From:

http://www.radiotalkingpoints.com/ar...ageEffect.html

Michael Savage Needs to be Corrected?
Sometimes my favorite time of the day, is when I hear the Michael
Savage show? You see, before the crooks started coming out in the
open, and tanked the economy, when I hear Michael, I was working in
over time territory? Could be, I've been wanting to mention more about
Michael, and I want to write something positive about the guy, and not
hurt his show? After hearing him, and visting his web site today, I'm
not so sure anyone can do that, he uses both positive and negative
projections on his show?

Honestly, I don't know the guy, I've probably spent about two hours
reading his biographical descriptions, listen to him talk about
himself, and I've come to the conclusion he is a liberal masquerading
as a conservative in my humble opinion. Not sure I can get my arms
around that, maybe he is a conservative growing in his viewpoints? I
think he will talk about conservatism to get paid, but deep down I
think he is a liberal, with liberal friends, and that is my
impression? I've listened to about two dozen shows?

He could become a great conservative talk show host, but I suspect
that will not happen for several reasons? Number one, a neurotic
italian voice, with or without the accent, is just not entertaining
after a while, you don't want to hear that voice? I love italian
voices, it makes helps me remember my time in the North East?
Seriously, who is it that are angry all the time? Liberals? Did he go
to a liberal school? Did he participate or support "conservation"? To
what extent?


Does he talk negatively about other conservative talk show hosts,
calling them ugly names, like hemroids, and there are others I would
like to forget? Well, sometimes we all talk like that, but you can
hear the nuance between someone who calls you an ugly name, and is
making a point, and not literally personally projecting your jealousy
or hatred on them? Do you have to talk about yourself due to lack of
imagination, or material, or both?

All right, you move along and start to think about the subject matter
of his show. If you know what spook talk is, you get pretty sick of
hearing it fairly quickly? Honestly, I don't know what the American
facination is with murder, and murder shows, and violence, but there
it is? That's a sentence you might hear from a Michael Savage show? He
might then go on to spend 45 minutes explaining a murder he read
about, or has an interest in?

That can be a negative and a positive? Positive, he's against murder,
negative, uh, well, that's self explanatory. If I was a liberal, I
would love the Michael Savage show, because he gets so emotional about
what he is talking about, you begin to wonder if is actually bragging
about what the communist crooks disguised as liberals, or other names,
are actually accomplishing rather than just try to alarm you about it?

So what is wrong with emotional? Nothing, unless three quarters of
your show, is about you? Seriously, that's another reason why nobody
wants to write about the guy, he becomes a basket case with the
slightest bit of realism, or critique? He'll mask those emotions by
becoming sick, and give you a litany of how he will cook a marvelous
dish to make him feel better, or worse go to a restuarant, tell you
how he acted like a jerk and was rude as hell, and then felt like he
was coming down with the flu or something, when he probably just ate
off a plate that was not rinsed right, and turned his stomach? He then
becomes an emotional basket case and goes after the chef or restuarant
and talks as though he hopes they go out of business? What do you
expect if you eat at restaurants all the time, odds are you are going
to get a plate not rinse right, if you do the numbers?

But of course some people act like jerks, I should know, but they
don't really mean to project that image? That's why I think he is a
liberal, because his show consists of heavy projection? The other talk
show hosts don't do that, do they? Well, that's my opinion, I don't
listen to the guy everyday, sometimes he gets it right. Put him out of
business? For the spook stuff related to Islam? Do the British think
he is a spook for those related to Islam? Well, he certainly fits the
profile?

The other side of the coin, is that the politicians in Britain simply
want to send a message to all the slaves, on the British plantation,
you better not listen to Michael Savage, and start thinking about
conservative ideas, and throw us out of power? You might make our
voters angry with us, because they might remember what having a set of
testicles meant, when it comes to politics? OMG! Listening today he
talked about Britain wanting to drug their slaves, with pure heroin,
or how about the past radio shows where he talked about them sneaking
around in unmarked vans, xraying your house to see how much
electricity you are using so they can punish you?

OMG Dittos? Making fun of Rush Limbaugh out of jealousy? Since
obviously you will get sick of the human condition, and call us all
degenerates, and that only you are fit to breath the clear blue skies,
and dream pure dreams, we are all infidels, perhaps you will explain
to us how Tiger Woods got most of his critical training, at an "evil,
all white guy golf club"? So, if I can't get into the BET awards, or a
black dance club owned by a rapper, does that make me a horrible
writer? Did it ever occur to you brothers of industry, captains of
intellectual winds to carry us into the future, that perhaps, just
perhaps, Rush Limbuagh simply wanted to join because the golf course
(that's what the club is) is close to his house?

OK, after listening to Michael Savage, I come away with, he likes
food, he hates violence, he hates corruption, and he hates stupid
behavior that creates really, really, creepy people? Want a pysch
profile? Facinated with topics of deception, facinated with violence,
facinated with how to manipulate people, facinated with conservatives,
facinated with religion, facinated with liberalism, facinated with
enivronmentalism, facinated with history, and I could go on? Ah, the
positives, negatives, intentions, clarifications? Nope, that's need to
know only, and who needs to know?

Well, of course Michael, we won't let you off the hook today, will we?
Your heavy use of projection needs to be corrected? Now then, who and
what does the Secretary of State for the United States peform as their
responsiblities and duties? Primarily, to act on behalf of the
President of the United States. As Secretary of State, you represent
the President of the United States. Sure, you can advise, but
ultimately, any new policies are the President's, not the Secretary of
State, regardless of negotiations, the Presiden owns them.

Also, foreign policies are confirmed by a majority in the Senate AND
the President, the President can not solely determine United States
foreign policy. They would never give that kind of power, unless the
public had a sudden loss of memory, to one individual?

Personally, what they don't know, will not hurt the Russians? Do we
really need a bunch of Russian "advisors" running around the United
States at a time when half, or perhaps more, of your citizens are
deeply suspicious and even in mistrust of your government, Mr.
President? There is no basis for inspections of United States weapons
facilities, many of which, I believe are in one location? If Hillary
really wants to take the credit for this one, can we only ask the
question, why was Hillary Clinton, whose majority of experience in the
public realm of opinion, was as the focus of attention, then given a
role where she could advise the President of the United States by
being the eyes, and ears, and perhaps brains of the United States
regarding foreign policy? How do you make that leap, without giving
Bill Clinton credit?

Well, I'll keep this simple Michael, this was not Hillary's
achievement, this is President Obama, potentially granting access to
the Russians regarding top secret military, or alleged nuclear
facilities, in exchange for what? Please do not give us an emotional
footnote or platitude? Whatever you may feel about the past of
America, workers have died horrible deaths, creating the weapons that
allowed millions of goofy, liberal, mind experimenting drug induced
liberals, to explore their deepest gratifications, absent from the
threat of a military draft, are now asking those who have the most
accurate weapons on the planet, the exact locations of facilities and
where your weapons are? That is a reset button, or a luanch button?

Will Michael Savage connect the dots between Islamic organizations in
Washington DC, and Mr. Obama, if any, or will you continue to pretend
it is all Hillary's fault? Rush Limbaugh did not get the football
team, did not get the opportunity to loose millions of hard earned
dollars, and the left is leaping for joy? Oh, I am just so
disappointed? Will Michael Savage give us a lecture on the morals of
why football games should or should not be compared to ancient greek
gladiator events? But of course not, today's intellectual and cultural
creations of football have no comparison to olympic games, or
gladiator events?

Honestly Michael Savage, or whatever your real name is, right now, we
are not worried about your being labeled an Islamic spook, or a
Conservative Evangelist, concerning your problems in Britain? If you
want to get off the list in Britain, you are barking up the wrong
tree, you need to stop projecting the affects of liberal policies of
politicians on others, and lay your concerns where they actually
belong, with Mr. Obama? Go ahead, make your day, listen to Michael
Savage for yourself, and draw your own opinion? Will you draw a new
opinion of the Great British Plantation, are they a jewel of truth, a
model to the world, after learning from generations of failure, or are
they reliving the past?

Being that this is the most powerful keyboard in the world, able to
crush the egg shell minds of liberals, by either confusing them, or
simply telling the truth, you've got to ask yourself a question?

Do you feel lucky?

Universal Disclaimer for the Public Domain, Version 1.4, dated Oct
10th, 2009

a) The views expressed by this website and the author to include all
electronic forms of communication are not representative of
advertisers, or other third parties that may store and or transmit the
messages from this private computer, which you may observe at your own
risk, with no liability to the authors, or any party related to
transmitting, storing, or any other aspect of the material involved,
including email correspondence, which is not necessary to the function
of the website, and may or may not be archived. No personal
information exchanged will be shared without your consent, or provided
to third parties with out the express permission of the parties and,
or, individuals concerned.

b) The author(s) of this content and those who may interact with it in
various known or unknown electronic methods do not give permission to
any third parties to share or provide private personal information who
may operate as part of the internet communications system, including
all parties, who may technically intercept communications due to the
nature of network conditions beyond both the author's legal and
physical control, unless those communications represent violations of
the law, upon which the author, and or web site will cooperate to
pursue any legal remedies.

c) The views expressed by the author or website may or may not contain
factual information, due to the use of sarcasm or parody. The views
may or may not be complete, either by design, to pre-empt being called
a liar even if telling the truth, or by error due to typographical,
grammer, or other technical communication problems not realized or
imagined, or the possibility of views based on false or missing
information, or with the intention of being used for entertainment
purposes only, and not as a definitive judgement on the actions,
character, or reputation of an organization, individual, or groups of
individuals, with the intent of communicating with a limited group of
people, and not the general public, however no distribution
restrictions apply for fair use purposes described by the US Copyright
Office, if no other restrictions are present or communicated, with all
commercial proceeds associated with the distribution of the content to
remain the sole possesion of the original author.

d) Any humor if used, is not intended to offend people, and may be
designed to apply the principals of peer pressure through reverse
examination to accomplish the communication of principals or ideas
that consist of traditional or proposed social values that are proven
to advance the common good, and are not meant to discredit, disparage
or demean any person or entities in any professional or personal
manner, by attempting to share through the eyes or opinion of the
author, for which it is expected that you read at your own risk, with
no liability held to the author or any third parties who may store,
transfer, or forward this message to others, in the traditions of free
speech, fair use, and to play a positive role in a society that
believes that graphically depicting male homosexuals having sex, and
other unusual sex acts is considered free speech or that the use of
abortion to limit Negros, Latinos, and other races from "spreading the
wealth around" as a "matter of privacy" (which the author does not
condone).

e)The use of humor is a known ingredient in providing teachable
moments, and to validate and even demonstrate artistic expressions
that are not shared by others, as demonstrated by many valuable
scientific observations that were scoffed at in the past, yet proven
to be quite valid decades later, upon which the humor used in all
electronic communications by the author are based, in the principals
and traditions of free speech and pursuit of happiness, and may not be
a representation of others, including God.

f) Additional use of automated anonymous page use tracking computer
scripts (web page programs) may be licensed by www.google.com, for
bandwidth verification or potential advertisement opportunities or
incorporation of web master tools in the future.

g) Advertisements that may appear are not necessarily endorsed by the
author, either by admission, or by silence, nor are related links,
that may be provided for all or any of the following known or unknown
purposes, but not limited to, informational, educational, and for the
purpose of giving copy right credit referal information under the
terms outlined in the conditions applied to the term "fair use"
regarding conversations and print under US Copy Right Law.

h) It is the opinion of the author that effective 1 December, 2009,
the proposed regulations from the FTC violate the first and fifth
amendments of the United States Constitution, by infringing through
economic affliction the burden without compensation all financial
details concerning the communications of both free enterprise and
opinion, and other civil rights such as "punishment must be fair" and
not at the "discretion" of public officials, or that advertisers are
assumed to be guilty of deception when United States law provides that
you are innocent before being proven guilty, and are in fact
demonstrations that there are current members of Congress that neither
understand the spirit of the law our founding fathers made for the
United States of America, or understand how they work in the opinion
of the author, as of October 10th, 2009, especially in light of
anticipated, and hopefully defeated, legislative taxes relating to
energy use and the burden of publishers and advertisers to comply with
the law and manage the environment, and in light that there are
various consumer protection agencies, including the Better Business
Bureau, which has free consumer information.

i)Although the content provided meets or exceeds those new
requirements to the knowledge of the author, and modifications to
version 1.3 of this disclaimer is a result of the opinion of the
author that blogging is another definition for a potentially infinite
number or forms of electronic communication, as such the author will
retroactively apply this version, 1.4 to all forms of previous
communications, when and wherever possible, as time allows, in order
to properly convey the intention of the author and to demonstrate an
enthusiasm to comply with the law, and not enthusiastically pursue
getting high on cocaine as often as possible as Barack Hussein Obama
has admitted in his book (paraphrase, synopsis), according to (mmm,
mmm, mmm (sonic emphasis)) Rush Hudson Limbaugh, (mmm mmm mmm (sonic
emphasis)).

j) Use of this disclaimer for either personal or professional use is
permitted with no restrictions. These restrictions or disclaimers do
not prohibit the author from pursuing or communicating in a truthful
manner, or guarantee that the audience will understand all things as
intended, and, or result in being called incoherent, or even a Chicken
Chaser!

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:

He could become a great conservative talk show host, but I suspect
that will not happen for several reasons? Number one, a neurotic
italian voice, with or without the accent, is just not entertaining
after a while, you don't want to hear that voice? I love italian
voices, it makes helps me remember my time in the North East?

He is Jewish and from the Bronx!

Editor RadioTalkingPoints wrote:


Honestly, I don't know the guy, I've probably spent about two hours
reading his biographical descriptions, listen to him talk about
himself, and I've come to the conclusion he is a liberal masquerading
as a conservative in my humble opinion. Not sure I can get my arms
around that, maybe he is a conservative growing in his viewpoints? I
think he will talk about conservatism to get paid, but deep down I
think he is a liberal, with liberal friends, and that is my
impression? I've listened to about two dozen shows?

He pals around with Gerry Brown.