Contact
Archives
Search
Blogs
Newspaper Blogs
English-Language
Press
Polls

June 05, 2003

TALK RADIO UPDATE....Yes, Michael Savage is a very bad man, and all right thinking people already know that his employment by MSNBC is a both a mystery and an abomination.

Still, even for us bitter, hardened, cynical liberals who swear that nothing about right wing talk radio can surprise us anymore — well, Savage still manages to surprise us. The Mighty Reason Man has the latest.

Posted by Kevin Drum at June 5, 2003 05:25 PM | TrackBack


Comments

I don't know much about Savage, but from what I've read he seems to be quite the butt-head.

However, I know that in radio they have a delay and the caller could easily have said something extremely offensive - that was cut out by live air (they don't bleep in radio) - that sent Savage off on his rant.

From what the link said, he acted like a total assclown, but I hardly think that anyone would go off because of the quote mentioned.

Heck, I hear that type of stuff all the time on the FM morning 'zoo crew' segments, where drunk rednecks try to see if they can sneak the 'f' word by the DJs.

Posted by: Ricky at June 5, 2003 05:56 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Savage

put in a cage and carted from town to town so small children can laugh at him and poke him with sticks

When tickets are available, call -- I'll take ten up front unless a skybox is available.

Posted by: Claude Muncey at June 5, 2003 05:57 PM | PERMALINK

They took Phil Hendrie off my radio and replaced him with Michael Weiner. For that alone, he ought to be condemned to the 7th circle of hell.

Posted by: edub at June 5, 2003 06:02 PM | PERMALINK

Ricky,

"I hardly think that anyone would go off because of the quote mentioned."

"I don't know much about Savage"

I've listened to him often enough for the utter irrationality to not really phase me. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that something was muted, but it seems unlikely, as there was no tell-tale pause between the caller speaking and Savage yelling at him.

Either way, Savage is a menace to the species.

Posted by: The Mighty Reason Man at June 5, 2003 06:04 PM | PERMALINK

as there was no tell-tale pause between the caller speaking and Savage yelling at him.

From what I've heard on FM radio (which is a lot), there isn't a pause just the immediate cutoff of the caller and the DJ taking over. In essense, they're "going back in time" to the listener, while in the studio they're getting rid of the delay & keeping those seconds from airing.

Please don't take this to be any sort of defense of Savage whatsoever....like I said, from what I've read, he's an assclown.

Posted by: Ricky at June 5, 2003 06:14 PM | PERMALINK

Free Daw Aung San Suu Kyi!

Posted by: freelixir at June 5, 2003 06:18 PM | PERMALINK

Ricky,

Fair enough. But trust me, he's gone off on similar rants for very little. It's just that this time I, er, my staff, happened to be sitting still and had a pencil and paper handy to write it down.

He's really a great guy.

Posted by: The Mighty Reason Man at June 5, 2003 06:18 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if he's done it before, that's all that matters. This case, despite the 15-second-delay that frankly I nor anyone else has ever heard of and which is beyond my technical capabilities to ever understand, is obviously like all those other cases.

Posted by: Lonewacko at June 5, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINK

Another possibility is that he recognized the voice from prior run-ins, but the caller wasn't caught before getting on the air.

Not to stick up for him, just throwing that out as a possibility.

Posted by: Jon H at June 5, 2003 06:56 PM | PERMALINK

I've listened to short wave radio in the past when Radio Moscow hated the US. Currently my short wave radio is broken so i read blogs instead.

It seems that AM radio time has gotten cheap enough that propaganda can take up air time. He may have the same quality of propaganda for his causes that Radio Moscow had I'm not sure I can't listen to a whole show. In short moscow could do no wrong, nor can any of the causes he supports.

Posted by: San Diego at June 5, 2003 06:58 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't take this to be any sort of defense of Savage whatsoever....like I said, from what I've read, he's an assclown.

There could have been a social basis for his dysfunction. I'm trying to understand why you feel the need to speculate about a justification for an assclown being an assclown.

Ricky, why do you think MSNBC gave an assclown a tv show?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 5, 2003 07:03 PM | PERMALINK

Ricky, why do you think MSNBC gave an assclown a tv show?
Same reason CNN hired Begala/Carville/Carlson, assclowns all - the assumption that ratings would increase.

That this is a mystery illustrates that my previous contention was right on the money, Demetrios. Bye.

Posted by: Ricky at June 5, 2003 08:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hey conservatives, if you want to know why liberals feel that this country has a bad case of "creeping fascism", this guy is exhibit A. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm genuinely interested on your take as to why this guy is allowed to be on TV, apparently with little or no sponsorship that we know of, to spread his particular brand of hatred and bile.
And how does this jibe with your view of the liberal media, assuming that you believe there is one.

Posted by: Another Bruce at June 5, 2003 08:18 PM | PERMALINK

So, I brought this up to some friends - 1 liberal (and canadian), 1 pretty strongly conservative, and one I dunno..he doesn't talk about politics much.

The conservative one actually stated that he'd rather have Savage in the white house than either Bill or Hillary Clinton. Why? Because they're "immoral people". He also thinks MRM's quote doesn't sound like him. Having only seen transcripts and exerpts from his book, it sounds a bit beyond his normal psychosis, but not out of the realm, for him.

Unfortunately, I was restrained from getting into the debate (the canadian tries to keep political discussions to a minimum, to keep tempers down...normally, I don't have a temper issue..but god damn! How much do you have to hate the clintons? I wanted to ask the guy if he thought Bill shot Vince Foster himself, or if he had Hillary do it...

Posted by: JoeF at June 5, 2003 09:15 PM | PERMALINK

But JoeF, you have to realize that Savage is, in right wing eyes, exactly what a moral person should be. He spits angry, irrational, violent vitriol at bad people. It's not anger and irrational, violent vitriol that are bad... it's bad people that are bad. Anything done in the name of destroying bad people is, ipso facto, moral.

Morality means hating the right people.

Posted by: Realish at June 5, 2003 09:29 PM | PERMALINK

Realish,

If I said my right-wing eyes looked upon Savage with scorn and disgust, and that more than three-quarters of the self-described right-wingers in the blogosphere would agree with me, would you call me a liar, or just dismiss my point in favor of another broad brush argument?

Posted by: Matthew at June 5, 2003 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

But JoeF, you have to realize that Savage is, in right wing eyes, exactly what a moral person should be.

I have never, ever seen a conservative blogger, or heard any conservative I know, defend or agree with a single word uttered by Michael Savage. Ever. And there are about two dozen blogs, left and right, that I go through on a weekly basis.

In point of fact, I don't believe I've ever seen a conservative blogger mention Savage. If blogs are any indication, his actual audience is composed entirely of liberals listening to see how pissed off they can get.

Posted by: Phil at June 5, 2003 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Whiner ("savage's" real name is Weiner) is perfectly suited for right wing talk radio. They whine. And right wingers love to be whined to and about.

Posted by: raj at June 6, 2003 03:26 AM | PERMALINK

"If I said my right-wing eyes looked upon Savage with scorn and disgust, and that more than three-quarters of the self-described right-wingers in the blogosphere would agree with me, would you call me a liar, or just dismiss my point in favor of another broad brush argument?"

What I would say is that Savage is not a right-winger but rather clearly someone with a serious mental illness who has fixated on right wing ideas. It is simply cruel - to him - to reinforce him in his delusions by giving him a microphone. He obviously needs medical help, and I am not being ironical, satirical, or mean.

Regarding broad brushes, I would say that it is time for you "self-described right-wingers" to stop assuming that anyone other than the speaker him/herself believes the "Bush=Hitler" meme and not paint liberals with that broad brush. 99.9% know better.

Posted by: tristero at June 6, 2003 03:33 AM | PERMALINK

lonewacko:

The 10+ second delay has been used for years in exactly the way described.

Regarding it "being beyond your technical capacities to understand," I sincerely doubt it.

If it is something you have trouble comprehending, I would strongly suggest that you do something about it, as a basic understanding of mass media technology - how it works, and how it can be abused - is crucial to understanding how persuasiveness and propaganda is constructed over the past 60+ years.

Posted by: tristero at June 6, 2003 03:43 AM | PERMALINK

Why does Savage have a show? Ricky's response that Carville/Begala/Tucker are equivalent 'assclowns' is, of course, nonsense.

Why does Savage have a show? I've been assured by conservatives that the right's views dominate cable news because that's what the market bears. So there must be a market for mentally imbalanced assclowns who fixate on conservative ideas.

I repeat, a market for mentally imbalanced assclowns who fixate on conservative ideas.

I've also heard Republicans indulge in the mental exercise, where would the Democratic Party be without the black vote? So I'll propose a new exercise for consideration: where would the Republican Party be without the assclown vote?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 04:01 AM | PERMALINK

Hey conservatives, if you want to know why liberals feel that this country has a bad case of "creeping fascism", this guy is exhibit A.
The government is involved with putting a disgusting figure on the air? You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

Come on, he may be a piece of dung, but to start screaming fascism is just ridiculous.

I'm genuinely interested on your take as to why this guy is allowed to be on TV
You're talking about "allowing" someone to be on television and yet you wish to throw out 'fascism' on a whim?

Jeez, sometimes you guys make it hard even when I'm *agreeing* with you!

Posted by: Ricky at June 6, 2003 04:07 AM | PERMALINK

Hey conservatives, if you want to know why liberals feel that this country has a bad case of "creeping fascism", this guy is exhibit A. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm genuinely interested on your take as to why this guy is allowed to be on TV, apparently with little or no sponsorship that we know of, to spread his particular brand of hatred and bile.

There's a wonderful little thing that comes with televisions these days. It's called a remote and it allows you to change the channel.

I don't what all the fuss is about Savage. I never even heard of the guy before he was mentioned on blogs like Eschaton, and I haven't watched his MSNBC show since it has been on.

Sorry, but I get the feeling liberals are doing with Savage with what they do with Ann Coulter, which is to define them as representative of all conservatives when they really have a small audience just like Indymedia or Ted Rall.

And I know he has a cable show, but how many people are actually watching it? Probably the same people who bought his book which is very tiny fraction of the population.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 05:46 AM | PERMALINK

The government is involved with putting a disgusting figure on the air? You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

Are you seriously equating Bill Moyers with Michael Savage? Can you provide some sort of evidence to back that up? How about finding a quote from Moyers along the lines of You want me to drop my pants so you can inspect my circumcision?

In the 'Comments' thread yesterday, I observed that conservatives view legitimate criticism of Bush, the Republicans, and the Republican government as 'vitriole', 'spewing hatred', etc. Thanks for making my point for me.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 05:51 AM | PERMALINK

You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

Are you seriously equating Michael Savage and Bill Moyers? In your mind, what puts them in the same league?

I observed on the 'Comments' thread yesterday that conservatives view legitimate criticism of Bush, the Republicans, and the Republican government as 'vitriole', 'spewing hatred'; for doing it, Bill Moyers is a 'disgusting figure'. Thanks for demonstrating my point so well.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 05:53 AM | PERMALINK

You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

Are you seriously equating Michael Savage and Bill Moyers? In your mind, what puts them in the same league?

I observed on the 'Comments' thread yesterday that conservatives view legitimate criticism of Bush, the Republicans, and the Republican government as 'vitriole', 'spewing hatred'; for doing it, Bill Moyers is a 'disgusting figure'. Thanks for demonstrating my point so well.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 05:54 AM | PERMALINK

You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

Are you seriously equating Michael Savage and Bill Moyers? In your mind, what puts them in the same league?

I observed on the 'Comments' thread yesterday that conservatives view legitimate criticism of Bush, the Republicans, and the Republican government as 'vitriole', 'spewing hatred'; for doing it, Bill Moyers is a 'disgusting figure'. Thanks for demonstrating my point so well.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 05:54 AM | PERMALINK

[sigh]
Are you seriously equating Bill Moyers with Michael Savage?
Er, no.
I called Savage a disgusting person.
Bill Moyers has a show on public television.
This isn't rocket science. You continue to incorrectly infer.

Posted by: Ricky at June 6, 2003 05:56 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, sorry for the multiposts.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 05:57 AM | PERMALINK

The government is involved with putting a disgusting figure on the air? You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

[sigh]. This is what you said. What makes Savage and Moyers both 'disgusting figures'? This isn't rocket science. It's what you said. If you insist on claiming that weren't equating the two, then just answer the question, what makes Moyers a disgusting figure?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 06:00 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but I get the feeling liberals are doing with Savage with what they do with Ann Coulter, which is to define them as representative of all conservatives when they really have a small audience

If you read this thread, you would see that that's precisely not what the liberals here are doing.

Why does Savage have a slot on MSNBC, but Ted Rall doesn't?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 06:01 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, what does 'gargling with Rogaine' get somebody? Circumcision inspector? Is that like Adrian Zmed, bikini inspector?

In any event, someone will have to explain to me why a squinting, charisma-less pantload like Joe Scarborough has an hour show in prime-time. Can we take out the telecommunications infrastructure in Scarborough Country?

Posted by: Norbizness at June 6, 2003 06:06 AM | PERMALINK

What part of me saying that I wasn't equating the two is difficult for you? If it'll make it easier for you to understand, substitute "Big Bird" or "the cookie monster" for Moyers. Jeez.

Like I said, some people make it difficult even in areas of agreement.

Posted by: Ricky at June 6, 2003 06:06 AM | PERMALINK

If it'll make it easier for you to understand, substitute "Big Bird" or "the cookie monster" for Moyers.

[sigh] Yes, Ricky, we're all so beneath you. [sigh] I don't know why you even bother. [sigh] Jeez. [sigh]

Like I said, some people make it difficult even in areas of agreement.

[sigh] Jeez. If you weren't equating Moyers and Savage as 'disgusting figures' when you said The government is involved with putting a disgusting figure on the air? You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers? couldn't you have written it better? See, now the juxtaposition of 'disgusting figure' and 'Bill Moyers' is real easy for [sigh] stupid liberals to interpret as an apposition. But thanks, now that you dumbed it down for little ol' me with the Sesame Street characters, and I've read it five times, I can see your out.

Maybe from now on, you should just use Sesame Street characters whenever you post. So we [sigh] lowly, uneducated liberals can understand your writing. Also, that whole juxtaposition/apposition thing, you could watch that.

Why does Michael Savage have a show on MSNBC, but Ramsey Clark doesn't?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 06:23 AM | PERMALINK

In any event, someone will have to explain to me why a squinting, charisma-less pantload like Joe Scarborough has an hour show in prime-time.

It's just because his sense of humor is so much sharper than Al Franken's.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 06:38 AM | PERMALINK

About "Creeping fascism" and government involvement.--
Read David Neiwert's series (dneiwert.blogspot.com) on "Rush, Newspeak, and Fascism." Fascism isn't an exclusively government movement--it requires support by civilians who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents. It seems appropriate to be concerned that Savage fits that mold.

Another Bruce: "I'm genuinely interested on your take as to why this guy is allowed to be on TV."
Ricky: "You're talking about 'allowing' someone to be on television and yet you wish to throw out 'fascism' on a whim?"

I'll ask a question: Why do you think MSNBC allows Savage to have a show? I feel no compunction in saying that MSNBC shouldn't let him on the air, though it would be wrong for anyone to prevent MSNBC from doing so.

Either there's an audience for Savage, or MSNBC is taking a ratings hit in order to promote him. Both are Not Good.

Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 6, 2003 07:09 AM | PERMALINK

1. I was on a live talk radio show as a child and there was a 7-second delay, which was in fact used to erase a nasty caller completely.

2. Does Weiner believe it, or is it a schtik? I mean, this way MSNBC wraps up the Klan and American Nazi audience, and for cable, maybe that's enough.

Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at June 6, 2003 07:49 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, what does 'gargling with Rogaine' get somebody?

A hairball in your throat and a slightly bitter aftertaste.

Posted by: Ben at June 6, 2003 07:56 AM | PERMALINK

Oh please. I went to Neiwert's first entry and the first thing I see is Rush Limbaugh being called "dangerous." I stopped reading at that point, because anybody who considers Limbaugh to be 'dangerous' shouldn't be taken seriously.

Michael Savage draws what, 400,000 viewers to his television show a day? You guys can figure the math on what percentage that is of the population.

I am not here to defend Michael Savage. Like I said, I have neither listened to his radio show, read his book, nor have I watched his television show. I am here to say that it's absurd to think Michael Savage is some kind of threat to the United States.

I remember after the Oklahoma City bombing, all kinds of books, news shows, and stories were produced warning the country of the threat of militias. Their numbers were supposedly growing. They were a danger to the country, and they had to be stopped! Of course it turned out that most militias were exactly how many people described them: a bunch of weekend warriors who liked to play in the woods with guns. Yes, I know some were dangerous, but they were hardly the threat they were made out to be.

The same goes for Savage and other radio talk show host.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 08:07 AM | PERMALINK

Regardless of whether Savage had a reason for his outburst, that was some demented shit.

We have a couple pretty good specimens of the kneejerk troll here. These guys absolutely hate Savage, oh yes they do, but on Kevin Drum's flaming radical blog they have to disagree when Savage is criticized. Like I said, Turing-test failure. A computer could do that kind of shit.

And yeah, Ricky: Begala, Savage, Moyer, same difference. Three raving loonies, two on the left, one on the right. You really come up with cogent stuff that no one else would ever think of, man. I'm impressed.

And maybe none of the conservative blogger elite listens to or respects Limbaugh or Savage or Gordon Liddy or Oliver North or Tom Delay.... well maybe Tom Delay. It doesn't make any difference. There are a lot of voters who DO listen to those creeps, and the Republican party depends heavily on those voters and caters to them. It's because of the vicious nature of some of the Republican Party's mass support ("core constituency") that I've been suggesting that it's becoming Fascist. The elite of ideological mass parties is always smarter, more civilized, and more restrained than the mass membership and the goon squads. Mussolini had some very fine, cultivated people speaking for him.

And for the record -- there are almost NO liberals on national TV and very few on the major national newspapers. Moyers, Conason, Bob Herbert, Anthony Lewis, and Molly Ivins (two of them not really national) are about it. Krugman, Begala, Carville, Kristoff, Richard Cohen, and the rest -- they're all centrists. Gore got more votes than Bush did, and by my guess half or more of Gore's supporters were to Gore's left (to say nothing of the Greens). That whole wing of public opinion has no spokespeople on TV (except Moyers). Conservatives who fail to realize this make their dishonesty and incomprehension even clearer than it had been already.

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 08:27 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, way to be open to other views. If you think talk-show hosts are all completely innocuous, read part 12 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_dneiwert_archive.html#90613472), which discusses how a Montana host whipped up death threats about local environmentalists. (A friend from Kalispell says it's pretty accurate.)

So Savage gets 400,000 viewers? Why does MSNBC bother with him, then?

Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 6, 2003 08:27 AM | PERMALINK

Jay Caruso: exhibit C. Nothing to see here, folks, move along. Limbaugh's not a big deal, not really a conservative anyway, but not a creep or anything.

Jay stops reading a LOT, I think.

Yeah, and the militias et al still haven't killed 200 peopla, though they're getting there. That many people drown in their bathtubs every month.

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 08:32 AM | PERMALINK

I recall someone saying that it was something like 40k votes nationwide that gave the Republicans their majority in the Senate in 2002. Does anyone else remember this?

If it's true, then the 'Savage Nation' of 400k viewers is more than just a frivolous write-off.

So I'll repeat my question from before. Where would the Republican Party be without the assclown vote?

['assclown' being Ricky's term for Savage, not mine]

And again: why does Savage have a cable news call-in talk show, but Ramsey Clark or the mouthpieces of ANSWER do not?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 08:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hate Savage if you want, but he is not 'the conservative movement'. After this discussion can I reserve the right to ascribe wing-nut Pacifica broadcasts to the left?

I certainly hope so, I have some choice ones I'd love to smear you with. ;)

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 08:49 AM | PERMALINK

I feel the need to defend Ricky's comment of:

The government is involved with putting a disgusting figure on the air? You mean he's taking over for Bill Moyers?

The way I see this, he wasn't saying Moyers is disgusting. He was making a sideways remark suggesting that Moyers is put ont he air by the government because he's on PBS, and as such for the government to explicitly endorse Savage, they'd put him on PBS.

As a disclaimer, I don't share this view about government control of PBS, etc, etc. But you really did read that entirely wrong, Demetrios.

Posted by: John Yuda at June 6, 2003 08:59 AM | PERMALINK

Sebastian said:

After this discussion can I reserve the right to ascribe wing-nut Pacifica broadcasts to the left?

Hey now. The pacifica station here in DC plays some fantastic jazz and blues.

Plus, they're only .8 away from the NPR station on the dial, so sometimes I bump the dial setting my alarm and wake up to Democracy Now instead of Morning Edition and it takes me a few minutes of going "Jesus, NPR took a sharp left turn today" before I figure out what's going on. Fun times. ;)

One thing I'll point out, though, is that Pacifica has a lot of affiliate stations in the mountain west. My take on it is they appeal to enough liberals and libertarians on enough issues that they get listeners in areas like that. Seriously, check out the link.

Posted by: John Yuda at June 6, 2003 09:02 AM | PERMALINK

But you really did read that entirely wrong, Demetrios.

But I did get it after Ricky translated it into Sesame Street for me.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 09:06 AM | PERMALINK

If so, my apologies. I skimmed the last half of the posts.

Posted by: John Yuda at June 6, 2003 09:10 AM | PERMALINK

Matt, I am open to other views. REASONABLE ones. The "Rush Limbaugh is dangerous!!" trope is better at giving me an upset stomach for it's sheer ridiculousness than a reason to keep reading.

If you think talk-show hosts are all completely innocuous, read part 12 (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_03_09_dneiwert_archive.html#90613472), which discusses how a Montana host whipped up death threats about local environmentalists. (A friend from Kalispell says it's pretty accurate.)

Okay, and Al Sharpton whipped up a frenzy outside Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem which resulted in one guy burning the place down killing 7 or 8 people. He's running for President and I bet more people know who he is than Michael Savage. Why does the DNC allow him to run under the banner of the Democratic Party?

And Zizka, I would love to see a source for all of these militia killings.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 09:24 AM | PERMALINK

Jay Caruso babbled:

The "Rush Limbaugh is dangerous!!" trope is better at giving me an upset stomach for it's sheer ridiculousness than a reason to keep reading.

So you deny that Rush has influence on a large number of people? Lots of people listen to him. I'll bet at least 2/3 of them think he's telling the truth.

And I assure you, if Rush wanted to run for President, the GOP would be happy to let him run as a Republican.. notwithstanding the fact that I don't think parties can actually kick people out, officially speaking. They can pressure, yes, but actually kick people out?

Posted by: John Yuda at June 6, 2003 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

I understand what you're saying, Sebastian. Like I've said before, I don't believe that all, or even most, conservatives support the kind of looney bullshit Limbaugh Savage and Coulter spew.

The problem with your equivalence argument is that these folks all have a national television presence and a national platform. Why is this? Well, we on the left keep hearing that they've got this platform because a lot of people agree with them. . ."It's not media bias, it's the genius of the free market," and all. Well, if that's the case, then there is a not-insignificant portion of the conservative movement that DOES support these fucking crazies.

We have loonies on the left, too. Nobody is disputing that. The point is that our loonies are marginalized. . .there's a radio station and a few websites. . .while your loonies are shouting from the mountaintops to a chorus of deafening cheers.

The two are NOT the same, and you're smart enough to know that.

---JRC

Posted by: JRC at June 6, 2003 09:34 AM | PERMALINK

So you deny that Rush has influence on a large number of people?

Improve your reading comprehension John before you start getting snarky about my supposed babbling. I said nothing about his influence. I dismiss the notion that he is DANGEROUS. It's an absurd accusation.

You guys who go on about Rush sound just as bad as the nanny wannabes running around in the 80's saying heavy metal was Satan's music and that it was dangerous to our kids.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 09:40 AM | PERMALINK

By the way John, your web design work is very good.

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 09:42 AM | PERMALINK

Why does the DNC allow him to run under the banner of the Democratic Party?

Because they can't choose?

Jay, why does Savage have a tv show? But not Ramsey Clark?

Jay, where would the Republican Party be without locking down the vote of mentally imbalanced people who fixate on conservative ideas (assclowns)? 400k of them watch Savage on tv, so we know they're out there.

Why doesn't Al Franken have a show? He's a lot funnier than O'Reilly, even though, all together now, the left has completely lost its sense of humor.

Why is Tom Frank never on tv? He's waaaaay left, and smart, and I have this feeling that if he and maybe some other people were on tv talking about how the Republicans are systematically shredding the social safety net, people might start to get as upset about that as they do, say, about whatever mildly critical thing Tom Daschle said about Bush yesterday.

Oh wait, I guess I answered my own question.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 09:44 AM | PERMALINK

I hate to open this up, because I know I'm going to get a huge number of Bill Moyers fans screaming at me, but Bill Moyers has been around for decades, and he has been viciousy evil to conservatives in that 'let me embrace you and smile while stick a knife in your belly' kind of way forever. I would call him the king of slant, if it weren't for the fact that Rush and he would have to engage in direct hand to belly combat to unify the title.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 09:46 AM | PERMALINK

Can't say as I've ever watched Moyers. To be honest, I didn't even know who he was until I started reading about him on blogs. I don't have much taste for spin and punditry from either side, which is why I avoid "news" talk shows.

Except the Daily Show, which is just damned funny. Sadly, no cable for me.

Posted by: John Yuda at June 6, 2003 09:52 AM | PERMALINK

I said nothing about his influence. I dismiss the notion that he is DANGEROUS.

For those who haven't looked at it, the quote that Jay is referring to is the first sentence of a long, 12-part meditation on the rise, in 'mainstream' conservative media outlets, of rhetoric portraying the antiwar movement and liberals in general as extremists, anti-Americans, etc. So Jay stopped reading before he reached the end of the first sentence, which was published on January 24, and reads as follows:

If there was any question that Rush Limbaugh is the most dangerous demagogue in America, he may have erased it with his latest broadside, describing antiwar protesters as "fascists and anti-American."

Niewert continues:

This is the latest step in the right-wing campaign to demonize opposition to President Bush's questionable policies as "anti-American," a campaign I've described previously. It is closely associated with attacks on multiculturalism. But Limbaugh takes it another step by associating liberals with Nazis and other fascist regimes.

This is not the first time he has misused the term. He has referred at various times to "liberal compassion fascists," and on other occasions has explained to his national audience that Nazis in fact were "socialists." This is, of course, the kind of twisting of terminology that turns the meaning of a concept into its precise opposite -- thereby nullifying its meaning and reality -- that is the essence of Newspeak.

If you, as I did, participated in the antiwar protests, and found yourself the target of this kind of vitriole from conservatives, then you might find the series, and I encourage you to read farther than Jay did. I think the piece does a very good job of highlighting how that kind of rhetoric transmits through media channels like the cuddly, sweet, humorous entertainer, Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 09:59 AM | PERMALINK

Bill Moyers has been around for decades, and he has been viciousy evil to conservatives

Legitimate criticism of conservatives, Bush, the Republicans, and the Republican government is cast as 'vitriole' and 'viciously evil' by conservatives. Hey Sebastian, how about a quote to back it up? If Moyers is 'viciously evil', then surely his words will show it.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

zizka said: "These guys absolutely hate Savage, oh yes they do, but on Kevin Drum's flaming radical blog they have to disagree when Savage is criticized."

Boy, Voltaire would've made your fuckin' head spin, huh?

The answer, IMO, as to why Savage has a show and Clarke doesn't, is because while both are utter freak shows, Savage is like watching Daffy Duck juggle nitroglycerin, while Clarke is like watching grass grow. Nobody likes a boring freak show.

Posted by: Phil at June 6, 2003 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Phil, got it. So maybe if Ramsey Clark agreed to hire some dancers and hold robot wars, he could be on tv.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know why liberals keep watching this asshole- all you do is prop up his ratings. If Barbra Streisand or Noam Chomsky had a television show, I know I sure as hell wouldn't watch it.

The worst thing you can do to self-promoting lunatics like Savage is to pay attention to them. Ignore them and they shrivel up and die.

Posted by: John Cole at June 6, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Most of the Moyers stuff was on TV and I don't think that I have access to the decades-old transcripts, but I'll look around for ya.

BTW when I say "viciousy evil to conservatives in that 'let me embrace you and smile while stick a knife in your belly' kind of way forever" I am trying to convey an outward facade of politeness combined with dripping condescension. I recognize it well, because it is a mode I have used. (I don't think I'm proud of it, but that is neither here nor there.) Bill Moyers is an absolute master at that type of communication.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know why liberals keep watching this asshole

I doubt many do, John.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Demetrios, I would watch The Ramsey Clarke Battlebot And Showgirl Revue every single week, religiously.

Posted by: Phil at June 6, 2003 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Jay -- I count McVeigh, anti-abortion terrorists, and neo-Nazis and other assorted racists over the last 20 years or so. They all speak the conservative language -- anti tax, anti-regulation, anti-government, anti-environmentalist, anti-gay, anti-feminist, and (nudge nudge wink wink) anti-black. (Kaczynski was an environmentalist, but by no means a liberal or radical since he hated feminists and radicals and said so loud and clear).

And so why is it that we still people talking about "ecoterrorists"? -- who have killed no one and haven't even TRIED TO. Or the rioters at Seattle -- killed no one, didn't try to. It's the same smoke screen of moral parity you guys put up when you compare Savage (demented, vicious, has his own program) and Chomsky (no program, civil and rational). There's no parity. The goons are on your side, not mine.

And if you wonder why I'm so hostile to you and your kind (Jay, Sebastian, Lonewacko, Ricky, John Cole, et al) it's because I know for sure that, even though you make your little ritual quibbles about Michael Savage and his considerable wing of the republican party, in the end you will all fall into line with those guys. You guys get up in the morning and put on your illiberal anti-Democrat hats and you get to work. Your little quibbles and pretenses to moderation are just part of your game. You claim to think that the Savages and Liddys are too extreme on the right the way Nader is too extreme on the left (a false comparison, again), but you don't spend any time at all fighting the right wing wackos who are more influential, more violent, and more extreme than anyone on the left since about 1975.

You spend all your time fighting us, so obviously you think that we're the big danger. Not the neo-confederates, the Armageddon Christians, anti-tax fanatics, and rving Savages of the right.

And if you don't like being lumped with the Republican Core Constituency, **get out of the lump**. Is that hard to understand?

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

this guy is allowed to be on TV, apparently with little or no sponsorship that we know of, to spread his particular brand of hatred and bile.

Presumably, because some network yahoo thinks there are ratings points to be gained. As vile as this is, I'm not sure it's worse than other exploitation TV shows in the "reality" genre. Is it worse than Geraldo Rivera, Fear Factor, Cops, or any of a host of other shows I don't watch? I don't know. My politics are in the conservative-libertarian side, but I don't find Savage and his ilk worth listening to.

Posted by: James Joyner at June 6, 2003 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I am trying to convey an outward facade of politeness combined with dripping condescension

I'll have to believe you on the 'dripping condescension' part, because I don't get that myself. But I'm not sure how even something so vile as 'dripping condescension' would make him different from, say, Joe Scarborough, minus the politeness part. I think Moyers tries to make legitimate political criticisms of conservatism, but it no doubt comes off as 'viciously evil' to you.

Does Moyers refer to conservatives as 'fascists' or anything like that? Does he dehumanize conservatives through his use of language? Because that's what Limbaugh does to liberals, which Jay would have understood if he hadn't stopped reading the Orcinus piece halfway through the first sentence. If you think we're making this up, read Orcinus, or if you think it's some kind of joke, ha ha it's funny to dehumanize the liberals on a mass scale, then you're just part of the problem, and there's nothing much really for us to talk about.

And Limbaugh's one of the more respectable of his ilk, which I'll say as long as we understand that everything is relative, including respectability.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Is it worse than Geraldo Rivera, Fear Factor, Cops, or any of a host of other shows I don't watch?

Do the people on those shows use language meant to dehumanize and degrade an entire class of American citizens?

Savage is not just trash. He's demagogic trash. Limbaugh is in the same class, if not as demented.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"Dripping condescension." Oh, the horror! Did he use litotes also? Where are my smelling salts?

Moyer, Savage. Both equally extreme. We need new, smarter trolls.

I have to keep saying this: one reason why you guys aren't too upset about Savage, et al, whereas we are, is that his smears, insults and vague threats are not directed against you. They're aimed at **us**. So we do care more.

I suppose y'all think that means you're being objective whereas we are being subjective.

"Is it worse than Geraldo Rivera, Fear Factor, Cops, or any of a host of other shows I don't watch?" Yes.

The fact that you don't watch these guys is, as I said, irrelevant. They're on your team. And there are people who do watch/ isten to them. we're not grumbling about bad TV programming here; we're talking about a nasty trend in American politics and the way TV is helping it along.

John Cole's imbecile suggestion that only liberals watch Savage deserves some kind of award.

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Does Moyers dehumanize conservatives through the use of language? Absolutely.

And please, you have to admit that neiwert's 10 part 'nothing exists in the conservative movement that isn't the direct descendant of Neo-Nazism' meditation is a bit much. In fact he is arguing that Rush is supporting Neo-Fascism. You may also note that many of the traits he ascribes as signatures of fascism, are also vices of the modern American left: cult of tradition, irrationalism, action for actions's sake, disagreement is treason, obsession with a plot, humiliated by the ostentatioious wealth and force of their enemies, life is eternal warfare, they are against rotten governments...

Why do you ask me if Moyers debases the debate by calling conservatives fascist, and then quote an article which calls conservatives fascist? Also notice the contempt which drips every time Neiwert mentions a person who believes in God. But thanks for helping my case...

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Zizka, people who occupy different levels of the power hierarchy get to use different weapons in information warfare. Moyers speaks as the voice of the entrenched liberal elite. He doesn't have to be overtly contentious when sarcasm, cherry-picked sources, and innuendo will do the trick. Conservatives in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (Moyer's heyday) did not inhabit such media positions.

"The fact that you don't watch these guys is, as I said, irrelevant. They're on your team." So hypothetically if the anti-war protests were organized by overtly Communist organizations, means that I get to say: the fact that you aren't members of these groups is irrelevant, they're on your team? Wait that is exactly the formulation that set you off in the first place!

People in grass huts shouldn't stow thrones. :)

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

Does Moyers dehumanize conservatives through the use of language? Absolutely.

And yet not one example from you or anyone else. Again, legitimate criticism is portrayed as 'viciously evil' by the right.

Why do you ask me if Moyers debases the debate by calling conservatives fascist, and then quote an article which calls conservatives fascist?

First of all, the article I quoted was not Moyers. So your red herring is only half a fish. Still nothing, not a single quote from Moyers, showing his 'vicious evil'.

And to say the article calls conservatives fascist is reductionist nonsense. You make no substantive response to the content of the article, which is not about people so much as it is about rhetoric used by some people; maybe this is why he wrote in it, I really wasn’t trying to argue the other day that Limbaugh is a fascist. But I'm not surprised; you also have no substance to back up your ridiculous claims about Moyers being 'viciously evil'.

You may also note that many of the traits he ascribes as signatures of fascism, are also vices of the modern American left: cult of tradition, irrationalism, action for actions's sake, disagreement is treason, obsession with a plot [and so on]

Puh-lease. You are beyond help now.

Also notice the contempt which drips every time Neiwert mentions a person who believes in God.

I didn't notice, but since it has nothing to do with the topic, who fucking cares? Hey Sebastian, lots of liberals believe in God, but God belongs only to political conservatives, right? Not that this is related to the topic of the thread.

But thanks for helping my case...

Thanks for being desperate. If this is all so you can get the last word in, please tell me, and I'll let you.

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Zizka, people who occupy different levels of the power hierarchy get to use different weapons in information warfare. Moyers speaks as the voice of the entrenched liberal elite. He doesn't have to be overtly contentious when sarcasm, cherry-picked sources, and innuendo will do the trick.

This is one of the least coherent things I've ever read; and still, no quotes from Moyers to back up the claims. George Will is the voice of the entrenched conservative elite. He is also sarcastic and contemptuous, and imo, way less classy than Moyers (I don't think Moyers ever helped a presidential candidate cheat on a debate, then pretend to be an impartial analyst of the debate on tv). Of course, I can say similar things about William Safire. Bob Novak. William Buckley. Tony Blankley. And so on. And so on. And so on. 'Viciously evil', each and every one, by your own definition. And all of them -- on tv. But Moyers is about all you have to complain about, I notice.

if the anti-war protests were organized by overtly Communist organizations, means that I get to say: the fact that you aren't members of these groups is irrelevant, they're on your team?

Say it if you want. I think there's a big difference between having a parade of professional media personalities systematically targeting one's neighbors with baseless McCarthyist rhetoric [propaganda], and grassroots bitching about a government by people who think it's ruining the country [protest]. But you've proven yourself to be pretty much obstinately opposed to getting this concept, so I don't hold out much hope, and anyway I think the 'Talk Radio Update' thread is about spent, don't you?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

I'm well aware that Neiwert and Moyers are different people.

I mentioned above that I don't have access to Moyers transcripts. This doesn't mean that I haven't seen Moyers' TV shows and recognized the attributes which I have described. The reason I moved on to Neiwert is that his text is available on the web, and was explictly mentioned by you.

I'm not sure that writing "I really wasn’t trying to argue the other day that Limbaugh is a fascist." gets you off the hook if you write a 14 part series which appears to say that he is a fascist. I don't honestly believe that you would let someone off the hook for a 14 part series about black people being unsuccessful at a variety of intellectual tasks if they ended it by saying 'I really wasn't trying to argue that black people are stupid.' And you would be right to not let the obviously bigoted racist off the hook.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at June 6, 2003 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Could we talk about **now**, not Moyers' heyday? There are almost no liberals in the big media now. (Kristoff, Krugman, Begala, and Carville are centrists; Conason and Ivins are not quite bigtime; that leaves Moyers, Anthony Lewis -- kicked upstairs -- and Bob Herbert.)

I'm going to leave you with your apparent conviction that Moyers is somehow comparable to Savage. It says a lot about you.

And well -- didn't we anti-war folk get a lot of flak about ANSWER? And if there was a liberal Rudolph going around killing people, wouldn't we be hearing a lot about it? (Kaszynski was an environmentalist, but he hated radicals and feminists and said so).

America's domestic terrorists since about 1975 are almost all right wing. And there's a nasty media claque whipping up the meanness, always with plausible deniability. And Rudolph and Waagner got plenty of support. And all these people have the same enemies you do: me. If you think that the Trotskyists at ANSWER match that, be happy with your belief.

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Demetrios, Neiwert retracted the quote in his first sentence: "If there was any question that Rush Limbaugh is the most dangerous demagogue in America, he may have erased it with his latest broadside, describing antiwar protesters as 'fascists and anti-American.'"
I think it's at the bottom of part 2. Limbaugh didn't use the word "fascist" on that occasion.

That said, his main point stands: Limbaugh et al. are casting liberals as traitors un-American. Bill Moyers doesn't do that. Implying your opponent is an idiot is different from implying he's a traitor.

Also, Neiwert isn't saying that conservatives are fascists (or that the whole conservative movement is a descendant of neo-Nazism--sheesh). He's saying that some people are blurring the lines between respectable conservatism and the Patriot movement, which could lay the ground for fascism.

(Sebastian, maybe the left used some of the same tactics in the late '60s, but not lately; and back then the Democrats were their targets, never their allies. Were the Weathermen fond of LBJ?)

As for Neiwert's attitude toward religion, read his front page. Right now he's trying to explain the difference between Christian Identity wackos like Eric Rudolph and mainstream Christians like himself.

Posted by: Matt Weiner at June 6, 2003 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

You guys get up in the morning and put on your illiberal anti-Democrat hats and you get to work. Your little quibbles and pretenses to moderation are just part of your game.

I always get a chuckle out of some moonbat who has:

A. Never met me.
B. Knows nothing about me.

tell me what kind of person I am and what I am about.

In addition, I also find it amusing that somebody who believes Paul Krugman is a CENTRIST(!!!) would have the audacity to attempt to attach labels to others.

And Matt, this notion somehow (if that is what you are implying) that conservatives are the ones who use the term 'un-American' to describe those who disagree with them, then you are sadly mistaken. If you want, I can provide many quotes from prominent Democrats (politicians including President Clinton) where they said those who opposed what they supported were "un-American."

Posted by: Jay Caruso at June 6, 2003 03:31 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, exactly which part of You guys get up in the morning and put on your illiberal anti-Democrat hats and you get to work. Your little quibbles and pretenses to moderation are just part of your game do you take issue with? I'd think you'd take it as a compliment. I would.

What makes Paul Krugman a leftist? What left-wing policies has he advocated for? Isn't it possible for a centrist to criticize Bush (that seems to be what y'all hate him for)?

You guys are sorely lacking on quotes and evidence to back up your claims about your least fave non-extreme-right journalists and editorialists.

some moonbat

Y'all really had us going with the conservatives are nicer than liberals thing on the thread about Comments yesterday. I've noticed that everything with you is you lying little turd, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and moonbat. Take you seriously? How?

Posted by: Demetrios at June 6, 2003 04:03 PM | PERMALINK

Say Jay, Sebastian, et al,

Umm, kinda waiting for those 'vicious' Moyers quotes. They aren't located with Iraqi WMDs are they? We could be waiting a long time for them then :)

Posted by: Dazir at June 6, 2003 09:00 PM | PERMALINK

"Knows nothing about you?" Jay, I read your stuff. And those other guys' stuff. I know that much about you. There's a consistency there.

I wasn't talking about whether you put on a real, physical hat in the morning or not. That was a figure of speech.

Krugman is a Clinton Democrat and an absolute supporter of free trade. That makes him a centrist. Kucinich and the late Paul Wellstone are/were liberals. If you haven't figured out the difference, maybe you should get out of the political commentary business. I realize that in your social set it's cool to scream "liberal! liberal!" about anyone to the left of Trent Lott, but that's just stupidity.

Posted by: zizka at June 6, 2003 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

online casinos

Posted by: doi at May 24, 2004 08:38 AM | PERMALINK


Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

free web cam free live web cam free chat with web cam free sex web cam adult free web cam free nude web cam free girl web cam free web cam site free porn web cam free gay web cam free xxx web cam free teen web cam free web cam chat room free amateur web cam free web cam pic free adult live web cam free adult web cam chat live sex web cam free free personal web cam free live nude web cam free live girl web cam free live web cam chat web cam live free personal cam free view web free web cam picture free sex chat web cam free online web cam cam free viewing web free web cam software free lesbian web cam free web cam community cam free watch web free web cam video free live web cam site free web cam host free sexy web cam free web cam hosting free live web cam porn free naked web cam free web cam of woman free home web cam free live xxx web cam free adult web cam site free nude web cam chat cam free totally web cam free movie web cam chat free teen web free web cam chat site free asian web cam free black web cam voyeur web cam free free streaming web cam free web cam pussy free live teen web cam free web cam show free gay live web cam free private web cam cam free web yahoo web cam free ware cam chatting free web cam free gallery web free teen web cam pic free nude teen web cam free live web cam show free male web cam cam free live web woman cam free now web cam free membership no web cam college free web free live web cam amateur access cam free web cam dating free web free shemale web cam free sex web cam site cam free sample web cam download free web cam free room web cam free no registration web free adult web cam community free gay web cam chat cam chat free girl web cam free girl girl live web free hidden web cam free naked woman web cam free erotic web cam free hardcore web cam cam code display free web cam free mature web free web cam broadcast cam free preview web cam chat free online web free college girl web cam free live lesbian web cam cam free skin web free gay male web cam cam free man web free porn web cam chat cam free service web free nude woman web cam free web cam sex show free sex web cam video free adult sex web cam free online sex web cam free teen sex web cam free gay sex web cam free web cam sex amateur free private web cam sex home web cam sex free free web cam cyber sex free couple sex web cam free lesbian sex web cam free hardcore sex web cam cam free sex watch web free sex web cam pic cam free movie sex web cam free free sex web cam free sex view web free sex web cam sample free black sex web cam free nude web cam pic free amateur nude web cam cam free nude sexy web cam free non nude web free nude web cam site free adult nude web cam free nude man web cam free nude web cam show cam free live nude web woman free nude beach web cam free nude gay web cam free nude web cam at home free nude web cam picture cam free nude preview web cam free nude video web cam free girl hot web free web cam teen girl cam free girl pic web cam free girl online web black cam free girl web cam free girl watch web free adult girl web cam asian cam free girl web cam free girl video web cam free girl picture web cam free girl web young cam cam free free girl web web cam free girl totally web cam free girl show web cam free gallery girl web cam free girl real web cam free free girl web cam free live online web free live streaming web cam cam free live web free home live web cam cam free live secretfriends-com web cam free live totally web free live sexy web cam free live naked web cam cam free live watch web cam free live view web cam cam free free live web web cam feed free live web cam free live private web cam free live naked web woman cam community free live web amsterdam cam free live web cam free host live web free live pussy web cam asian cam free live web hot live free web cam cam free live now web cam female free live web cam free free live web amateur cam free live web xxx animal cam free live web cam free hidden live web cam free live preview web free live voyeur web cam cam ebony free live web cam free live password web cam free live shemale web free xxx web cam chat free web cam video chat cam chat free lesbian web cam chat free private web cam chat free program web cam chat free web cam chat free naked web cam chat free naughty web cam chat free web yahoo cam chat free totally web cam chat free software web cam chat free kid web cam chat free line web free amateur web cam and chat cam chat free free web cam chat college free web cam chat community free web cam chat free msn web best cam chat free web free porn web cam site free teen porn web cam cam com free porn web cam free online porn web free adult porn web cam cam free porn video web cam free porn web xxx free amateur porn web cam free gay porn web cam cam free porn watch web free xxx web cam site cam free teen web xxx free adult xxx web cam free amateur xxx web cam free teen web cam gallery cam free teen video web free gay teen web cam cam free site teen web cam free teen web young free amateur teen web cam free teen web cam picture free amateur web cam site free amateur adult web cam free gay amateur web cam free amateur web cam pic free sex cam free live sex cam free sex cam chat free live sex cam chat free sex video cam free sex spy cam free online sex cam free amateur sex cam free hidden sex cam free teen sex cam free adult sex cam free live sex chat web cam free gay sex cam cam com free live sex web free home sex cam free live teen sex cam free sex voyeur cam free lesbian sex cam free asian sex cam com cam free sex free private sex cam free sex cam site free nude sex cam free live sex video cam free sex cam sample free live web cam sex show adult cam chat free sex web free sex cam show anal cam free live sex sex cam chat free room sex web free live sex cam feed cam free home private sex web cam free movie sex cam free lesbian live sex amsterdam cam free sex cam free sex watch cam free livefeeds sex cam free latina sex free live sex cam show adult cam free live sex free hardcore sex cam amsterdam cam free live sex free couple sex cam free hot sex cam cam free membership no sex free porn sex cam free sex spy cam pic cam free gratis sex cam free live sex site web free streaming sex cam live sex voyeur cam for free girl web cam live web cam girl college girl web cam teen girl web cam hot web cam girl web cam girl pic young web cam girl cam chat girl web web cam girl picture black cam girl web asian girl web cam girl home web cam cam girl web yahoo girl personal web cam real web cam girl cam girl online web school girl web cam cam chat girl live web cam girl high school web web cam girl gallery cam girl video web cam girl hot live web cam girl little web cam college girl live web cam girl in web cam cam girl web cam girl horny web teenage girl web cam cam caught girl web web cam girl archive cam girl naughty web japanese girl web cam girl private web cam cam girl msn web cam girl photo web arab cam girl web cam cute girl web cam fat girl web cam girl indian web cam flashing girl web girl web cam site cam girl stripping web cam girl goth web cam girl watch web cam free girl streamate web cam dorm girl web cam girl girl web cam girl gratis web girl web cam adult cam flexing girl web cam free girl girl web cam girl gone web wild collage girl web cam cam girl korean web cam free girl view web alone cam girl home web cam canadian girl web cam girl russian web cam girl single web top 100 girl web cam teen girl web cam pic cam girl voyeur web cam girl home live web cam girl latina web cam french girl web cam girl secret web action cam girl web australian cam girl web cam girl strip web cam free girl preview web cam free girl horny web cam girl stripping teen web cam girl pic web young cam girl preteen web cam girl talk web cam girl index web cam girl kissing web cam girl local web cam girl teen web young web cam sex live sex web cam web cam sex chat teen sex web cam sex gratis web cam amateur web cam sex gay sex web cam live web cam sex chat adult sex web cam adult cam direct sex web web cam sex chat room video sex web cam sex web cam site home sex web cam web cam sex show cam online sex web live sex show web cam web cam cyber sex asian sex web cam web cam sex pic lesbian web cam sex hot sex web cam couple sex web cam cam college sex web cam sex web yahoo cam hidden sex web amsterdam cam sex web black sex web cam web cam sex com cam membership no sex web live adult sex web cam web cam sex gratuit cam pal pay sex web cam friend secret sex web adult cam chat sex web free sex porn web cam oral sex web cam cam having people sex web cam dating sex web cam live secretefriends sex web xxx sex web cam cam msn sex web nude sex web cam cam sex watch web cam cam free sex web group sex web cam cam sample sex web sex voyeur web cam cam couple live sex web com cam sex web free nude sex web cam
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat
Bang Boat

Posted by: Nick at July 26, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

3938 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 02:57 AM | PERMALINK

7241 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

Posted by: texas holdem online at August 9, 2004 02:05 PM | PERMALINK

319 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINK

Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information!

Inform about possible penis enlargement exercises

Read the truth about penis enlargement pills

Penis enlargement

For webmaster: if you consider that the comment is unapropiate I'm sorry and please remove it from your database. Contact me at georgeadams1978@yahoo.com.

Posted by: penis enlargement at August 10, 2004 04:32 PM | PERMALINK

2460 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 02:16 AM | PERMALINK

6636 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

Posted by: Viagra at August 13, 2004 05:29 PM | PERMALINK

7531 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINK

1480 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

Posted by: play blackjack at August 16, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINK

2181 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich
and then again there is always beer

Posted by: Krankenversicherung private at August 17, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINK

6810 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 09:11 PM | PERMALINK

448

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars
at http://www.diecastdot.com

Posted by: Adult DVDS at August 19, 2004 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

3229 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

2179 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~

Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

6501 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)

Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 02:36 AM | PERMALINK

1182 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow

Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 12:12 PM | PERMALINK
Navigation
Contribute to Calpundit



Advertising
Powered by
Movable Type 2.63

Site Meter