Why Michael Savage is our greatest ally

[Nate K]

He's not owned by anyone. Mike Savage is the gateway drug to understanding how the world works. Of course, he's not right on everything.. but think about this..

Most conservatives have a sense of what is right but they also too often get attached to talking heads like Sean Hannity, Limbaugh or others who seem to "define" what conservatism is. Since the popular ones all sound alike, they don't question much of what they say.

Savage is another story. He is so controversial, even among conservatives. He appeals to the real conservatives who are most likely to join us. At some point of listening to him, there'll be something you (if you were a conservative) disagree on or question, which sparks self thought, which is the only way out of the spell mainstream media has on the people.

This isn't just some theory, there is evidence it's true. Like myself, I was a hardcore Savage fan before I entered the Ron Paul movement. My friend (who some would call a neocon) started listening to him religiously a few weeks ago and is now really starting to warm up to our ideas.

Savage hates the establishment, and he's not a Republican. He is who fed up conservatives listen to and can be the beginning of something greater for many. This will be something to consider for those of us wanting to advertise nationally.

That would be double effective since Savage is always looking for new sponsors, he is so controversial remember!

[Brian4Liberty]

There was a guy at the recent Tea Party event that could have been Micheal Savage's older brother. Was 100% with Savage on all the issues he was talking to some of us about. Someone asked him about Ron Paul. He said "eh, I have problems with Ron Paul". Probably the same answer you would get from Savage.

[purplechoe]

http://waynefontes.com/facepalm.jpeg

when I see carp like this on this site, it just makes me want to give up... :(

When are you going to wake up and realize that he's a part of the "conspiracy".

[1000-points-of-fright]

Last time I listened to him, he was jingoistic ultra-nationalist who would never dream of criticizing US foreign policy.

But that was quite a while ago. I would be very surprised if he's changed much.

[nate895]

I think the reason why many people come to our side after becoming Savageites is that Savage is a classic authoritarian. He trusts no one, and thinks government is the solution in most cases (but not all, especially market related). When you become involved in statism or libertarianism the only argument is between bigger or smaller government. Nothing else matters politically besides that debate, everyone else just seems like a hypocritical idiot (which is true to a great extent). If one of these individuals changes ideologies, it is almost certainly not to Republican ideals or social liberalism of the Democrats, but to libertarianism because they begin to accept the premise that, even though not necessarily good, human beings are rational beings in that they pursue their own best interest.

[Nate K]

when I see carp like this on this site, it just makes me want to give up... :(

When are you going to wake up and realize that he's a part of the "conspiracy".

People like you make me want to give up. When are you going to realize that winning takes strategy?

[Nate K]

Most of you don't want to win, you just want to complain about how shitty things are and point out everyone else's philosophical faults.

Some day you will realize that this mentality won't work anymore and you have to work with people.

[Kludge]

Who's Michael Savage?

Isn't he the fellow who laughs at retarded kids or something like that?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've listened to many Savage broadcasts/rants, and I'm not impressed. He is simply a parody of the anti-establishment movement. Not to mention, every time I've heard him mention RP, it was in a derogatory manner. :P

[Nate K]

Who's Michael Savage?

Isn't he the fellow who laughs at retarded kids or something like that?

Isn't Ron Paul the guy who wrote the racist newsletter?

[Deborah K]

http://waynefontes.com/facepalm.jpeg

when I see carp like this on this site, it just makes me want to give up... :(

When are you going to wake up and realize that he's a part of the "conspiracy".

Evidence???

[Kludge]

Isn't Ron Paul the guy who wrote the racist newsletter?

No. I think it was that bald guy with the 1990's website.

[Nate K]

I've listened to many Savage broadcasts/rants, and I'm not impressed. He is simply a parody of the anti-establishment movement. Not to mention, every time I've heard him mention RP, it was in a derogatory manner. :P

You haven't heard enough him then..

Savage got our story out about the TSA arresting the CFL member for holding cash.

[heavenlyboy34]

Most of you don't want to win, you just want to complain about how shitty things are and point out everyone else's philosophical faults.

Some day you will realize that this mentality won't work anymore and you have to work with people.

If you define "winning" as following the Establishment's rules and playing their game, then no I don't want to "win". My idea of winning is putting an end to the State and its corruption and general horrors-ushering in a new era of true FREEDOM and INDIVIDUALISM. :)

[nate895]

Most of you don't want to win, you just want to complain about how shitty things are and point out everyone else's philosophical faults.

Some day you will realize that this mentality won't work anymore and you have to work with people.

We have to push for average people to come to us philosophically. We do that by incorporating them into the movement and then refining their beliefs. Most Americans are basically libertarian, they just don't know it because they don't know about libertarianism, or they have been convinced that certain government interventions are right in favor of liberty, or possibly that democracy is liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

You haven't heard enough him then..

Savage got our story out about the TSA arresting the CFL member for holding cash.

:eek: I stand corrected! Thanx! :cool:

[Nate K]

If you define "winning" as following the Establishment's rules and playing their game, then no I don't want to "win". My idea of winning is putting an end to the State and its corruption and general horrors-ushering in a new era of true FREEDOM and INDIVIDUALISM. :)

So you're telling me Savage is part of the establishment?

And am I a government agent too?


We have to push for average people to come to us philosophically. We do that by incorporating them into the movement and then refining their beliefs. Most Americans are basically libertarian, they just don't know it because they don't know about libertarianism, or they have been convinced that certain government interventions are right in favor of liberty, or possibly that democracy is liberty.

Yes you're right. We only need to convince them. We only need to work with them. You guys don't want to work with anyone other than yourselves, how the hell do you expect to get anything done?!

[Deborah K]

Kludge, you have it backwards. Savage rails against people who make fun of the mentally handicapped. I think he has a handicapped sibling.

I personally can only take so much of him. He's very radical. I also think he's got a mood disorder of some sort (but what the h3LL do I know?) He's just weird. One day he's screaming at the top of his lungs about an issue, and the next, he sounds like he's been hittin the bong. (mellooooow) I don't know......

I like his knowledge and intelligence. He's definitely got potential to be a REAL messenger of freedom, but he isn't quite there yet. (in my flea bitten opinion)

[Nate K]

Savage has some 10 million listeners any given week. 3rd rated talk show host. A guy who's audience is very receptive to our cause. You're all brushing it off like none of it matters.

How do you explain my case, my friends case? Come back to reality people it's nicer down here.

[purplechoe]

Evidence???

Are you really this naive? :rolleyes:

Boy, we have a lot more work than I orginally thought. Even the so called Ron Paul supporters are asleep.

Deborah K - you are a sheep!!!

[Nate K]

Are you really this naive? :rolleyes:

Boy, we have a lot more work than I orginally thought. Even the so called Ron Paul supporters are asleep.

Deborah K - you are a sheep!!!

Who do we expect to recruit when we call everyone who doesn't think like us sheep?

Do we want to remain cult status or do we really wanna go somewhere with this?

[specsaregood]

Sure I buy it in the ("Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. "--Sun-tzu) sense.

[heavenlyboy34]

So you're telling me Savage is part of the establishment?

I don't know him well enough to be certain of that yet. This thread was interesting in that regard.


And am I a government agent too?
I hope not! :eek::(

[Deborah K]

We have to push for average people to come to us philosophically. We do that by incorporating them into the movement and then refining their beliefs. Most Americans are basically libertarian, they just don't know it because they don't know about libertarianism, or they have been convinced that certain government interventions are right in favor of liberty, or possibly that democracy is liberty.


I can agree with this.

[Deborah K]

Are you really this naive? :rolleyes:

Boy, we have a lot more work than I orginally thought. Even the so called Ron Paul supporters are asleep.

Deborah K - you are a sheep!!!

I'll ask again - Evidence??? What??? No evidence??? You need to read this: http://www.scolister.co.cc/2008/11/how-to-tell-if-your-position-on.html

[Deborah K]

Who do we expect to recruit when we call everyone who doesn't think like us sheep?

Do we want to remain cult status or do we really wanna go somewhere with this?


He is a classic example of someone who can't back his argument up with facts so he resorts to slinging insults. FAIL! :rolleyes:

[Nate K]

He is a classic example of someone who can't back his argument up with facts so he resorts to slinging insults. FAIL! :rolleyes:

Have to agree and nice link. This is the biggest flaw of libertarians, they will not cooperate with anyone other than their own. Sure you'll have a nice small cult like presence but will it ever be anything other than a small cult?

The key to winning is working with people regardless of their position on things. Many of you do not trust the free market of ideas. Let me say that again in a way that you will understand, you don't trust the free market!! The free market allows it that the best product, service or idea flourishes. Since we have the best idea (you do believe we're the best right?), people don't have to catch on right away, it is all about the evolution of thought. It takes time for people, give them time and space and they will come around.

But you have to water the seed and care for it to sprout, you are all throwing seeds in the mud and walking away.

[Roxi]

i know very little about micheal savage, so please don't take this question as a flame on him.

but i was listening to the show last week, and there was a fill in guy for him.... the guy was talking about the pirate situation, and he was trying to convince me that muslims must be behind this somehow... he said, i will not take call ins about this subject, just like boortz won't take call ins about such and such, and I know that some muslims living in america do give positive input to this nation, but the majority of them are extremists, and terrorists, and we should not be putting up with it.

he went on to seriously make me ill talking about how horrible muslims were and why they should be dealt with in whatever manner necessary to keep them from brainwashing our children.

So my general thoughts at that point was "is this what micheal savage is like too?" and I have no idea what to think about him now...

PS i haven't read through this thread yet

[carmaphob]

:eek: I stand corrected! Thanx! :cool:

I listen to Savage frequently. I don't always agree with his opinion but he brings things to awareness that nobody else does.

He has had Peter Schiff on before too...and he is suing Janet Napolitano.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95244

He is in the media and is an activist for good causes. imo

[Nate K]

i know very little about micheal savage, so please don't take this question as a flame on him.

but i was listening to the show last week, and there was a fill in guy for him.... the guy was talking about the pirate situation, and he was trying to convince me that muslims must be behind this somehow... he said, i will not take call ins about this subject, just like boortz won't take call ins about such and such, and I know that some muslims living in america do give positive input to this nation, but the majority of them are extremists, and terrorists, and we should not be putting up with it.

he went on to seriously make me ill talking about how horrible muslims were and why they should be dealt with in whatever manner necessary to keep them from brainwashing our children.

So my general thoughts at that point was "is this what micheal savage is like too?" and I have no idea what to think about him now...

PS i haven't read through this thread yet

Savage sees the war on terrorism differently from us, the point is that we don't have to be in agreement with everything. Tolerance and patience.


I listen to Savage frequently. I don't always agree with his opinion but he brings things to awareness that nobody else does.

He has had Peter Schiff on before too...and he is suing Janet Napolitano.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95244

He is in the media and is an activist for good causes. imo

You're right, and thanks for bringing that up. Savage is very smart and articulate, his stories are always educating and entertaining, he is unparalleled in that regard.

[Nirvikalpa]

I don't trust botanists.

[Cowlesy]

YouTube - Michael Savage - Chairman Maobama, Left-Wing Extremists, Threatened by Patriots and Veterans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuXrXO6WBdM)

A great Michael Savage clip.

[Deborah K]

Have to agree and nice link. This is the biggest flaw of libertarians, they will not cooperate with anyone other than their own. Sure you'll have a nice small cult like presence but will it ever be anything other than a small cult?

The key to winning is working with people regardless of their position on things. Many of you do not trust the free market of ideas. Let me say that again in a way that you will understand, you don't trust the free market!! The free market allows it that the best product, service or idea flourishes. Since we have the best idea (you do believe we're the best right?), people don't have to catch on right away, it is all about the evolution of thought. It takes time for people, give them time and space and they will come around.

But you have to water the seed and care for it to sprout, you are all throwing seeds in the mud and walking away.

Well put!

Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Collectivists. I'll say it again, the party system is designed to be divisive. It is collectivism at its worst. That is why clinging to the hope that a third party (libertarian) will rise up against the other two (one) is an exercise in defeat. Eventually, it will just merge with the other(s). Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Most of us have a libertarian bent, meaning we believe in individualism and freedom for all as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. We need candidates who campaign NOT as a representative of a party, but as an individual with a philosophy of principles - aka a platform.

While I don't think we'll ever be able to totally break out of collective thinking, we really need to make a concerted effort to be conscious of it and try to avoid it. And for us, in this movement, it starts with changing our paradigms about the party system.

I only bring this up because you made reference to the libertarian mindset. I apologize for the digression.

[nate895]

Well put!

Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Collectivists. I'll say it again, the party system is designed to be divisive. It is collectivism at its worst. That is why clinging to the hope that a third party (libertarian) will rise up against the other two (one) is an exercise in defeat. Eventually, it will just merge with the other(s). Anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves.

Most of us have a libertarian bent, meaning we believe in individualism and freedom for all as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. We need candidates who campaign NOT as a representative of a party, but as an individual with a philosophy of principles - aka a platform.

While I don't think we'll ever be able to totally break out of collective thinking, we really need to make a concerted effort to be conscious of it and try to avoid it. And for us, in this movement, it starts with changing our paradigms about the party system.

I only bring this up because you made reference to the libertarian mindset. I apologize for the digression.

You are in a greater exercise of futility opposing a party system in a republican voting system. That simply isn't possible. Supporting a third party in a winner-take-all system such as ourselves means that you want to replace the old party system with a new one. You want to kill one party or the other and take its place, or force the surviving party into the place of the old one, and take the surviving party's place.

I support working in the GOP for now, but if that becomes an exercise in futility, there are ways to break the old party system, it as happened in the past.

[carmaphob]

Savage is very smart and articulate, his stories are always educating and entertaining, he is unparalleled in that regard.
I agree 100%. He is himself on his radio broadcasts. The majority of his show is unscripted.



I think its a good idea to have him on our side.

[carmaphob]

A great Michael Savage clip.

Yes indeed.

[Deborah K]

You are in a greater exercise of futility opposing a party system in a republican voting system. That simply isn't possible. Supporting a third party in a winner-take-all system such as ourselves means that you want to replace the old party system with a new one. You want to kill one party or the other and take its place, or force the surviving party into the place of the old one, and take the surviving party's place.

I support working in the GOP for now, but if that becomes an exercise in futility, there are ways to break the old party system, it as happened in the past.

I can't disagree more. Replacing one party with another solves nothing. Collectivism is what it is.

Having said that, I am not opposed to folks re-taking the GOP, although I have no intention of personally fighting that battle. I understand the need to do it. I just think that all roads lead to an eventual non-party system.

[carmaphob]

Here is the clip with Schiff on Savage.

YouTube - Peter Schiff on Michael Savage 1/2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLw8Qje0gbw)

[nate895]

I can't disagree more. Replacing one party with another solves nothing. Collectivism is what it is.

Having said that, I am not opposed to folks re-taking the GOP, although I have no intention of personally fighting that battle. I understand the need to do it. I just think that all roads lead to an eventual non-party system.

Non-party systems are un-libertarian unless we live in an anarchist society. You must allow parties because of the freedom of association. There is nothing inherently "collectivist" about a party system. Collectivism is the placing of the group above the individual. The way many (including Ron Paul) throw around the word collectivism, one can adequately describe a baseball team as "collectivist" since they make themselves into a group. It can be collectivist if the baseball team insists all members put the team first regardless of their personal feelings, but the institution of the baseball franchise is not inherently collectivist.

[carmaphob]

Principled, Liberty minded individuals are all we need. Who cares what party or non party, right?

[nate895]

Principled, Liberty minded individuals are all we need. Who cares what party, right?

True, but taking control of a major party or replacing a major party is the most effective means of electing liberty-minded individuals.

[heavenlyboy34]

Have to agree and nice link. This is the biggest flaw of libertarians, they will not cooperate with anyone other than their own. Sure you'll have a nice small cult like presence but will it ever be anything other than a small cult?

The key to winning is working with people regardless of their position on things. Many of you do not trust the free market of ideas. Let me say that again in a way that you will understand, you don't trust the free market!! The free market allows it that the best product, service or idea flourishes. Since we have the best idea (you do believe we're the best right?), people don't have to catch on right away, it is all about the evolution of thought. It takes time for people, give them time and space and they will come around.

But you have to water the seed and care for it to sprout, you are all throwing seeds in the mud and walking away.

I trust the free market, but we don't HAVE a truly free market yet! :( :mad: When the market is truly free, I won't care what anyone says. Till then, vigilance is required to make sure neocons don't hijack the message of liberty and associate it with big government (like the neocons are trying to do with the tea parties).

[carmaphob]

True, but taking control of a major party or replacing a major party is the most effective means of electing liberty-minded individuals.

I believe parties divide more than unite. It would not be red state blue state. They set it up as if it were a game. I also think the government wouldn't be as big if were not for parties. Think of the minds that would be arguing in congress etc.. It would take a hell of a long time to change or make new laws and allocate money ( of what little they have).

[heavenlyboy34]

Non-party systems are un-libertarian unless we live in an anarchist society. You must allow parties because of the freedom of association. There is nothing inherently "collectivist" about a party system. Collectivism is the placing of the group above the individual. The way many (including Ron Paul) throw around the word collectivism, one can adequately describe a baseball team as "collectivist" since they make themselves into a group. It can be collectivist if the baseball team insists all members put the team first regardless of their personal feelings, but the institution of the baseball franchise is not inherently collectivist.

Non party systems are ENTIRELY libertarian. Exactly where are you getting your interpretation of libertarian theory? Parties are collectivist because they undermine the will of the individual by (supposedly) speaking for him. Parties cater to large groups of constituencies, not individuals. Failing to understand this concept is VERY un-libertarian of you, sir. :( Your baseball team analogy fails because the members of such a group join together voluntarily for a capitalistic/athletic goal (much like a company).

[nate895]

I believe parties divide more than unite. It would not be red state blue state. They set it up as if it were a game. I also think the government wouldn't be as big if were not for parties. Think of the minds that would be arguing in congress etc.. It would take a hell of a long time to change or make new laws and allocate money ( of what little they have).

It is a game. Everything is a game. That is how we predict other people's actions, through a complex series of gaming to try and attain the best result for you and whoever you hold dear at the end of the day. Parties do divide more than they unite, but humanity divides itself into factions as a matter of course. If everyone was a libertarian, we'd split into the anarchist party vs. the minarchist party. If everyone was an anarchist we'd split into the voluntaryist and ancaps, if everyone was an ancap, we'd split into David Freedman's anarcho-capitalism and Murray Rothbard's. It would go on until finally we would start dividing ourselves on other ground other than political.

[He Who Pawns]

Savage is literally out of his mind. I listen to him for the comedy aspect.

[Deborah K]

Non-party systems are un-libertarian unless we live in an anarchist society. You must allow parties because of the freedom of association. There is nothing inherently "collectivist" about a party system. Collectivism is the placing of the group above the individual. The way many (including Ron Paul) throw around the word collectivism, one can adequately describe a baseball team as "collectivist" since they make themselves into a group. It can be collectivist if the baseball team insists all members put the team first regardless of their personal feelings, but the institution of the baseball franchise is not inherently collectivist.

I don't see non party systems as anarchist or un-libertarian. To the degree that the party system polarizes a nation, I would have to disagree with you on its not being "inherently collectivist". How many republicans or democrats do you know that don't vote right down the party line? Is that not putting the party before the individual in a sense? If nothing else, it's putting the party before principles, assuming the voter agreed with anything the opposing party is for. Both democrats and republicans (and dare I say - based on this forum - libertarians) have become innately suspicious of the opposing parties, which is why I claim that the party system is divisive and collectivist.

James Madison warned against factions in the Federalist Papers (10): http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm While he didn't reject them outright - obviously because that would go against freedom of association, he definitely argued for curtailment.

Let us hope our party systems never get to this point:


Hear nothing that we do not wish you to hear. See nothing that we do not wish you to see. Believe nothing that we do not wish you to believe. Think nothing that we do not wish you to think. (Goebbels.)

[Crowish]

He'd be a lot less angry if he just came out of the closet, IMO.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/03/05/savage/print.html

Whenever I've listened to him he seems very neo-con-ish.

[cska80]

I agree with Nate K who started this thread. Michael Savage is a brilliant man and is a great ally to freedom and liberty. There are too many people in this so called movement who disreguard anyone in the media, along with talk radio, who may have said this or that at some point in time about Ron Paul or who may have this stance on this issue or that which doesn't 100% conform to your own views or what you think the views of liberty and freedom are.

I think anyone who is spreading the message of government corruption, media bias, tyranny and freedom is an ally, reguardless of what many of people here may think. I'd atleast rather have Americans out there listening to what Savage has to say than listening to MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc. You can throw Limbaugh and Hannity in there as well.

[nate895]

Non party systems are ENTIRELY libertarian. Exactly where are you getting your interpretation of libertarian theory? Parties are collectivist because they undermine the will of the individual by (supposedly) speaking for him. Parties cater to large groups of constituencies, not individuals. Failing to understand this concept is VERY un-libertarian of you, sir. :( Your baseball team analogy fails because the members of such a group join together voluntarily for a capitalistic/athletic goal (much like a company).

Umm...You FAIL. Parties are gathered together voluntarily. To deny people the free association of forming a party is to deny them a natural inherent right.


:

collectivism

• noun 1 the giving of priority to a group over each individual in it. 2 the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.

— DERIVATIVES collectivist adjective & noun collectivize (also collectivise) verb.

Separating ourselves for the purposes of politics is not collectivist. Only if the party demands putting itself above the people that are members can it be considered collectivist.

As far as my baseball team analogy holding up, people in the Byzantine Empire did indeed separate themselves based on team support and teams were organized based on religious and political differences (there were even "third" teams or parties). In this case, collectivism took hold because people put the team above themselves and would riot against each other. Teams are not always put together for athletic and capitalist purposes, they are often put together for fun and even politics.

[nate895]

I don't see non party systems as anarchist or un-libertarian. To the degree that the party system polarizes a nation, I would have to disagree with you on its not being "inherently collectivist". How many republicans or democrats do you know that don't vote right down the party line? Is that not putting the party before the individual in a sense? If nothing else, it's putting the party before principles, assuming the voter agreed with anything the opposing party is for. Both democrats and republicans (and dare I say - based on this forum - libertarians) have become innately suspicious of the opposing parties, which is why I claim that the party system is divisive and collectivist.

James Madison warned against factions in the Federalist Papers (10): http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm While he didn't reject them outright - obviously because that would go against freedom of association, he definitely argued for curtailment.

Let us hope our party systems never get to this point:

Just because our system is moderately collectivist, doesn't make it inherently collectivist. As I stated in a previous post, athletic teams in the past have been collectivist, and indeed many are today. That doesn't mean it is a collectivist system, just that it can get that way. So can anything where you are in groups. That doesn't make any system inherently collectivist. The only systems that are inherently collectivist are ones controlled by government.

It is interesting you bring up Madison. He eventually joined the Republican Party (not the one we have today), and that party was decidedly not collectivist. It had several factions, and individuals were more important than the group itself.

[Deborah K]

Umm...You FAIL. Parties are gathered together voluntarily. To deny people the free association of forming a party is to deny them a natural inherent right.



Separating ourselves for the purposes of politics is not collectivist. Only if the party demands putting itself above the people that are members can it be considered collectivist.

As far as my baseball team analogy holding up, people in the Byzantine Empire did indeed separate themselves based on team support and teams were organized based on religious and political differences (there were even "third" teams or parties). In this case, collectivism took hold because people put the team above themselves and would riot against each other. Teams are not always put together for athletic and capitalist purposes, they are often put together for fun and even politics.


I would be opposed to denying the country a party system if that was the prevailing desire. I am suggesting a change in paradigms only.


In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, sometimes reflecting legal restrictions on political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate is eligible for office on her or his own merits. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature. The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the US Congress were nonpartisan. Washington also warned against political parties during his Farewell Address.[1] The unicameral legislature of Nebraska is the only state government body that is nonpartisan in the United States today. Many city and county governments[vague] are nonpartisan. In Canada, the territorial legislatures of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are nonpartisan. Nonpartisan elections and modes of governance are common outside of state institutions. Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan systems often evolve into political parties. Tokelau also has a nonpartisan parliament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party

[Deborah K]

Just because our system is moderately collectivist, doesn't make it inherently collectivist. As I stated in a previous post, athletic teams in the past have been collectivist, and indeed many are today. That doesn't mean it is a collectivist system, just that it can get that way. So can anything where you are in groups. That doesn't make any system inherently collectivist. The only systems that are inherently collectivist are ones controlled by government.

It is interesting you bring up Madison. He eventually joined the Republican Party (not the one we have today), and that party was decidedly not collectivist. It had several factions, and individuals were more important than the group itself.

So you think our party system isn't controlled by the gov't? :confused: As to your baseball team analogy, I'm afraid I have to agree with HB on it.

[Roxi]

This is the biggest flaw of libertarians, they will not cooperate with anyone other than their own. .


Im guessing maybe you didn't intend to sound collectivist here, and you didn't mean ALL of them literally, but still offensive nonetheless. (to me personally)..

I can't speak for anyone else, but im as pretty darn close to a libertarian as you can get without actually saying I am one (I actually (and im serious) consider myself a MinArcho-Capitalist Conservatarian) which really could be a classic example of my personality in a sense...

one thing i do know about myself is that i almost NEVER believe one specific thing, Im on the fence about everything, unable to make up my mind, I see both sides to every thing with a truly open mind... and I do not group myself with any one specific type of person or group.... I cooperate with EVERYONE, maybe even a little too much, but i could almost NEVER be accused of taking sides.


just sayin :)

[nate895]

So you think our party system isn't controlled by the gov't? :confused: As to your baseball team analogy, I'm afraid I have to agree with HB on it.

It is controlled by gov't. I don't favor the system as it stands. People should be able to freely form parties and organize for political purposes.

Your suggestion to have a "paradigm shift" in thinking about parties is illogical at best. You simply can't do that. Even when our system didn't have parties, people were divided into anti-administration and pro-administration factions which became parties. As long as you have government, you will have political parties, and as long as you have a human race with or without government you will have factions and groups. Duverger's Law states that as long we have plurality voting systems we will have two party voting systems unless if there are extenuating circumstances that create more parties. It is simply too complicated to have nonpartisan elections. It requires too much dedication. It is much simpler to have an ideology and then have a party that nominates people who agree with it, and you vote for it. We shouldn't have to spend endless hours researching candidates. Just think how much time it takes to research non-partisan judges. At least with the party system people have a general idea what the candidate thinks.

[iddo]

Last time I listened to him, he was jingoistic ultra-nationalist who would never dream of criticizing US foreign policy.

Not exactly. He criticized Clinton's bombardment of Kosovo, e.g. YouTube - Michael Savage proves clearly that KOSOVO was and is SERBIA! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmvpT39nkm4). OTOH, he doesn't like Ron Paul's nonintervenionist foreign policy w.r.t. Pakistan,YouTube - Michael Savage on Ron Paul and the Bhuto Asassination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM_HPSo9JtE).

[Dripping Rain]

is this thread sarcasm?
savage is an AIPAC partisan hack
heres savage on ron paul
YouTube - Michael Savage on Ron Paul and the Bhuto Asassination (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM_HPSo9JtE)

[heavenlyboy34]

Umm...You FAIL. Parties are gathered together voluntarily. To deny people the free association of forming a party is to deny them a natural inherent right.


No, parties are currently written into election law in many states (I'm not totally up to date on how many states, though it was the vast majority last I checked). These laws have created an artificial market for "ideas". (with inflation among the main parties' ideas and deflation among the minor parties' ideas) I would argue that, in this regard, parties exist at the expense of qualified individuals and small parties who would win if given the same ballot access, media coverage, etc. So you see, to de-institutionalize the party system actually makes it more competitive and "free-market". (and more compatible with the freedom of association, which you mentioned)

[Roxi]

the above linked video tells me everything i need to know about savage.... wow

just effing wow

and some of you like this guy?


wow

[nate895]

No, parties are currently written into election law in many states (I'm not totally up to date on how many states, though it was the vast majority last I checked). These laws have created an artificial market for "ideas". (with inflation among the main parties' ideas and deflation among the minor parties' ideas) I would argue that, in this regard, parties exist at the expense of qualified individuals and small parties who would win if given the same ballot access, media coverage, etc. So you see, to de-institutionalize the party system actually makes it more competitive and "free-market". (and more compatible with the freedom of association, which you mentioned)

http://www.opaquelucidity.com/facepalm.jpg

Learn to read, I have already addressed this.

[Nate K]

Im guessing maybe you didn't intend to sound collectivist here, and you didn't mean ALL of them literally, but still offensive nonetheless. (to me personally)..


Sorry i don't have time to be politically correct. You would be blind to say all stereotypes aren't worth taking note of. It's fine to be an individual, but it's even better to be realistic, and I try more than anything to stay realistic about things.

I know it's easy to get lost in the mental masturbation intellectualism that takes place on the internet these days but it can only go so far. Most of you are forgetting who this knowledge serves by taking "individualist theory" way too far.

There's a very real difference between being right and making what you know is right a reality. Being hostile to people unlike yourself doesn't help matters.


the above linked video tells me everything i need to know about savage.... wow

just effing wow

and some of you like this guy?


wow

Again, patience and tolerance. Is he not allowed to have opinions of his own? While we're on the subject of individualism why don't we discuss why some of you want everyone else to be exactly like you?

[heavenlyboy34]

Learn to read, I have already addressed this.

Yes, but I did it better. :cool:;):D:) It's called point-taking. Learn to debate. ;):)

[Dripping Rain]

I wonder if a savage supporter writes an op with this title on savage messageboards ?
"Why Ron Paul is our greatest ally" im just wondering what the reaction will be. maybe i already know but it be good to make sure
can someone volunteer and do it.

[Nate K]

I wonder if a savage supporter writes an op with this title on savage messageboards ?
"Why Ron Paul is our greatest ally" im just wondering what the reaction will be.
can someone volunteer and do it.

Haha. Well I'm sure the ones whining over here would be upset over the ones whining over there.

Does Savage have a messageboard?

[Dripping Rain]

Haha. Well I'm sure the ones whining over here would be upset over the ones whining over there.

Does Savage have a messageboard?

actually theres one here
http://www.savagemessageboard.com/forum/

[Working Poor]

he sucks.....

[TastyWheat]

If you haven't heard Jason Lewis you should really listen to some of his podcasts (http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=jasonlewis.xml). I heard him ripping into MADD and the federal government for strict drunk driving laws, sobriety checkpoints, and seat belt laws. I was pretty pleased. I don't know his position on terrorism but he supports open communication with foreign leaders. I like it when he sits in for Rush.

[Bman]

My problem with Savage is that as I listen to him I hear not someone who speaks of personal liberties. I hear someone who is upset that their point of view is not the current law.

Personally, No Thanks.

[Brian4Liberty]

is this thread sarcasm?
savage is an AIPAC partisan hack


Lol! SHHHH!! There's no elephant in the room! :eek: ;)

Actually, to be fair, he sometimes disagrees with AIPAC too. But he is half-Jewish and has a strong bias towards Israel (and against anything he perceives as a threat). Thus his anti-Muslim and anti-Iraq/Iran/Syria rhetoric, which sometimes seems out of place with his anti-authority streak...which also is the basis for his disagreement with Ron Paul.

[ChickenHawk]

My problem with Savage is that as I listen to him I hear not someone who speaks of personal liberties. I hear someone who is upset that their point of view is not the current law.

Personally, No Thanks.

That pretty well sums it up. Unfortunately that is the view of "liberty" that most Americans have. Who cares about your neighbors freedom if you have yours. Especially if your neighbor wants to do something you don't like.

[TruckinMike]

Nate K -- you are right. I actually bought a savage nation hat a few years back -- before my awakening. -- Back in my "turn'em (jihadiis) to glass" phase. The natural progression follows our path.

[Nate K]

Nate K -- you are right. I actually bought a savage nation hat a few years back -- before my awakening. -- Back in my "turn'em (jihadiis) to glass" phase. The natural progression follows our path.

I still have a Savage shirt :D. Even wear it on occasions, liberalism still is a mental disorder.


Well this thread keeps turning in my favor, page after page.. I hope someday we can all have a lot less knee-jerk reactions to unpopular ideas (see page 1). Also see - the Ron Paul revolution.

Some of you are like the freshmen who are bullied in 9th grade and then do the same to the coming freshmen when you get to 10th grade. Are you losing your passion for glory? We're not even anywhere near the top yet! This is a marathon, if we want to get anywhere we have to be smart, and stay smart and not stop at ideology when it comes to using the noggin.

[free.alive]

Savage is a statist, in many ways a fascist, and often a protectionist. He's a police-state-loving drug warrior, an armed forces sycophant and a bona fide member of the "Cult of the First-Responder."

Stop taking these talk show bloviators seriously; they're all just professional self-promoters (not that there's anything wrong with that). They're either neocons or neocon sympathizers and enablers, and besides Rush and Levin, they're fucking buffoons devoid of any intelligible economic or political philosophy.

They're entertainers. Be entertained by them if you wish, but don't depend on them for consistency, and certainly don't be, as the 9/12ers are, fooled into thinking that one of these attention whores is a movement leader in any way.

[chadhb]

The thread title clearly indicates to the stupidity of the people here and you have wasted Ron Paul's time and everyone elses. Dr. Paul has been fighting the Zionist's his entire career and in just one big pee brain swoop, you take everything away from this great man.

Until you understand what a Neo_Con is and who they are, please refine from posting! If I have to listen to one more Jew telling me what conservatism is i'm going in fing explode. You hear what you want to hear, but completey ignore that Satan is speaking to you.

[Jace]

...

[free.alive]

chadhb, what the fuck are you talking about. What made you climb out of your Aryan hole?

[nayjevin]

Savage is not correct about many many things.

His listeners are on the way to libertarian ideas, though, if we don't choose to ignore them.

It's not right to say he's our greatest ally - but then again it's not right to say that we can't use his huge base to our advantage. Good friend of mine is a supporter now, came fresh from SavageNation (i know, gross right? :) ). These folks are on the way.

Savage may never vote for a true libertarian, but his supporters might realize his fallacies if we're willing.


Nate K -- you are right. I actually bought a savage nation hat a few years back -- before my awakening. -- Back in my "turn'em (jihadiis) to glass" phase. The natural progression follows our path.

I know several people like this

[LibertyEagle]

The thread title clearly indicates to the stupidity of the people here and you have wasted Ron Paul's time and everyone elses. Dr. Paul has been fighting the Zionist's his entire career and in just one big pee brain swoop, you take everything away from this great man.

Until you understand what a Neo_Con is and who they are, please refine from posting! If I have to listen to one more Jew telling me what conservatism is i'm going in fing explode. You hear what you want to hear, but completey ignore that Satan is speaking to you.

You mean like Ludwig von Mises? Like that? :rolleyes:

Chad, if what you want is to bash all Jews, then you're in the wrong place. If that is what you're after, neither Ron Paul or this forum wants a thing to do with you.

[Indy4Chng]

Savage got me to un-register with the republican party in 2003 and I was a huge fan. I loved him cause he didn't come on every day and talk about how great Bush was. Instead he would say how corrupt him and Cheney were. It was so refreshing. I used to agree with 95% of what he said. Now it is closer to 70%-75% since stumbling across Ron Paul.

I think he is an ally cause he can't stand republicans either. That is the first step to liberty conversion (IMHO)

[blocks]

Savage is straight up a war-monger when it comes to foreign affairs. That said, I respect his anti-PC attitude and free-thinking. He is the most entertaining and interesting talk show host I've ever heard (especially when he gets off the topic of politics).

[BKV]

people like you make me want to give up. When are you going to realize that winning takes strategy?

qft

[BKV]

Savage is straight up a war-monger when it comes to foreign affairs. That said, I respect his anti-PC attitude and free-thinking. He is the most entertaining and interesting talk show host I've ever heard (especially when he gets off the topic of politics).

I'm with you, he's never going to respect Paul for foreign policy, and though he looks like he's an independent person, he's still just a tool for the establishment.

[Nate K]

Some of you are acting so childish.. this doesn't have to do with Savage's positions, it has everything to do with his audience.

I'm done trying with you people, it's exhausting just trying to carry a conversation here and discuss unpopular ideas.

[libertarian4321]

He is who fed up conservatives listen to and can be the beginning of something greater for many.

I haven't listened to Savage since I heard him trashing Ron Paul during the campaign (probably late in 2007).

It seems to me that Savage's main problem with the Republican Party is that they aren't neocon enough for his tastes.

The guy is a ranting neocon demagogue.

He also seems to be a major d-bag.

So why should I be supporting him? Because he might happen to agree with me on an issue now and then?

No thanks.

[TruckinMike]

Nate K - don't worry about these folks -- they're in their defensive mode -- not thinking clearly -- Or maybe they didn't read your post... I'll give'em some slack, just like we are giving slack to the (for the moment) Savage fans.

Come on folks... we are in a war. One salesman pitted against another, right now savage has them coming to his shop and buying his crap, eventually they'll be buying our superior product. Ours may cost more (not as popular) but, Its the natural progression.

It happened to me... others are on the way --- UNLESS of course...you alienate your potential customer base- through a barrage of endless personal attacks on savage listeners.

Wise up!

TMike

[Deborah K]

It is controlled by gov't. I don't favor the system as it stands. People should be able to freely form parties and organize for political purposes.

Your suggestion to have a "paradigm shift" in thinking about parties is illogical at best. You simply can't do that. Even when our system didn't have parties, people were divided into anti-administration and pro-administration factions which became parties. As long as you have government, you will have political parties, and as long as you have a human race with or without government you will have factions and groups. Duverger's Law states that as long we have plurality voting systems we will have two party voting systems unless if there are extenuating circumstances that create more parties. It is simply too complicated to have nonpartisan elections. It requires too much dedication. It is much simpler to have an ideology and then have a party that nominates people who agree with it, and you vote for it. We shouldn't have to spend endless hours researching candidates. Just think how much time it takes to research non-partisan judges. At least with the party system people have a general idea what the candidate thinks.


And therein lies the crux of our disagreement. You think a nonpartisan system is "illogical" and I think trying more of the same (just putting a different spin on it) is insanity.

Your claim that as long as there is gov't -there will be parties, I've already proven that wrong (when I quoted an excerpt on it). And your claim that nonpartisan elections would be too complicated and that we shouldn't have to spend endless hours researching candidates speaks directly to dumbing down the process and the people. I'd be willing to bet that you're for term limits too, aren't you? You don't need to answer. This debate is over. We don't agree.

[chadhb]

Neo-Con is code word for Jew/Zionists, if i use Jew instead of Neo-Con then so be it.

[nate895]

And therein lies the crux of our disagreement. You think a nonpartisan system is "illogical" and I think trying more of the same (just putting a different spin on it) is insanity.

Your claim that as long as there is gov't -there will be parties, I've already proven that wrong (when I quoted an excerpt on it). And your claim that nonpartisan elections would be too complicated and that we shouldn't have to spend endless hours researching candidates speaks directly to dumbing down the process and the people. I'd be willing to bet that you're for term limits too, aren't you? You don't need to answer. This debate is over. We don't agree.

When I say "illogical," I mean it simply can't happen. We have had political voting systems for thousands of years, and in every single documented case there were parties or factions. There are parties in absolute monarchies for crying out loud!!! The party/faction system is unavoidable. The Communist Party in the USSR (and the modern one in China) had factions in it. A "one-party state" had two "parties." Even if we put an absolute ban on political "parties" all that would happen would be that PACs would start to endorse broad groups of candidates and basically become a party. If we banned those, the system would just go underground. Avoiding political parties is simply impossible. As long as there is something to be controlled there will be disagreements and people will form parties, whether secretly or in the open.

[Jace]

...