Michael Savage Does Great Barney Frank Impression!

[roids1]

Best impersonation of Barney ***g I've ever head.!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVIj_EGC4EQ"]YouTube - Michael Savage Barney Frank Imitation- Hilarious[/ame] :laugh2:

 

[JW32Hoops]

I wore that exact same outfit for Halloween 2002. Came with the $ medallion and all. It was called "Purple Pimp" on the box. :lol:

 

[CDB]

Best impersonation of Barney ***g I've ever head.!!

YouTube - Michael Savage Barney Frank Imitation- Hilarious :laugh2:

I've often wondered how Frank got elected. He definitely is not the best public figure in terms of speech or appearance.

 

[bioman]

Barney is hysterically funny(whether trying to be or not), Savage..ehhh notsomuch. Not that great of an impersonation IMO.

 

[roids1]

Barney is probably bringing home the goods to his constituents in terms of pet projects, earmarks, etc. Plus, he's funny to listen to. That almost makes it worth voting for him, just to hear him talk and watch him drool outta the corner of his mouth. His lips must have just gotten stretched out over the years from all the action.

 

[CDB]

I guess so. He must be bringing something home, because to vote for a waddling whining twirp like that is weird to say the least.

One of the other freaks I don't get is Charlie Rangle. He's such a frigging pain to listen to, and he's such a blatant money grubbing leech it disgusts me he ever got near office, much less elected.

 

[samva777]

He is also a Homo , sick in the head. how can anyone vote for this trash

 

[JW32Hoops]

:toofunny:

 

[roids1]

He's also gay as a $10 bill! f@ggot ass f@ggot!

 

[JW32Hoops]

aranoid:

 

[CDB]

He's also gay as a $10 bill! f@ggot ass f@ggot!

Which is only relevant to the point in that he both wants and knows how to screw us in the ass.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I can't stand Savage... if I have to hear another commercial from him, talking about donating to him in the third person to be removed off the banned list in Europe i'm gonna kill a kitten.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

You know you're going to kill a kitten anyway....who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Jayhawkk]

True, but it does make it seem less sinful if I have a solid reason behind it.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Best impersonation of Barney ***g I've ever head.!!

YouTube - Michael Savage Barney Frank Imitation- Hilarious :laugh2:

If he did an Obama impersonation in blackface would you find that equally amusing?

 

[CDB]

I would.

 

[roids1]

ditto

 

[lutherblsstt]

I would.

Fair enough then.

Having heard enough Savage, I find his repetitive bigotry despicable.

 

[CDB]

Fair enough then.

Having heard enough Savage, I find his repetitive bigotry despicable.

Bigotry can be funny. Ever hear an old black guy going off about Crackahs and Devils? It's priceless ****.

 

[roids1]

But, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Michael Weiner was making fun of the fact that Barney f@g can't seem to speak coherently, not the fact that he is a homo.

 

[DEADn]

I like Savage to a point. I think he is a bit over the top in some areas but I Definately agree about what he thinks of Rush and Hannity. Nothing but entertainers. Those 2 guys come on the radio and I make it a point to change the channel to something else. I like Boortz....he reminds me of archie bunker.

 

[roids1]

IMO, Michael Weiner is more of an entertainer. He deliberately overstates things and has meltdowns, which makes him hard to take seriously. People like Anne Coulter and Limbaugh are more like the Michael Moores of the right.

 

[slacker86]

and this is why i hope to move as soon as im out out college i ****ing hate barney frank

 

[MegaCalf]

Do a google search of "barney frank prostitute scandal".

 

[CDB]

Do a google search of "barney frank prostitute scandal".

Why, is he the first politician to **** a whore, male or female? Not that I approve, but I mean other than the sword fighting and required lube aspect, it's par for the course.

 

[MegaCalf]

Why, is he the first politician to **** a whore, male or female? Not that I approve, but I mean other than the sword fighting and required lube aspect, it's par for the course.

It has to do with the illegality and the double standards/hypocracy of politicians and people in power.

Barney Frank allowed a prostitution ring to be run out of his home.

From the Washington Post:

In late 1985, Gobie says, he began to use Frank's apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.

"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."

 

[JW32Hoops]

Kinky... :greddy2:

 

[lutherblsstt]

But, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Michael Weiner was making fun of the fact that Barney f@g can't seem to speak coherently, not the fact that he is a homo.

I seriously doubt they're distinguished in "Savage's" mind and he's clearly making fun of both.

 

[CDB]

It has to do with the illegality and the double standards/hypocracy of politicians and people in power.

Heavens, you're really on to something new and exciting there...

Barney Frank allowed a prostitution ring to be run out of his home.

From the Washington Post:

In late 1985, Gobie says, he began to use Frank's apartment and two other locations for prostitution. Frank knew about the prostitution all along, but it was never explicitly discussed, Gobie says.

"He knew exactly what I was doing," Gobie said. "It was pretty obvious. If he had to come home early {from work}, he would call home to be sure the coast was clear . . . . He was living vicariously through me. He said it was kind of a thrill, and if he had been 20 years younger he might be doing the same thing."

And?

The true hypocrit is one who persecutes someone for doing something which while illegal, shouldn't be. I think Frank has made it clear he's for ending the drug war and legalizing prostitution. As such, finding him with a whore running a business in his guest house is largely unremarkable to me, as I don't think it should be a crime and I believe he agrees.

 

[MegaCalf]

Heavens, you're really on to something new and exciting there...

And?

The true hypocrit is one who persecutes someone for doing something which while illegal, shouldn't be. I think Frank has made it clear he's for ending the drug war and legalizing prostitution. As such, finding him with a whore running a business in his guest house is largely unremarkable to me, as I don't think it should be a crime and I believe he agrees.

It's a matter of legality not exhilarating recency. Nor is it a matter of morality.

Members of the legislative branch swear to uphold laws whether they agree or disagree with them. They may, however, fight to overturn those laws and write and pass new laws. So you're okay with any member of Congress breaking an existing law as long as they're against the law they broke?

 

[CDB]

It's a matter of legality not exhilarating recency. Nor is it a matter of morality.

Members of the legislative branch swear to uphold laws whether they agree or disagree with them. They may, however, fight to overturn those laws and write and pass new laws. So you're okay with any member of Congress breaking an existing law as long as they're against the law they broke?

No, I just expect them to be a bunch of lousy schmucks and morons and deviant bastards. Very few people actually seek out positions of power because they're well balanced or because they want to limit that power and preserve liberty. I just don't see him as any more deviant than the rest of the bastards, and I see much more worrisome, though legal, behavior, like mass theft via the Fed and the recent bailouts.

 

[MegaCalf]

No, I just expect them to be a bunch of lousy schmucks and morons and deviant bastards. Very few people actually seek out positions of power because they're well balanced or because they want to limit that power and preserve liberty. I just don't see him as any more deviant than the rest of the bastards, and I see much more worrisome, though legal, behavior, like mass theft via the Fed and the recent bailouts.

Public servants should be held to higher standards than the rest of us. It sets a bad precedent when they are granted impunity for their 'smaller' crimes.

The theft and gratuitous bailouts which originated with the Bush administration and continue to grow exponentially are a consequence of politician's sense of omnipotence which is fed by their exemption from punishment.

 

[CDB]

Public servants should be held to higher standards than the rest of us. It sets a bad precedent when they are granted impunity for their 'smaller' crimes.

I should have a ten inch **** and my choice of moist women to couple with at any given moment, along with an endless family fortune and good TV. But I don't. In reality public servants have never been held to higher standards than the rest of us, and they seek out those positions for that very reason. You don't become a senator so your drinking will get you in deeper trouble, or so your son's heroin problem will land him jail longer than some poor black kid in the ghetto. Those positions have power, with power come privelege. It always has, it always will. You don't keep public servants in check by holding them to higher standards; you can't because they're the ones who make and enforce the damn standards. You keep them in check by limiting the acceptable scope of their power, plain and simple.

The theft and gratuitous bailouts which originated with the Bush administration and continue to grow exponentially are a consequence of politician's sense of omnipotence which is fed by their exemption from punishment.

Well sort of. But it's a question in the end of giving the government all the power you don't want it to abuse. In reality the power will be abused, always inevitably gets abused, and this is so no matter what standards you try to apply to the people who have the power. The answer isn't jailing more Americans, even politicians. It's not giving them the power in the first place. If you think about it in the end, what do you gain by holding Frank and others to a higher standard than the rest of the population? Literally, what do you or anyone else gain? Respectable politicians? It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, can't exist. The more 'respectable' a politician, the more power he has at his finger tips, the more likely he or an inherritor of that scope of power will be to abuse it.

 

[roids1]

I seriously doubt they're distinguished in "Savage's" mind and he's clearly making fun of both.

I see. You seriously doubt he can distinguish between the two. That's why you compared Michael Weiner's impression of Barney to an impersonation of Obama in black face?

Did you ever stop and think that maybe you are the one who has a hard time distinguishing between the two? Perhaps you also assume that anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies does so simply because they can't stand to see a black man in the oval office. Surely there could be no other reason, right? I mean, if you didn't vote for Obama, it must be because you are a racist. Isnt that right Luther?

Can you distinguish between the two? If you're a teacher, I sure hope you can.

 

[MegaCalf]

I should have a ten inch **** and my choice of moist women to couple with at any given moment, along with an endless family fortune and good TV. But I don't. In reality public servants have never been held to higher standards than the rest of us, and they seek out those positions for that very reason. You don't become a senator so your drinking will get you in deeper trouble, or so your son's heroin problem will land him jail longer than some poor black kid in the ghetto. Those positions have power, with power come privelege. It always has, it always will. You don't keep public servants in check by holding them to higher standards; you can't because they're the ones who make and enforce the damn standards. You keep them in check by limiting the acceptable scope of their power, plain and simple.

What aspects of their power would want limited and how would you limit the acceptable scope of their power (and who decides what's acceptable)?

Well sort of. But it's a question in the end of giving the government all the power you don't want it to abuse. In reality the power will be abused, always inevitably gets abused, and this is so no matter what standards you try to apply to the people who have the power. The answer isn't jailing more Americans, even politicians. It's not giving them the power in the first place. If you think about it in the end, what do you gain by holding Frank and others to a higher standard than the rest of the population? Literally, what do you or anyone else gain? Respectable politicians? It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, can't exist. The more 'respectable' a politician, the more power he has at his finger tips, the more likely he or an inherritor of that scope of power will be to abuse it.

What powers do they now have that you would not give them in the first place and how would you relieve them of those powers?

 

[CDB]

What aspects of their power would want limited and how would you limit the acceptable scope of their power (and who decides what's acceptable)?

Ability to regulate, areas upon which laws are allowed to touch, period. In other words when they propose to take over this or that industry, you say no. When they propose to regulate the behavior of grown adults be it in the bed room or in the market place, you say no. You say no to every expansion of power beyond the enumerated powers in the constitution and whena judge interprets the general welfare clause broadly, you impeach his ass so other judges get the message that limitation of the states powers, not expansion, is their role.

What powers do they now have that you would not give them in the first place and how would you relieve them of those powers?

Well over 90% of what they do. Writ broadly I'd axe government involvment in education, trade beyond a small tarriff on imports, interstate trade, health care which means getting rid of both medicare and medicaid, the FDA, the DEA and good amount of the alphabet soup of agencies, the IRS, etc., I'd scale back foreigh policy to be defense based only and only upon clear and present dangers, etc. In other words I'd like the government to stick to the enumerated powers listed in the constitution and leave it at that.

As to how to relieve them of those powers, you need to educate and convince the public that they are better off without the government dictating terms to them in damn near every aspect of their lives. As a practical matter the existing generations are already lost as far as I can see, I would target the educational system as I believe many socialists did in the past, and start teaching kids so when they grow up they are more skeptical of government power and more trusting of their own abilities to work things out voluntarily amongst themselves.

 

[MegaCalf]

Ability to regulate, areas upon which laws are allowed to touch, period. In other words when they propose to take over this or that industry, you say no. When they propose to regulate the behavior of grown adults be it in the bed room or in the market place, you say no. You say no to every expansion of power beyond the enumerated powers in the constitution and whena judge interprets the general welfare clause broadly, you impeach his ass so other judges get the message that limitation of the states powers, not expansion, is their role.



Well over 90% of what they do. Writ broadly I'd axe government involvment in education, trade beyond a small tarriff on imports, interstate trade, health care which means getting rid of both medicare and medicaid, the FDA, the DEA and good amount of the alphabet soup of agencies, the IRS, etc., I'd scale back foreigh policy to be defense based only and only upon clear and present dangers, etc. In other words I'd like the government to stick to the enumerated powers listed in the constitution and leave it at that.

As to how to relieve them of those powers, you need to educate and convince the public that they are better off without the government dictating terms to them in damn near every aspect of their lives. As a practical matter the existing generations are already lost as far as I can see, I would target the educational system as I believe many socialists did in the past, and start teaching kids so when they grow up they are more skeptical of government power and more trusting of their own abilities to work things out voluntarily amongst themselves.

Targeting the next generation by supplanting the existing entrenched socialist-minded educators/educational system with the more libertarian-minded is an uphill climb but obviously not impossible.

BF is clearly not a proponent of what you say you want government to be. If he was held to the same legal standards(not higher) as the rest of us he wouldn't be in office.

 

[CDB]

BF is clearly not a proponent of what you say you want government to be. If he was held to the same legal standards(not higher) as the rest of us he wouldn't be in office.

Be that as it may, I still don't care about what he did. People have done worse and been in government, I expect them to behave like scum, and see it at the very least as a waste of resources to go after them for things I don't care about anyway. I don't think men buggering each other is any of the government's business, whether they do it for love or money. As such, I'd be somewhat hypocritical if I demanded he follow a law that I think should be repealed. I also don't think drugs should be illegal and regard the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders as a moral and ethical wrong. Same kind of thing. If they caught Barak toking with Dr. Dre or something, I wouldn't care. Or rather, say I wouldn't support legal action.

 

[MegaCalf]

Be that as it may, I still don't care about what he did. People have done worse and been in government, I expect them to behave like scum, and see it at the very least as a waste of resources to go after them for things I don't care about anyway. I don't think men buggering each other is any of the government's business, whether they do it for love or money. As such, I'd be somewhat hypocritical if I demanded he follow a law that I think should be repealed. I also don't think drugs should be illegal and regard the prosecution of nonviolent drug offenders as a moral and ethical wrong. Same kind of thing. If they caught Barak toking with Dr. Dre or something, I wouldn't care. Or rather, say I wouldn't support legal action.

Fair enough. Ultimately it is a matter of opinion. Whether viewed by some as realistic or not my opinion is that until such time as the laws are changed those that make the laws should be held to the same account as those they impose the laws on. Whether they are for or against the laws they impose is irrelevant to me. Whether politicians are inherently power seeking or subservient, privileged or disadvantaged, respectable/disreputable doesn't fit into my equation. If the Pope was part of a body that imposed a law whereby chewing gum was punishable by death then I would hold him to the same account.

 

[lutherblsstt]

I see. You seriously doubt he can distinguish between the two. That's why you compared Michael Weiner's impression of Barney to an impersonation of Obama in black face?

I asked a question about something else that is offensive to a wide range of people to find out if you would find it amusing,nothing more.

Perhaps you also assume that anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies does so simply because they can't stand to see a black man in the oval office. Surely there could be no other reason, right? I mean, if you didn't vote for Obama, it must be because you are a racist. Isnt that right Luther?

That is your imagination running wild bud. LOL! You make up an assumption,ask a question about it,then answer the question with a question!