my excitable brother is trying to communicafy is the verra real conceptualization that Mister Olbermann should not be considered to be the extremist opposite tangent of the triangulary position on the other side of conservativeness. Either that or it could be the fact that I look like I belong in a Star Wars cantina. Can't comprehend the totality of that.
This should be accompanied with a keyboard warning.
-
The old JFK Democrats are far and few. Most of the Democratic party is run by leftists. Look at your President, Former Speaker (Pelosi) and Senate Maj Leader (Reid). There are a few old school democrats like Lieberman, Manchin and Shuler, but they are far and few. If you look at the GOP, the extreme right are the minority actually. Cantor, McConnell and Boehner are far from being to the extreme right. Romney either. The Limbaughs, Palins, Savages, Becks are not the majority - although I dont think ALL of their views are bad. Rush nails it pretty dead on correct most of the time, it's just his delivery that agitates people. He is also not a politician making policy.
I think the extreme left represents a higher % of the Dems than the extreme right represents the GOP. And it isnt even close.
That would be correct, but there is a saying, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". Right now they are shouting the loudest (squeaky wheel) and they are getting the grease (attention). Their only concern is ratings, how do you get them, by being controversial.
-
The old JFK Democrats are far and few. Most of the Democratic party is run by leftists. Look at your President, Former Speaker (Pelosi) and Senate Maj Leader (Reid). There are a few old school democrats like Lieberman, Manchin and Shuler, but they are far and few. If you look at the GOP, the extreme right are the minority actually. Cantor, McConnell and Boehner are far from being to the extreme right. Romney either. The Limbaughs, Palins, Savages, Becks are not the majority - although I dont think ALL of their views are bad. Rush nails it pretty dead on correct most of the time, it's just his delivery that agitates people. He is also not a politician making policy.
I think the extreme left represents a higher % of the Dems than the extreme right represents the GOP. And it isnt even close.
9/11 was the worst thing to happen to the Republican party. It gave credence to the underlying extremists in the party who want to trade Liberty for Security. The party is splintered, and they left the Reagan Republicans like me behind a long time ago.
-
9/11 was the worst thing to happen to the Republican party. It gave credence to the underlying extremists in the party who want to trade Liberty for Security. The party is splintered, and they left the Reagan Republicans like me behind a long time ago.
Not to mention the Clinton cigar jobs. Way too many Republicans are hellbent on bringing some fictitious, arbitrary version of heaven into America.
Drop the religious campaign and the party picks up a plethora of independent voters.
-
JFK = One of the worst presidents in history.
Him, carter, Coolidge, obaba.... Terrible presidents.
-
Not to mention the Clinton cigar jobs. Way too many Republicans are hellbent on bringing some fictitious, arbitrary version of heaven into America.
Drop the religious campaign and the party picks up a plethora of independent voters.
Yep, as I said, most of Americans, though they may identify themselves as Rep. or Dem., are in fact moderates.
-
JFK = One of the worst presidents in history.
Him, carter, Coolidge, obaba.... Terrible presidents.
Not debating whether or not JFK was a good president. Thats subjective and weve had that debate at length before. What was I using him as a reference for was policy standing on the spectrum. Kennedy was generally a fiscal capitalist, pro national security, anti Communism. Those are pretty middle of the road or even conservative stances. Compared to Democrats today, he was almost a Republican.
-
9/11 was the worst thing to happen to the Republican party. It gave credence to the underlying extremists in the party who want to trade Liberty for Security. The party is splintered, and they left the Reagan Republicans like me behind a long time ago.
There's definitely some truth to that, but the NeoCon/RINO movement started long before that. I would say that Bush 41 was the first President from that movement, turning his back on fiscal responsibility among other things.
-
There's definitely some truth to that, but the NeoCon/RINO movement started long before that. I would say that Bush 41 was the first President from that movement, turning his back on fiscal responsibility among other things.
Read my lips....
You are right though. Nixon really ushered that movement into mainstream along with Ford, George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller. Bill Kristol's pops was a big player as well. Goldwater and Reagan were the anti-RINO wing. Between 1960 (when Nixon lost to Kennedy) and 1968 (when Nixon won the first time), something happened to tricky Dick. He was a true to the core Conservative in 1960 and by 1968 had sold out to the RINOs. It is still one of the sad stories in politics to me, what happened to Nixon. He was brilliant, and flushed it all down the toliet.
-
Not debating whether or not JFK was a good president. Thats subjective and weve had that debate at length before. What was I using him as a reference for was policy standing on the spectrum. Kennedy was generally a fiscal capitalist, pro national security, anti Communism. Those are pretty middle of the road or even conservative stances. Compared to Democrats today, he was almost a Republican.
Kennedy was a pacifist and a wuss.