Savage on the tsunami: "I wouldn't call it a tragedy. ... We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this"

 

During nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage's December 31 broadcast -- his first since the December 26 tsunami resulting from an earthquake in Southeast Asia -- Savage said that the tsumani was "not a tragedy" and that the United States should not be sending any aid to the affected countries because they are "hotbeds of radical Islam." Savage added: "We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth."

 

Savage opened the program by saying that he needed some international aid because of rainy weather in San Francisco, the city from which he broadcasts his program. Savage also said that while he does not argue that "God struck" the people of Southeast Asia -- because he's "not a theologian" -- "[y]ou could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America."

 

From the December 31 edition of Savage Nation:

 

? ? SAVAGE: It is the Savage Nation out here on the West Coast. We've had rain for five days. We have another five days of it. I need some aid right now. International aid. Because I may be suffering from seasonal affective disorder if this keeps up. Maybe I should go to the U.N. [united Nations] and see if I can get some special psychotherapy and sun lamps.

 

? ? [...]

 

? ? We shouldn't be sending as much as we're sending. Bush has a lot of gall writing a check for 135 million dollars. This is more a UNICEF deal, it's a U.N. deal, it's a Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, George Soros, Bill Clinton bleeding-heart-liberal deal. I don't want to send them any money. You know, a few airplanes with some medical supplies and a little lip service would have been fine for me.

 

? ? [...]

 

? ? You could take the argument that it's God's will, it's too bad and let's move on. And then let others help them. They're not in our sphere of interest. Primarily, they hate our guts in plain English. All right, well, the argument is, well, if you send them money, they're gonna like us, show 'em we're not anti-Muslim. That is such rubbish. That is such rubbish. They're gonna hate you anyhow, no matter what we ever do.

 

? ? [...]

 

? ? It's not a tragedy. I wouldn't call it a tragedy. It's a human disaster. It's not a tragedy in that sense. But, the issue is, theological questions suddenly arise. ... Now, for you atheists, you have no questions about this. It's a pure accident of nature. You don't ask yourself, "Was it God's hand?"

 

? ? If you are a God-believing, God-fearing person, I am sure at some point you ask yourself, wait a minute. The epicenter of this earthquake and the resulting tidal wave was adjacent to the sex trade island of Phuket, Thailand ... and then it knocked out many, many regions of Indonesia, some of which are the most vicious recruiting grounds for Islamic terrorists. That's a fact of reality. Then going the other way, it hit Sri Lanka, ex-Ceylon. And as you well know, Sri Lanka is a viciously anti-Western nation, the home of the Tamil Tigers, who are not only separatists but anti-Westerners, anti-Christians, etc. You could argue, maybe this is God's hand, because some of their brethren struck Christian America. Maybe God speaks the truth but waits. Seeks the truth and waits. I don't know. You could argue: God struck them. Now, I don't argue that because I'm not a theologian. Nor do I believe that God is omnipotent. I believe God is omnipresent. But I don't think God has control over every act because there would be no free will and I don't believe in that. ... But then again, who knows? I'm one man amongst billions of people, with one man's opinion.

 

? ? [...]

 

? ? Many of the countries and the areas in these countries that were hit by these tidal waves were hotbeds of radical Islam. Why should we be helping them destroy us? ... I think what we're doing is feeding our own demise. ... I truthfully don't believe in foreign aid.

 

? ? [...]

 

? ? We shouldn't be spending a nickel on this, as far as I'm concerned. ... I don't want one nickel of my money going over there. ... I am sick of being bled to death by every damn incident on the earth.

 

Savage is not the only person to oppose U.S. aid to tsunami victims. In a January 3 commentary on the conservative news website CNSNews.com, David Holcberg, a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote that the U.S. government "should not give any money to help the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to give. Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first."

 

? K.B & A.H.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050006

 

Yeah its from a liberal site but quotes are quotes. The link also has a link to the actual commentary. I listened to half of it to verify quotes werent being misconstrued(and they werent), and then had to stop lest I vommit.

I've always disliked Michael Savage. He's not a conservative, he's more of a racist facist.

I hope he was going over to Iraq too. Since he doesn't want to be drained of his pennies over problems around the world why would he care about Iraqi people freedom?

What an insensitive SOB.

A one line summary would be:

 

If we're going to take the rap for being "the great satan", why not do the crime we're accused of and save a bunch of money?

649372[/snapback]

Are you in agreement with what Savage has to say?

Savage's logic and unique POV are dead on in some issues.

 

But not here.

I might add though that I respect that he's not Limbaugh like (making a case for everything Bush does... that it is correct... one must wonder if they have minds of their own)

He says we shouldnt be sending stuff and its a bleeding heart, Clinton, Saudi Arabia deal. He says they arent in our interests. He says it isnt a tragedy. Thats a horrible one line summary of the idiotic rant. Nice try with the silly defense though tonyi.

 

Funny, he says the liberals and the muslims(who are in the same category for the moron) arent giving any and countries like Saudi Arabia are copping out. Im sure he wont mention that they are now giving nearly half a billion dollars:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/0...thon/index.html

 

But hey, logicless bashing seems to be the way of this moron.

 

No wonder some people come up with their silly group based ideas. Just put all people you dont like in one bucket and call them the liberals, communists and terrorists. How can anyone listen to this nutball?

Chewbacca was right on with the description of this person.

Chewbacca was right on with the description of this person.

649519[/snapback]

Apparently the guy has found a way to be hated by both liberals and conservatives. Some comments Ive read were that he is now sure the war in Iraq was about oil and that we should give a big chunck of Iraq's oil region to Iran to quell the nuclear crisis.

 

Funny..the guy is writing a new book too. Who is going to buy it?

Thats a horrible one line summary of the idiotic rant. Nice try with the silly defense though tonyi.

 

Defense? :blink:

 

Didn't you just ask me directly if I agreed with him or not?

 

Did I not say something to the effect of "nope"?

 

Perhaps you can explain how someone who explicitly disavows a position, like I did, is somehow "defending it"?

 

I imagine I'll have to break out my digital tachometer to measure your RPM's for this explanation. :plain

649537[/snapback]

You dont have to agree with someone to come to their defense. By summarizing what he says and explaining it in different context, clearly you are trying to put him in a positive light.

 

Imagine someone saying " I dont agree with what Mike Moore had to say in F911, but what he is trying to saying isnt as bad as some make it out to be."

 

Clearly this is what you said:

 

Nope. Although I do understand where his position is coming from.

 

Seeing where someone's position is coming from is clearly trying to defend their extreme views. See how that works? Simple concept isnt it?

now come on F_M....

 

I think "knowing where someone's coming from" is just saying you understand their points. It has nothing to do with agreeing with them.

 

i.e., I understand what the KKK's views are, I sure as hell don't agree with them but it's very clear what they are.

The thing about Savage is, he's not allowed on the same mainstream media that Pat Buchanan is allowed on because his view's are so extreme.

 

Right there, I think is a good indicator about this guy's politics. Not to mention his infamous quote to a gay caller. "You're one of those sodomites, the only thing you should do is go get aids and die"

A one line summary would be:

 

If we're going to take the rap for being "the great satan", why not do the crime we're accused of and save a bunch of money?

649372[/snapback]

That's pretty much what I got out of it.