The Savage Nation vs. the Bushbots

Thursday, 21 July 2005

Al Franken and the other liberals are probably still wondering why they had such little luck in their efforts to start a talk-radio network to bash George Bush from the left. They didn't consider the obvious explanation. George Bush has his left flank nicely covered. It's on the right that he's weak.

That is the theory of Michael Savage. Savage is the most right- wing of the right-wing talkers on the national airwaves at the moment. He is based in San Francisco, but he can be heard in the New York area on WOR in the evenings. He is a welcome change from those Karl Rove clones Hush Bimbo and Sean Vanity.

"Hush Bimbo" and "Sean Vanity" are the names Savage has pinned on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity of WABC. In doing so, he has sparked a war between the members of his "Savage Nation" (slogan: "Borders, language, culture") and the so-called "Bushbots," that sizable number of gullible Americans who can be convinced that whatever policy Bush adopts is a conservative policy.

As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.

"He's never mentioned Islamofascism," said Savage.

No, he hasn't. Even the French have been more willing to defend their borders, language and culture than Bush. He's a multiculturalist and a mushy one at that. Instead of reducing the reach of Islamic fundamentalism, Bush has managed in Iraq to get 1,700 Americans killed in a war that will create yet another Islamic republic. Just yesterday we learned that the new constitution in Iraq will incorporate sharia, Islamic law.

That's why we right-wing commentators believe the Iraq war has been the biggest blunder in America military history. As for Bimbo and Vanity, if I may employ Savage's labels, they are simply too uneducated to realize that the Iraq war represents a failed liberal exercise in nation-building.

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

The Savage Nation vs. the Bushbots

Thursday, 21 July 2005

Al Franken and the other liberals are probably still wondering why they had such little luck in their efforts to start a talk-radio network to bash George Bush from the left. They didn't consider the obvious explanation. George Bush has his left flank nicely covered. It's on the right that he's weak.

That is the theory of Michael Savage. Savage is the most right- wing of the right-wing talkers on the national airwaves at the moment. He is based in San Francisco, but he can be heard in the New York area on WOR in the evenings. He is a welcome change from those Karl Rove clones Hush Bimbo and Sean Vanity.

"Hush Bimbo" and "Sean Vanity" are the names Savage has pinned on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity of WABC. In doing so, he has sparked a war between the members of his "Savage Nation" (slogan: "Borders, language, culture") and the so-called "Bushbots," that sizable number of gullible Americans who can be convinced that whatever policy Bush adopts is a conservative policy.

As regards the so-called "war on terror," Savage points out that you can't win a war when you're afraid even to name the enemy.

"He's never mentioned Islamofascism," said Savage.

No, he hasn't. Even the French have been more willing to defend their borders, language and culture than Bush. He's a multiculturalist and a mushy one at that. Instead of reducing the reach of Islamic fundamentalism, Bush has managed in Iraq to get 1,700 Americans killed in a war that will create yet another Islamic republic. Just yesterday we learned that the new constitution in Iraq will incorporate sharia, Islamic law.

That's why we right-wing commentators believe the Iraq war has been the biggest blunder in America military history. As for Bimbo and Vanity, if I may employ Savage's labels, they are simply too uneducated to realize that the Iraq war represents a failed liberal exercise in nation-building.

It would seem that the process of de-alignment continues apace. Not just necessarily in which party one owes allegience to, but in the sense that the matrix of our entire political ecosystem seems in flux. We have Savage-Buchananites agreeing with Lefties on certain issues, we have hard GOPers pursuing Liberal policies, and all sorts of other strange, political "world-turned-upside down" things going on. If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

We are in for some fascinating times, politically.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

I see too much vehement hatred of Hillary. This forum has at least one caven hatemonger, whose name will go unmentioned. I worry for her safety. The far right is too righteous; killers. They'll get her.

I'm still pulling for Al Sharpton in '08, seriously!

Ask yourself: Would we be better off with Al Sharpton as president today?

--Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

This forum has at least one caven hatemonger, whose name will go unmentioned.

--Croakmore

Flattered as always. :wink:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

So those of us who are doctors, lawyers, consultants, journalists, programmers, mechanics and truck drivers get to pay $500 for a pair of Reeboks *and* pay the six figure salaries of paper pushers whose jobs should've been replaced by machines twenty years ago so we can bring back the last five manufacturing jobs in the world that haven't yet been replaced by machines? Sounds like a winning platform...

Well, I don't buy that argument. Besides if that's the case then maybe that's what we all deserve. Read Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Ask yourself: Would we be better off with Al Sharpton as president today?

As a person living in NY, near Wappingers Falls, during the Tawana Brawley affair, I can only say we would be much, much, much better off if the Far Right whacked him instead of Hillary. He is a charlatan, a demogogue, and a scoundrel of the first order. Now I'm not advocating his assassination, but I am advocating his fading into obscurity.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

So those of us who are doctors, lawyers, consultants, journalists, programmers, mechanics and truck drivers get to pay $500 for a pair of Reeboks *and* pay the six figure salaries of paper pushers whose jobs should've been replaced by machines twenty years ago so we can bring back the last five manufacturing jobs in the world that haven't yet been replaced by machines? Sounds like a winning platform...

A lot of it can be done by robots and mechanization, but here in the US. That we the industrial base, not to mention the tax base, stays here. It's a matter of postindustrialization versus deindustrialization. I want the former, not the latter. We're getting a good portion of the latter.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

So those of us who are doctors, lawyers, consultants, journalists, programmers, mechanics and truck drivers get to pay $500 for a pair of Reeboks *and* pay the six figure salaries of paper pushers whose jobs should've been replaced by machines twenty years ago so we can bring back the last five manufacturing jobs in the world that haven't yet been replaced by machines? Sounds like a winning platform...

A lot of it can be done by robots and mechanization, but here in the US. That we the industrial base, not to mention the tax base, stays here. It's a matter of postindustrialization versus deindustrialization. I want the former, not the latter. We're getting a good portion of the latter.

But what sense would it make to bring automated industry home? It wouldn't create many new jobs, and goods would cost a whole lot more because real estate, taxation, facilities, etc are more expensive here.

12,000 mile long supply chains may not be the most cost efficient way of doing business when peak oil comes, but I tend to think that will only be a temporary disruption of the global economy, and after a short while we'll go back to manufacturing things abroad (although maybe not so much in China, as it will likely be less inexpensive by then).

And if you're going to ask me what to do about the exodus of service sector jobs I have no idea. I do know that if the apocalyptics are right about the effect this will have on our economy surely there won't any money to pay a kazillion bureaucrats in Washington and elsewhere, nor would it seem to make a great deal of sense to go protectionist about manufacturing when all that would do is push up inflation and not create many jobs.

Also, doesn't it seem kind of crazy to be invading everyone and at the same time not letting them or their stuff into the country? But I guess you're really not into the invading everyone part.

On the other hand though I don't really care anymore. Build a giant wall around the country and lava moats. I'll duct tape my shoes together and wear them for the next twenty years to avoid having to pay obscene prices for new ones. Or maybe I'll just stop wearing shoes. Jesus went barefoot, as did Brook Shields and her unibrow in the Blue Lagoon.

Originally Posted by Milo

But what sense would it make to bring automated industry home? It wouldn't create many new jobs, and goods would cost a whole lot more because real estate, taxation, facilities, etc are more expensive here.

I doubt mechanized industry here would end up costing much more than cheap labor overseas. The start up costs might be higher. But having the industrial base here is a national security issue. Having the tax base here makes it easier to find the money to educate and retrain the populace (esp. if we slow down immigration so we don't have to retrain so many brains for English) for the needs of an information/service economy.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

But what sense would it make to bring automated industry home? It wouldn't create many new jobs, and goods would cost a whole lot more because real estate, taxation, facilities, etc are more expensive here.

I doubt mechanized industry here would end up costing much more than cheap labor overseas. The start up costs might be higher. But having the industrial base here is a national security issue. Having the tax base here makes it easier to find the money to educate and retrain the populace (esp. if we slow down immigration so we don't have to retrain so many brains for English) for the needs of an information/service economy.

We don't need to build anything more. I subsist primarily on roots and berries. My home is made of bark. I winter in an igloo north of the Wasatch.

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

But what sense would it make to bring automated industry home? It wouldn't create many new jobs, and goods would cost a whole lot more because real estate, taxation, facilities, etc are more expensive here.

I doubt mechanized industry here would end up costing much more than cheap labor overseas. The start up costs might be higher. But having the industrial base here is a national security issue. Having the tax base here makes it easier to find the money to educate and retrain the populace (esp. if we slow down immigration so we don't have to retrain so many brains for English) for the needs of an information/service economy.

We don't need to build anything more. I subsist primarily on roots and berries. My home is made of bark. I winter in an igloo north of the Wasatch.

And your internet connection consists of a termite-mound computer attached to a fiberoptic vine? 8)

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

But what sense would it make to bring automated industry home? It wouldn't create many new jobs, and goods would cost a whole lot more because real estate, taxation, facilities, etc are more expensive here.

I doubt mechanized industry here would end up costing much more than cheap labor overseas. The start up costs might be higher. But having the industrial base here is a national security issue. Having the tax base here makes it easier to find the money to educate and retrain the populace (esp. if we slow down immigration so we don't have to retrain so many brains for English) for the needs of an information/service economy.

We don't need to build anything more. I subsist primarily on roots and berries. My home is made of bark. I winter in an igloo north of the Wasatch.

And your internet connection consists of a termite-mound computer attached to a fiberoptic vine? 8)

I watched a lot of MacGyver as a small child. I can build and launch an orbiting satellite out of thread, pen caps, and a broken staple gun.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

So those of us who are doctors, lawyers, consultants, journalists, programmers, mechanics and truck drivers get to pay $500 for a pair of Reeboks *and* pay the six figure salaries of paper pushers whose jobs should've been replaced by machines twenty years ago so we can bring back the last five manufacturing jobs in the world that haven't yet been replaced by machines? Sounds like a winning platform...

A lot of it can be done by robots and mechanization, but here in the US. That we the industrial base, not to mention the tax base, stays here. It's a matter of postindustrialization versus deindustrialization. I want the former, not the latter. We're getting a good portion of the latter.

What he said. When America (most of it anyway) made the transition from a predominately agricultural to an industrial (post-agricultural) economy, we didn't export all of our farming jobs to China. I suspect if it had been possible to do so back in the late 19th or early 20th Centuries, the conservatives of the time would have done so... then, come WWII, we'd have been royally fucked by Japan. What we are doing now is no less than giving the Red Commies the keys to our destruction... and when it comes time to fight WWIII against China circa 2019 we'll lose, because we won't have the manufacturing capacity nor even the knowledge to restart it anymore.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Milo

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

If Hillary goes for an immigration crackdown and big-time border security (and she seems to be heading in that direction) then all bets are off.

If she does that, then she'll get my vote in 2008!

Add in steep tariffs on cheap ticky-tacky goods Made In China, and a moratorium on privatization of civil service jobs... she'll have mine as well.

So those of us who are doctors, lawyers, consultants, journalists, programmers, mechanics and truck drivers get to pay $500 for a pair of Reeboks *and* pay the six figure salaries of paper pushers whose jobs should've been replaced by machines twenty years ago so we can bring back the last five manufacturing jobs in the world that haven't yet been replaced by machines? Sounds like a winning platform...

A lot of it can be done by robots and mechanization, but here in the US. That we the industrial base, not to mention the tax base, stays here. It's a matter of postindustrialization versus deindustrialization. I want the former, not the latter. We're getting a good portion of the latter.

What he said. When America (most of it anyway) made the transition from a predominately agricultural to an industrial (post-agricultural) economy, we didn't export all of our farming jobs to China. I suspect if it had been possible to do so back in the late 19th or early 20th Centuries, the conservatives of the time would have done so... then, come WWII, we'd have been royally fucked by Japan. What we are doing now is no less than giving the Red Commies the keys to our destruction... and when it comes time to fight WWIII against China circa 2019 we'll lose, because we won't have the manufacturing capacity nor even the knowledge to restart it anymore.

We should outsource all our agribusiness too. Food is overrated.

Also, I doubt there will ever be a war with China, and if there is not having anymore factories to make spare parts for starter motors will rank in the hierarchy of worries somewhere behind nuclear incineration and fallout from nuclear incineration.

The threats of the 21st century and beyond are non-state actors, and actresses, and child stars, and celebrity pets.

Originally Posted by Milo

We should outsource all our agribusiness too. Food is overrated.

This is being done. The Celestial provide us more and more of our apples as we bulldoze orchards in upstate New York and Washington. The Antipodes send us ships full of frozen cow's head water to fill our tortillas with something labelled "taco meat" in the American food emporia.

This depends on the lack of pirates which are the result of the Celestials outsourcing the "freedom of the seas" to the five-sided contractor on the Potomac. But, the Indians will soon wish to control the Indian Ocean and the Celestials the several China Seas. The Australians may soon command Sydney Harbor as well. We will pay more for feeding our Mexicans as their is a lag time between a calf's nativity and the remains of it's slaughter becoming "taco meat".

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Milo

We should outsource all our agribusiness too. Food is overrated.

This is being done. The Celestial provide us more and more of our apples as we bulldoze orchards in upstate New York and Washington. The Antipodes send us ships full of frozen cow's head water to fill our tortillas with something labelled "taco meat" in the American food emporia.

This depends on the lack of pirates which are the result of the Celestials outsourcing the "freedom of the seas" to the five-sided contractor on the Potomac. But, the Indians will soon wish to control the Indian Ocean and the Celestials the several China Seas. The Australians may soon command Sydney Harbor as well. We will pay more for feeding our Mexicans as their is a lag time between a calf's nativity and the remains of it's slaughter becoming "taco meat".

Why can't the Celestials, if they're all that important, provide us with vegetarian tacos?

Who in the fuck are the Celestials? My only knowledge of that name are a Jack Kirby creation for Marvel comics.

Originally Posted by spudzill

Who in the fuck are the Celestials? My only knowledge of that name are a Jack Kirby creation for Marvel comics.

I have heard the word associated with the Chinese, though the modern communists use it to refer to the politburo much less than the old dynastic chinese used it to refer to the Emperor and his ancestors.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by spudzill

Who in the fuck are the Celestials? My only knowledge of that name are a Jack Kirby creation for Marvel comics.

I have heard the word associated with the Chinese, though the modern communists use it to refer to the politburo much less than the old dynastic chinese used it to refer to the Emperor and his ancestors.

Yes, I believe Mr. Saari is either referring to the Chinese specifically or to East Asians generally.

hah! And people wonder about why I have trouble understanding the man on the flame war thread. :P

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by spudzill

Who in the fuck are the Celestials? My only knowledge of that name are a Jack Kirby creation for Marvel comics.

I have heard the word associated with the Chinese, though the modern communists use it to refer to the politburo much less than the old dynastic chinese used it to refer to the Emperor and his ancestors.

Yes, I believe Mr. Saari is either referring to the Chinese specifically or to East Asians generally.

I mean by Celestials the Chinese, not just the PRC commies or the heirs of the Kuomintang opressing the Formosans or the two-system Hong-Kongers, but also the Overseas Chinese who run much of the economies in Indonesia, Indo-China, the Phillipines, Burma, and Singapore and have a "base" in Long Beach, a sturdy foothold in Vancouver, BC, GWN and iron ore mines 20 miles southwest of my farm. See one of Mr. Butler's recommendations, World on Fire by Ms. Chua for more.

Originally Posted by Croakmore

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Milo

We should outsource all our agribusiness too. Food is overrated.

This is being done. The Celestial provide us more and more of our apples as we bulldoze orchards in upstate New York and Washington. The Antipodes send us ships full of frozen cow's head water to fill our tortillas with something labelled "taco meat" in the American food emporia.

This depends on the lack of pirates which are the result of the Celestials outsourcing the "freedom of the seas" to the five-sided contractor on the Potomac. But, the Indians will soon wish to control the Indian Ocean and the Celestials the several China Seas. The Australians may soon command Sydney Harbor as well. We will pay more for feeding our Mexicans as their is a lag time between a calf's nativity and the remains of it's slaughter becoming "taco meat".

Why can't the Celestials, if they're all that important, provide us with vegetarian tacos?

Ah, the soya-filled millet burrito with Peking soured cabbage salsa.