PDA

View Full Version : Michael Savage agrees with Ron Paul on Al Awlaki!




jmdrake
10-04-2011, 06:49 AM
I heard this on his show last night during the first hour. Basically he said that he at first praised the president on Friday, then thought about it over the weekend and decided that Obama really couldn't be trusted with that kind of power. He kept saying "If he could do this to Al Awlaki, why couldn't he do it to anyone else?" Most callers agreed with Savage. I hope someone who's good at Tubing gets this up. I know Savage isn't perfect nor had he done the right thing and endorsed Ron Paul. But he's got cred with the type of voters we need to reach. It would be great if the campaign could get Ron Paul on Savage again to talk about this and other foreign policy issues. Savage has also come out against the Iraq war and the continuance of the war in Afghanistan.

CaptUSA
10-04-2011, 07:09 AM
:eek:

What is going on here?!!!

Romulus
10-04-2011, 07:11 AM
Lots of threads on this already, but yes, its great news - Now if Paul would only move to impeach we could get some momentum!

specsaregood
10-04-2011, 07:17 AM
I hope someone who's good at Tubing gets this up.

Toobs contained here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320309-Video-Michael-Savage-Praises-and-Agrees-with-Ron-Paul-on-al-Awlaki-Assassin.-10-3-2011

Bruno
10-04-2011, 08:12 AM
He kept saying "If he could do this to Al Awlaki, why couldn't he do it to anyone else?"

THIS!! Wake up, America!!

VBRonPaulFan
10-04-2011, 08:15 AM
omfg i literally burst out laughing at the end of the first call! he had the caller speechless and he just hung up on him.... hahahaha.

my dad actually has moved from being a big OReilly fan to a big Savage fan. he bought me his book for my bday the other day... haven't had a chance to read it yet. i'll post up my thoughts about it after I read it.

kylejack
10-04-2011, 08:16 AM
This is bizarre. Savage usually advocates wiping out entire cities if they "kill one of our boys."

AuH20
10-04-2011, 08:19 AM
This is bizarre. Savage usually advocates wiping out entire cities if they "kill one of our boys."

That's how wars are supposed to be fought. End conflicts as soon as possible. And if I remember correctly his rant about Fallujah covered humanely evacuating the city of it's non-combatants beforehand. Unfortunately, the raison d'etre for the recent campaigns have been extremely flawed.

ItsTime
10-04-2011, 08:21 AM
Bizzaro world.

kylejack
10-04-2011, 08:23 AM
That's how wars are supposed to be fought. End conflicts as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the raison d'etre for the recent campaigns have been extremely flawed.
No, I don't think civilians should pay the price for the actions of a military. Targeting should be as precise as current technology allows.

AuH20
10-04-2011, 08:27 AM
No, I don't think civilians should pay the price for the actions of a military. Targeting should be as precise as current technology allows.

I agree. But Savage also advocated dropping leaflets and clearing the city of Fallujah, before leveling it. I don't think he wanted to kill civilians. But he's largely right in theory. You don't let the enemy dictate terms.

donnay
10-04-2011, 08:35 AM
A broken clock is right twice a day...I am no fan of Michael Wiener but if this message is heard loud and clear, maybe we can run with it to those who listen to him faithfully!

Michael Wiener just opened the door for us! Let's utilize it wisely!

klamath
10-04-2011, 08:50 AM
That's how wars are supposed to be fought. End conflicts as soon as possible. And if I remember correctly his rant about Fallujah covered humanely evacuating the city of it's non-combatants beforehand. Unfortunately, the raison d'etre for the recent campaigns have been extremely flawed.
Fallujah was nearly all evacuated. My son was on the invasion and saw one woman in his street to street fighting.

affa
10-04-2011, 11:20 AM
That's how wars are supposed to be fought.

Wiping out entire cities is not how war is 'supposed to be fought'.

AuH20
10-04-2011, 11:24 AM
Wiping out entire cities is not how war is 'supposed to be fought'.

If the enemy is in the city, then yes. I don't understand how anyone can apply moral rules to such an activity which is inherently immoral. War is horrible, but if you decide to follow through, you don't hesitate because it ultimately costs lives. If you haven't noticed, the establishment bureaucrats and members of the military industrial complex like long drawn out campaigns with no clear resolution. This country's motto should be: Don't start wars, but finish them with extreme prejudice.
The problem is that we get involved in frivolous conflicts, which have no true bearing on our national defense.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2011, 11:41 AM
Wiping out entire cities is not how war is 'supposed to be fought'.
I agree with this. I don't see how wiping out non-military targets is part of a just war. Perhaps someone could explain how it could be justified? Bombing Fallujah makes as little sense as fire-bombing Dresden did in the 1940's.

Anti Federalist
10-04-2011, 11:56 AM
Can't say what Savage's true agenda is, but anybody with a shred of honesty and critical thinking skills can only come to the same conclusion:

The USG has "crossed the Rubicon" they have "jumped the shark" when the Executive declares it has the unilateral power to incinerate US citizens, just on the Executive's say so.

Good for him for getting in front of a national audience to say so.

ZanZibar
10-04-2011, 12:26 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoTvHCGpgYY&feature=player_embedded

Becker
10-04-2011, 01:27 PM
I heard this on his show last night during the first hour. Basically he said that he at first praised the president on Friday, then thought about it over the weekend and decided that Obama really couldn't be trusted with that kind of power. He kept saying "If he could do this to Al Awlaki, why couldn't he do it to anyone else?" Most callers agreed with Savage. I hope someone who's good at Tubing gets this up. I know Savage isn't perfect nor had he done the right thing and endorsed Ron Paul. But he's got cred with the type of voters we need to reach. It would be great if the campaign could get Ron Paul on Savage again to talk about this and other foreign policy issues. Savage has also come out against the Iraq war and the continuance of the war in Afghanistan.

exactly, the blatant double standard when a Democrat is commander in chief.

AuH20
10-04-2011, 01:29 PM
exactly, the blatant double standard when a Democrat is commander in chief.

Nah. Savage isn't a party guy. He hated Bush. I think he's honestly apprehensive about the power that our government is wielding.

ZanZibar
10-04-2011, 01:40 PM
Nah. Savage isn't a party guy. He hated Bush. I think he's honestly apprehensive about the power that our government is wielding.Very true. But as he has said, he is fickle, and you never know what he's going to say next. He tends to be somewhat inconsistent.

bluesc
10-04-2011, 01:46 PM
Very true. But as he has said, he is fickle, and you never know what he's going to say next. He tends to be somewhat inconsistent.

Or as he likes to call it, "independent".

He has called Ron unelectable a few times, yet praises him for being a genius, great ideas, ect. He even said he would make a good Sec. Defense. If he loves his ideas, and likes him as a person, why can't he just support him?

Becker
10-04-2011, 01:55 PM
Nah. Savage isn't a party guy. He hated Bush. I think he's honestly apprehensive about the power that our government is wielding.

he hated bush until it was election season.

AGRP
10-04-2011, 02:09 PM
He kept saying "If he could do this to Al Awlaki, why couldn't he do it to anyone else?"

THIS!! Wake up, America!!

uh yeah. Imagine the possibilities:

1) Kidnap anyone they don't like.

2) Drop them off in the middle of a war zone around a week later to allow for "travel time."

3) Assassinate.

4) Dead men don't tell tales.

Becker
10-04-2011, 02:11 PM
Very true. But as he has said, he is fickle, and you never know what he's going to say next. He tends to be somewhat inconsistent.

did he criticize bush ever for killing terrorists or any war efforts (oh wait, Bush never killed an American citizen)

he probably only hates bush because of his soft immigration policies, otherwise he's all for bush when it comes to comparing him to any democrat (same with mccain)

specsaregood
10-04-2011, 02:19 PM
did he criticize bush ever for killing terrorists or any war efforts (oh wait, Bush never killed an American citizen)
he probably only hates bush because of his soft immigration policies, otherwise he's all for bush when it comes to comparing him to any democrat (same with mccain)

Who cares? We aren't voting for him; we aren't paying him; we aren't spreading our legs for him. Give it up already, the guy supported Dr. Paul's position to an audience of millions and for that we can be happy.

Kylie
10-04-2011, 02:56 PM
I have listened to that guy before, and he was bashing RP. Surprised to hear him agree with him now.

But I'll take it!

klamath
10-04-2011, 03:00 PM
Who cares? We aren't voting for him; we aren't paying him; we aren't spreading our legs for him. Give it up already, the guy supported Dr. Paul's position to an audience of millions and for that we can be happy.+1

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2011, 04:56 PM
he hated bush until it was election season.
Didn't he call Bush a "Red diaper doper baby"?

kylejack
10-04-2011, 05:38 PM
Fallujah was nearly all evacuated. My son was on the invasion and saw one woman in his street to street fighting.
Women and children, but not men. Men were blockaded in and then bombed.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-04-2011, 06:06 PM
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheMichaelSavage/2485697

affa
10-04-2011, 09:33 PM
If the enemy is in the city, then yes. I don't understand how anyone can apply moral rules to such an activity which is inherently immoral. War is horrible, but if you decide to follow through, you don't hesitate because it ultimately costs lives. If you haven't noticed, the establishment bureaucrats and members of the military industrial complex like long drawn out campaigns with no clear resolution. This country's motto should be: Don't start wars, but finish them with extreme prejudice.
The problem is that we get involved in frivolous conflicts, which have no true bearing on our national defense.

Your logic is flawed. I mean, seriously, consider this sentence:
"War is horrible, but if you decide to follow through, you don't hesitate because it ultimately costs lives."

Also "if the enemy is in the city, then yes" is a meaningless sentence, since if one is talking about a city of an enemy state, then by definition there will be at least some enemy combatants in the city.

You are essentially saying it's better to destroy an entire city, innocents and all, because it will ultimately save lives. This is absurd.

I agree war is horrible. But slaughtering entire populations is not a moral, ethical, or logical solution to the problem. Any argument which validates the killing of non-combatants is an extremely dangerous one, because that 'justifies' some extremely abhorrent behavior. Do you really want nations to fight that way?

It is also worth nothing your argument actually validates terrorism against US cities.

Number19
10-04-2011, 10:50 PM
Can't say what Savage's true agenda is, but anybody with a shred of honesty and critical thinking skills can only come to the same conclusion:

The USG has "crossed the Rubicon" they have "jumped the shark" when the Executive declares it has the unilateral power to incinerate US citizens, just on the Executive's say so.

Good for him for getting in front of a national audience to say so.Allow me to be unconventional, here, and take a different tack. What Obama did is nothing that hasn't been done numerous times over the years. I can't be upset over this single action. Not to say it isn't wrong - by "our" standards - but the precedent has long since been established. How is this any different from Frank Hammer hounding Bonnie & Clyde until he eventually catches up to them and shoots them dead on the road without any intent to "bring them in"?

Anti Federalist
10-04-2011, 11:23 PM
Allow me to be unconventional, here, and take a different tack. What Obama did is nothing that hasn't been done numerous times over the years. I can't be upset over this single action. Not to say it isn't wrong - by "our" standards - but the precedent has long since been established. How is this any different from Frank Hammer hounding Bonnie & Clyde until he eventually catches up to them and shoots them dead on the road without any intent to "bring them in"?

Yeah, and local cops used to routinely beat confessions out of suspects as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi).

But that doesn't make it right.

And just saying, "well, this is what we've always done" doesn't comfort me much when the Executive branch just openly announces that this is the new policy going forward.

Today it's the strange looking strange speaking scary bearded men.

Couple of years from now it's us.

Especially when they are already calling us "terrorists".

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf

nobody's_hero
10-05-2011, 07:18 AM
I think I found a longer version:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3EgN7469sQ

jmdrake
10-05-2011, 09:12 AM
exactly, the blatant double standard when a Democrat is commander in chief.

That's really irrelevant. I'm not trying to re-elect Obama. I'm trying to help Ron Paul win the GOP nomination. And having someone who has attacked Ron Paul in the past agree with Ron Paul on such a controversial issue as the death of Al Awlaki is helpful to helping Ron Paul with the GOP nomination. The only thing that matters is that Ron Paul has been consistent in criticizing republican and democrat tyrants-in-chief in their attacks on the constitution. When John Stewart is supportive Ron Paul that's worth noting. When Rachel Maddow is supportive of Ron Paul that's worth noting. When Michael Savage is supportive, that's worth noting as well. When Michael Steel criticized the war in Afghanistan that was worth noting. I hope you learn to think strategically before this is all over.

jmdrake
10-05-2011, 09:13 AM
I think I found a longer version:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3EgN7469sQ

Wow! Thanks for the find! I didn't hear the whole show and missed where Savage said Ron Paul was right.