Liberals run and hide, Michael Savage may run for president.Follow

So, let me get this right...you want a president and by default, the FEDERAL government to dictate what is law (reguarding marriage)...instead of the states?


Personally, I don't really give a damn, even though I don't agree with the lifestyle (we'll leave the debate on choice out of it as it doesn't apply here), if Steve and Bob want to marry and @#%^ themselves stupid, as long as it's up to the PEOPLE of the LOCALITIES to decide (if it has to be decided by the government), not the federal government. To be honest, I want the government out of marriage completely. Marriage has been one of the few dominions of the church for a long time, the government is only in if for the money. Homosexuals used to co-habitat (and they didn't ***** about not being able to be married) long before the government got involved, with no worry about paying more in taxes, because there was no income tax. They didn't care then, the only reason they care now is because of the tax law. Get the government out of it, and guess what, no more problem. If they want to be married, and someone will marry them, go for it! I'm happy that they're happy. It's their business. Forcing it to become a federal law either way, is not the right way to do it.

Now, are there any real issues, besides his dislike of the push to FORCE homosexual marriage as an issue? We all have our hot buttons. His issues with homosexuality isn't someone being homosexual, it's the people trying to get the government to force it down his throat (and he's said as much on his show). Though, I do have to admit, it's not like he's living in the hot bed of heterosexuality out there in San Fransisco.

Anyone care that our borders are unprotected, and the people that do attempt to police areas of them are subject to jail time for protecting them (the borders)? Or maybe that our elected officials, who are supposed to be upholding the constitution, that they've sworn to uphold, which includes protecting this nation, are selling our country out to the highest bidder, no matter what country they are.

What about the fact that we have a language that many of the people that do come here, refuse to learn, thus the rest of us are forced to learn their native language? If you go to Japan for example, do you force them to talk to you in English, or do you at least make an attempt to learn some Japanese so that you may get around? Does this not apply to people that come here, are they somehow exempt from learning our language?

I've got no issue with people wanting to come to this country, hell, as long as we have resources to support them coming here, let 'em in. I just want them to learn the language, not force me to learn theirs. Background screening, test them for disease, and make them prove that they've got a job, or place to live waiting for them, or enough money to make it for at least 6 months. Something similar to Mexico's rules for immigration. As long as they can work, learn the language, and aren't going to ***** us over, I don't see too many reasons to keep people out, until we max out our resources, which, by my understanding, we've got a long way to go. It seems that the land that the US occupies is able to support a few billion people, were the population spread a little more, vs. being focused on the major cities. That's the challenge, moving people a little further out. Start putting manufacturering jobs back in these places, and you'll see people flock to them (assuming the unions get told to go @#%^ themselves, but that's not up to me).

I'm not asking much. I just want to go to sleep at night and know that my country isn't being invaded because the borders are protected, know that I can understand the language being spoken to me when someone comes into my office because they learned it, and have the federal government get the hell out of my daily life. I think that Dr. Savage can be the person that could wake people up, and make them realize that the country was once thought of as having streets paved with gold, that this is truly the greatest nation on the planet today, and that we were far greater than we are today, and it won't be that hard to be that great again.


Edit: Added some argument clarity, thanks Joph for pointing that out.

Edited, Feb 10th 2007 11:02am by Metastophicleas

Yes, but a savage wiener! Not gay, at all.

Hey stupid. Yeah, I called you stupid, since you're so ******* ignorant that you equate the civil rights movemnt and homosexuality. It's not the federal government's responsability to decide who can marry who. If you'd like to what the federal government is supposed to be doing, maybe you should read that thing called the Constitution of the United States of America. Then you should refrence your state documents, after that, hit up your county/city charter. Once your stupid *** does that, and you understand the way that the government is supposed to work, come back and play.

As far as your choice argument, yeah, I chose to stick my **** in a women vs. a man. I'm a pretty handsome guy, so I imagine that had I wanted to, I could have stuck my **** in a man. Sucking him off on the other hand is out of the question, as sticking anything that has/could have been is someone's pooper in my mouth is way out of the question. Take your "I didn't chose to be homosexual, it chose me" argument and stick it up your ***, rotate on it a bit, suck it off, and remember to spit after you're done.

Now, having said that, you'll also note that I said in my arguement, that I don't give a flying **** who marries who, as long as the government gets the **** out of it, because they don't belong there. So please, tell me that I hate homosexuals. Tell me that I hate one of my best friends. Tell me that the fact that I haven't met anyone yet who was homosexual, that I didn't get along with, or at least get along with (because I'd like to think that at least 80% of the world's population is cool, and I try to treat everyone equally until they show themselves not worth it), is a cover for my latent "homophobia". Come on dummy, convince me that your argument is not some left wing talking point.

I don't think that's how the federal government works. You should re-read your Constitution.

^
Who's the new guy?

And let me get this straight. You actually want a guy who says the above to run for president? That says quite a bit. When you get down to pointless name calling that tends to automatically make people dismiss everything you say Meta. But sure, that's a great way to back up the point you're trying to make. It looks like Savage's show reaches the people who are just like him.

Edited, Feb 10th 2007 11:39am by Brill

I didn't say I want him to win, I just want him to run. Constitution party FTW! Though, to be honest, I think he could be a good leader for this country. I'd be willing to give him the benifit of the doubt. It's not like we haven't had racists, bigots, ********, and worse, in the office of president before.

I simply think that someone who is passionate about their country, could rekindle that same passion in everyone who lives here, and make them realize that they've been swindled for decades, dare I say a century or more. Since Jefferson died, we've been hoodwinked. Our governmet has taken advantage of us, and abused us, because we let it. We forgot that we run the governmet, not the people in D.C. We tell them what to do, not the other way around.

I'm starting to notice though, that some of the politicians have figured that out, and are voting the way their constituants want them to, vs. voting party lines. Lieberman is a good example of this. Ron Paul is another. The sons of G.H.W. Bush are not. The Clintons, are not. Guliani (sp error, I know) is an example of voting the way the people that got you into office want you to vote, even if I don't like his politics.

Edited, Feb 10th 2007 11:45am by Metastophicleas

Edited, Feb 10th 2007 11:49am by Metastophicleas

I've been asked twice who I voted for in various elections by my significant other's parents. Both times I told them that it was none of their business. The girl was a little worried but apparently her parents accept the fact that i don't like talking politics with them. And yes they are liberals, but so am I. They, however, are the complete lunatic, everything is a conspiracy type people. Makes for some interesting stories though.

Regarding the topic about Michael Savage possibly running for "President", as a conservative, I'm a frightened as well. I do not endorse candidates that promote hate speech regardless how legitimate their positions are.

I think Mike debating would be interesting. As a side note, Bill O'Reilly in a segment with Ellis Hannican, (I think that is how you spell his last name), stated that Michael Savage was a complete nut. Yeah, even Bill O'Reilly thinks he is a nut... and I doubt the GOP would have Savage be their candidate of choice.


Metastophicleas wrote in response to what someone said about what he wrote:


First I want to go into detail in the history of how we got involved in Vietnam. As a fellow conservative to another, how we got involved in "everyone else's ****" was due to the "Truman Doctrine". It was policy, which as its main tenet, wanted to "Contain" communism from spreading into Greece and Turkey. Gradually the tenant of "containment" became influential. The "Marshall Plan" was cooked up in order to fund countries that rejected communism, and "Nato" was cooked up to contain communism through military action. Containment was a policy made to stop the "Domino Effect" of communist ideology and influence.

Vietnam was a consequence of what Johnson and Kennedy thought(two Democrats); that Soviet Russia was using the National Liberation Front as a pawn to engulf all of Vietnam and turn it into a communist state. The mistake was the fact that Vietnam was purely a nationalist movement and the Soviet Union wasn't pulling the strings. Later on in Vietnam, the Soviet Union started to fund, train and supply North Vietnam.

In short, Johnson thought we needed to stick our nose into Vietnam. The Soviet Union started to aid and abet the enemy and we needed to keep our nose there. As a result of pulling our nose out, 1 million Vietnamese were slaughtered and 2 million more in Cambodia were killed as a result of totalitarian communist regimes gaining ground in South East Asia.

My point is this, from one conservative to another, don't be so quick to secede your points. With all due respect, read your stuff more thoroughly. There is a reason why we're called, "The Right."

On Topic: I really hope Michael Savage doesn't run.

Seeing he and Obama duke it out in a debate would be refreshing. I don't see either of them winning though, like you said here, not enough experience.

I really don't understand people who say homosexuality is a choice. It makes no sense. How ignorant can you be?

If homosexuality were a choice, then why would there be tortured closet homosexuals? If homosexuality were a choice, why would people come out of the closet and be rejected by family and friends? Why wouldn't those people simply "choose" to be heterosexual instead?

Ok...I'll play, but I really think we should make this a new topic/thread. Would you say that emo/goth is a choice? Is it a choice to hate yourself so much, that you want to take your own life? Would you chose to endure ridicule?

How about this one, would you say it's a chioce to kill someone? Ever had that desire to take another person's life? What stopped you?

What about the millions of people throughout the last 50 years that renounced being homosexuals, would you say that they were just faking it for attention?

Humans find each other attractive, that is a factual statement. Temptation to do something exists in humans, also a fact. Acting on temptation, or attaction is a choice, that is a fact. No one is forcing you to have sex with a woman or a man. You CHOOSE to have sex with them. Homosexuality is not being attacted to someone, it's having sex with them. Sex is a choice (with the exception of rape).