Michael Savage Interviews Jerry Brown (Part 2/2 on The Fairness Doctrine)

2/13/09 Michael Savage takes on Former California Governer Jerry "moonbeam" Brown on the fairness doctrine, in an interview on the Savage Nation.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• michael
• savage
• nation
• interview
• jerry
• brown
• jr.
• Attorney
• General
• Governor
• of
• California
• Democratic
• Party
• United
• States
• Senate
• bill
• clinton
• fairness
• doctrine
• rush
• limbaugh

[2ndPistonHonda]

Shall we air ALL opposing opinions? Who gets to decide what the opinions are that shall be expressed on the program? The government?

Government has no business defining what "both sides" of an issue are, or what is "conservative" or "liberal". Can you imagine a congressional committee determining and defining the exact "opinions" that must be expressed on a political talk show? It's an insane and laughable notion.

[kylelango]

Look at air America...it sucked...it failed...end of story

[MULSIPHER]

The progressive commie socialistic demorats along with obama and his marxist minstrels want the United States citizen a subject and have total government control. They love george soros and they use their one world order media to try to shut conservatives up. Look at the videos of the Teaparty actions compared to the uneducated morons of the wall street protestors. Why don't they go protest the federal reserve and that commie gargage?

[Skyhawk7040]

Is it just me or does brown sound like hes kicked back a few.

[andrewsaccount09]

Huh? Savage contradicts himself saying he's a minority in the media when right wing talkers DOMINATE talk radio yet complains that the FD will constrain conservative talkers? But still I don't listen to Savage but still this was a cool interview with Brown.

[geoff1424]

a little state control wouldn't hurt a little! -Jerry Brown! what bureaucratic sob.......it is never a little, its starts that way then turns into nothing but pervasive control! fairness doctrine is pure trash we wont put up with it

[lanejanlandonmorgan]

I think James Hetfield summed it up best....

"The ultimate in vanity, exploiting their supremacy. I can't believe the things they say. I can't believe the price we pay. Justice is lost, justice is raped, justice is gone. Pulling your strings, justice is done. Seeking no truth, winning is all. FIND IT SO GRIM, SO TRUE, SO REAL".

It's over. He's telling us to drop dead. No matter what you do or what you vote, they will do what they want and pile manure on your grave.

[EpicPlatypusFilms]

I can't believe this idiot got a 3rd term.

[Chuichupachichi]

Although Dr. Savage is correct in his views, he did nevertheless, make a mistake in continuing to hammer Gerry Brown with the question of his position regarding the "Fairness Doctrine". Brown answered the question sufficiently, after the question was posed the first time. Brown - "you have a point of view, I have a point of view & they're different. I think that clash can illuminate the truth better than just a one sided presentation". Thats the way the judicial system works. The truth is

[Chuichupachichi]

definitely not revealed by allowing only one side to present their case. Nevertheless, even when both conflicting arguments are presented, it is of no benefit & the situation is reduced to being as if only one side presented their case if the presiding judge doesn't recuse himself when there clearly exists a "conflict of interest". Judge Walker is a homosexual & if that doesn't constitute a conflict of interest, then nothing does

[Chuichupachichi]

If the judge had been a Christian & upheld Prop.8, gay marriage advocates would have been crying "conflict of interest" & "seperation of church & state". Although in America, its ridiculous to create a situation in which a Christian can't preside as judge. Historically in America, the U.S. Supreme Court, was for many years, a Christian stronghold. In the tradition of the very first Supreme Court Justice... John Jay

[Chuichupachichi]

However, its not at all ridiculous to disallow gays from presiding because the U.S. Constitution is a document written by Christians. Thus, homosexuals will obviously interpret it incorrectly... as did Walker. "Unalienable Rights" are based on the "innateness" of humanity. They're rights inherent from human birth. Thats why Constitutional rights are not arbitrary, but rather, they're absolute... "self evident". Few behaviors are innate & homosexuality isn't one of them