Michael Savage

KxBlaze · 06-24-2010, 04:08 PM

Michael Savage is thought provoking and he is proving that this very instance because we are talking about not just him but about the economics of "local" and "national" radio, the FCC, etc...

I heard something today on this show that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to but am curious about. Someone called in while he was talking about Obama and the caller said that Obama was not subject to a military court martial or military law in general (I cannot remember the specific reasoning this argument was brought up) and Savage replied that Obama is in fact subject to that very law because the is the "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces". I'm pretty sure he is not subject to military law and would be tried as a civilian right?

I think Savage was saying that Obama should be held accountable in a military court of law for the debacle in Afgan, but I cannot remember exactly.

Oldschool · 06-24-2010, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by KxBlaze

Michael Savage is thought provoking and he is proving that this very instance because we are talking about not just him but about the economics of "local" and "national" radio, the FCC, etc...

I heard something today on this show that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to but am curious about. Someone called in while he was talking about Obama and the caller said that Obama was not subject to a military court martial or military law in general (I cannot remember the specific reasoning this argument was brought up) and Savage replied that Obama is in fact subject to that very law because the is the "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces". I'm pretty sure he is not subject to military law and would be tried as a civilian right?

I think Savage was saying that Obama should be held accountable in a military court of law for the debacle in Afgan, but I cannot remember exactly.

I don't think Obama was president in 2002.

KxBlaze · 06-24-2010, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Oldschool

I don't think Obama was president in 2002.

Yes thank you, but we still are there, still fighting a war, and there still is a big mess.

Oldschool · 06-24-2010, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by KxBlaze

Yes thank you, but we still are there, still fighting a war, and there still is a big mess.

In your opinion, what has the President done that he would be subject to a military trial? I'm sure you can come up with one thing.

KxBlaze · 06-25-2010, 09:04 AM

I never said the president did anything that would warrent a military trial. I simply asked if he would be tried as a military officer (court martial) or as a civilian. For example, if it was found that Obama falsified intel in order to fire General McChrystal what court would try him?

graphicgr8s · 06-25-2010, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by KxBlaze

I never said the president did anything that would warrent a military trial. I simply asked if he would be tried as a military officer (court martial) or as a civilian. For example, if it was found that Obama falsified intel in order to fire General McChrystal what court would try him?

You have to be very explicit when trying to explain something to a liberal. Even then you will in all likelyhood fail the first time around.

Oldschool · 06-25-2010, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by graphicgr8s

You have to be very explicit when trying to explain something to a liberal. Even then you will in all likelyhood fail the first time around.

As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative.

graphicgr8s · 06-25-2010, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Oldschool

As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative.

Guess I needed to spell it out further. KxBlaze when telling a liberal 1+1=2 you have to tell them also that it is numbers you are adding. You have to tell them they are whole numbers. Then explain what a whole number is to them. Whereas a Conservative just needs to know 1+1. We can figure out where it leads to.

jeffkrol · 06-25-2010, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Oldschool

As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative.

And blind obedience to sound bites and the talking heads........

Oldschool · 06-25-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by jeffkrol

And blind obedience to sound bites and the talking heads........

....and don't forget those Facebook entries.

**Digitalis** · 06-25-2010, 06:18 PM

Isn't he that homophobe who thinks gays and lesbians should be either killed outright, or brain twisted into being straight?

deadwolfbones · 06-25-2010, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Digitalis

Isn't he that homophobe who thinks gays and lesbians should be either killed outright, or brain twisted into being straight?

Yep, that's the one.

**Digitalis** · 06-26-2010, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Yep, that's the one.

good, we need people in this world to prove that it isn't only the stupid and ignorant that are enslaved by their own fear and hatred, intelligent people can be warped by it too.

Phil1 · 06-26-2010, 04:32 AM

'Air America actually outlasted expectations. But there we are.'

LOL! Indeed. Air Amerixa aka Radio Franken (a Guam corp) was a huge 'fraud' out of the gatel They were involved with some NY fraud with a local boys and girls club. The had next to no ratings or ad revenues. In spite of Clear Channel's later distribution, they had few stations and the ones that did carry them were third rate in most markets. The Los Angeles station broadcast with less power than my LED porch light or a swap meet waffle iron. I lived about 40 miles from the antenna and reception was almost untunable. AL Franken was working for nothing and was the main character, This was the celebrated liberal station that was going to surpass the vile big taxpaying hated fat boy. After a rescue buy out by a collection of big money liberals they finally put them in the toilet and pulled the handle. Like a true liberal enterprise, they were a loss corporation, paid no taxes and expired owing most everone. A great storey.
'Landslide' Franken did make it to the senate by two or three votes and a court action in a most liberal state.

KxBlaze · 07-01-2010, 03:33 PM

So nobody knows what court would try the president of the United States for a fouled up military action?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Éigse Michael Hartnett	rparmar	Post Your Photos!	7	04-26-2010 02:55 PM
Michael Jackson dead ?	daacon	General Talk	63	07-02-2009 06:39 AM
Michael Jackson's abuse as a Child...	benjikan	General Talk	0	06-28-2009 03:30 PM
Mrs. Cash's Other Son, Michael	Mike Cash	Post Your Photos!	6	10-10-2007 10:25 PM
Savage TWTG Tripod.	NLAlston	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	0	04-20-2007 10:50 PM

06-24-2010, 04:08 PM	#16
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602 Original Poster	Michael Savage is thought provoking and he is proving that this very instance because we are talking about not just him but about the economics of "local" and "national" radio, the FCC, etc... I heard something today on this show that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to but am curious about. Someone called in while he was talking about Obama and the caller said that Obama was not subject to a military court martial or military law in general (I cannot remember the specific reasoning this argument was brought up) and Savage replied that Obama is in fact subject to that very law because the is the "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces". I'm pretty sure he is not subject to military law and would be tried as a civilian right? I think Savage was saying that Obama should be held accountable in a military court of law for the debacle in Afgan, but I cannot remember exactly.

06-24-2010, 04:14 PM	#17
Oldschool Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 1,278	Originally posted by KxBlaze Michael Savage is thought provoking and he is proving that this very instance because we are talking about not just him but about the economics of "local" and "national" radio, the FCC, etc... I heard something today on this show that I'm pretty sure I know the answer to but am curious about. Someone called in while he was talking about Obama and the caller said that Obama was not subject to a military court martial or military law in general (I cannot remember the specific reasoning this argument was brought up) and Savage replied that Obama is in fact subject to that very law because the is the "Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces". I'm pretty sure he is not subject to military law and would be tried as a civilian right? I think Savage was saying that Obama should be held accountable in a military court of law for the debacle in Afgan, but I cannot remember exactly. I don't think Obama was president in 2002.

06-24-2010, 04:17 PM	#18
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602 Original Poster	Originally posted by Oldschool I don't think Obama was president in 2002. Yes thank you, but we still are there, still fighting a war, and there still is a big mess.

06-24-2010, 05:01 PM	#19
Oldschool Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 1,278	Originally posted by KxBlaze Yes thank you, but we still are there, still fighting a war, and there still is a big mess. In your opinion, what has the President done that he would be subject to a military trial? I'm sure you can come up with one thing.

06-25-2010, 09:04 AM	#20
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602 Original Poster	I never said the president did anything that would warrent a military trial. I simply asked if he would be tried as a military officer (court martial) or as a civilian. For example, if it was found that Obama falsified intel in order to fire General McChrystal what court would try him?

06-25-2010, 09:06 AM	#21
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by KxBlaze I never said the president did anything that would warrent a military trial. I simply asked if he would be tried as a military officer (court martial) or as a civilian. For example, if it was found that Obama falsified intel in order to fire General McChrystal what court would try him? You have to be very explicit when trying to explain something to a liberal. Even then you will in all likelyhood fail the first time around.

06-25-2010, 10:47 AM	#22
Oldschool Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 1,278	Originally posted by graphicgr8s You have to be very explicit when trying to explain something to a liberal. Even then you will in all likelyhood fail the first time around. As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative.

06-25-2010, 12:35 PM	#23
graphicgr8s Guest	Originally posted by Oldschool As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative. Guess I needed to spell it out further. KxBlaze when telling a liberal 1+1=2 you have to tell them also that it is numbers you are adding. You have to tell them they are whole numbers. Then explain what a whole number is to them. Whereas a Conservative just needs to know 1+1. We can figure out where it leads to.

06-25-2010, 02:18 PM	#24
jeffkrol Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Wisconsin USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,434	Originally posted by Oldschool As opposed to vague generalities needed for a conservative. And blind obedience to sound bites and the talking heads........

06-25-2010, 03:25 PM	#25
Oldschool Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Central NJ Posts: 1,278	Originally posted by jeffkrol And blind obedience to sound bites and the talking heads........ ....and don't forget those Facebook entries.

06-25-2010, 06:18 PM	#26
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Isn't he that homophobe who thinks gays and lesbians should be either killed outright, or brain twisted into being straight?

06-25-2010, 10:42 PM	#27
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Originally posted by Digitalis Isn't he that homophobe who thinks gays and lesbians should be either killed outright, or brain twisted into being straight? Yep, that's the one.

06-26-2010, 02:01 AM	#28
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Yep, that's the one. good, we need people in this world to prove that it isn't only the stupid and ignorant that are enslaved by their own fear and hatred, intelligent people can be warped by it too.

06-26-2010, 04:32 AM	#29
Phil1 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: SoCal Posts: 1,292	'Air America actually outlasted expectations. But there we are.' LOL! Indeed. Air Amerixa aka Radio Franken (a Guam corp) was a huge 'fraud' out of the gatel They were involved with some NY fraud with a local boys and girls club. The had next to no ratings or ad revenues. In spite of Clear Channel's later distribution, they had few stations and the ones that did carry them were third rate in most markets. The Los Angeles station broadcast with less power than my LED porch light or a swap meet waffle iron. I lived about 40 miles from the antenna and reception was almost untunable. AL Franken was working for nothing and was the main character, This was the celebrated liberal station that was going to surpass the vile big taxpaying hated fat boy. After a rescue buy out by a collection of big money liberals they finally put them in the toilet and pulled the handle. Like a true liberal enterprise, they were a loss corporation, paid no taxes and expired owing most everone. A great storey. 'Landslide' Franken did make it to the senate by two or three votes and a court action in a most liberal state.

07-01-2010, 03:33 PM	#30
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602 Original Poster	So nobody knows what court would try the president of the United States for a fouled up military action?