Michael Savage: Partisan Loudmouth or Dangerous Hatemonger?

[Sinatra]

I have met Mr. Savage a couple times. (He is surprisingly short and looked older than I had envisioned him to be. He does not appear to like shaking hands - which I also dislike)

Savage is an interesting-shocking-somewhat entertaining mix of libertarian conservatism. His schtick is mostly harmless outrage - but at times, he does happen to be right on the mark regarding the state of our country.

The UK banning is silly, and further proof of the ever increasing liberalism of England. They are getting rather kooky over there - though of late, it appears our American government and media is hoping to give them a run for their money...

 

[Old Rocks]

Weiner is a complete fruitcake. A wealthy one, because of his radio following, but a fruitcake, none the less.

 

[Article 15]

I was just listening to him and he has written a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her to call the British government and request his ban from the UK be lifted.

Here some bits from a WND piece on this:

Lawyers for Michael Savage sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw its ban on the top-rated radio talk host.

The letter issued by the nonprofit Thomas More Law Center appeals to international conventions, arguing Savage is being punished "for what he says in the United States and not what he has said or intends to say in the United Kingdom."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith explained the ban was necessary because it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come. ..."

Savage told WND, in response, he would consider legal action against the home secretary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thompson appeals to Article 19, section 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which both the U.S. and U.K. have signed: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print. …"

In addition, he says, the ban violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which also establishes "the right of freedom of expression."

Thompson, in conclusion, "respectfully demands" that Clinton and the State Department "take all necessary steps" to call on the U.K. and Home Secretary Smith to rescind the ban and asks that he be kept "informed of the steps you plan to take and are taking."

Click here for the full article (I feel so dirty linking to WND).

Personally, I think it's pretty retarded of England to ban Savage from the country but I don't think he's going to win this fight nor do I think that Hillary Clinton is going to go to bat for him.

But you never know ...

 

[tigerbob]

I was just listening to him and he has written a letter to Hillary Clinton asking her to call the British government and request his ban from the UK be lifted.

Here some bits from a WND piece on this:

Lawyers for Michael Savage sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today, asking that she call on the British government to withdraw its ban on the top-rated radio talk host.

The letter issued by the nonprofit Thomas More Law Center appeals to international conventions, arguing Savage is being punished "for what he says in the United States and not what he has said or intends to say in the United Kingdom."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smith explained the ban was necessary because it was "important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come. ..."

Savage told WND, in response, he would consider legal action against the home secretary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thompson appeals to Article 19, section 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which both the U.S. and U.K. have signed: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print. …"

In addition, he says, the ban violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which also establishes "the right of freedom of expression."

Thompson, in conclusion, "respectfully demands" that Clinton and the State Department "take all necessary steps" to call on the U.K. and Home Secretary Smith to rescind the ban and asks that he be kept "informed of the steps you plan to take and are taking."

Click here for the full article (I feel so dirty linking to WND).

Personally, I think it's pretty retarded of England to ban Savage from the country but I don't think he's going to win this fight nor do I think that Hillary Clinton is going to go to bat for.

But you never know ...

He won't win it. Britain doesn't have a First Amendment like the U.S., and the ICCPR and ECHR are completely ignored when it suits political purposes to do so. Either way, the ban is stupid, IMO. But it's what you'd expect from the current Labour Government.

 

[editec]

The Brits don't tolerate hatemongering nitwits like we do.

They don't tolerate lying character assassins and write them off as the price of free speech like we do , either.

If you besmirch another's character publically, and you cannot prove that what you said is true?

You can get your ass sued.

Free speech is hardly free, folks.

We pay a price for it and that price is giving liars a LOT of protection from lawsuit

 

[GHook93]

The Brits don't tolerate hatemongering nitwits like we do.

Not unless you are an Islamofacist. If you are the Brits protect you like American Men protect their families!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wonder.....will Hillary stand up for free speech..............???

 

[cunclusion]

In the end it doesnt matter, Britain is its own country with its own values that have never been exactly like the United States. The fact people are complaining that another country does not want some people in it is laughable.

 

[auditor0007]

Many Brits are scared because, in private, they agree with many of the things Savage says, specifically about the Muslims. The difference is that the Brits actually have to deal with their Muslim situation and their hope is that they can resolve differences so that things don't blow up in their face. This is why they want to avoid all the hate speech that eminates from those like Savage.

 

[DiamondDave]

Talk Show nutjob... I came across his show about a year ago.. thought I had come across a mental patient screaming into an open mic while the DJ went on a bathroom break

 

[tigerbob]

In the end it doesnt matter, Britain is its own country with its own values that have never been exactly like the United States. The fact people are complaining that another country does not want some people in it is laughable.

Why? There are plenty of people from Britain who have opinions about the U.S. Seems reasonable that people from the U.S. can have opinions about Britain.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I'm not quite sure why people are knocking Savage without bringing up any specifics about what he says that is so"hate mongering" or "wacky". For the most part the man is right on the money and especially so about the Islamafascism threat.

Fear of offending the terrorists is the biggest threat to our country and the entire world including the Muslim countries. People say he is a hate monger because he wants to protect our borders, language and culture from attack. You tell me what country has a looser border than ours!? It's ridiculous.

Terrorists can come here any time they want because we're so afraid of "offending" mexicans and other illegal immigrants by deporting them, that we won't secure the border with Mexico.

Tell me what is the problem with that? Brace for impact everybody, here comes the liberal landslide.

 

[billyboy]

I think that Great Britain has finally managed to make itself irrelevant, for once and all.

 

[William Joyce]

The fact people are complaining that another country does not want some people in it is laughable.

Polls show that a majority of citizens here do not want illegal aliens here. Yet they are here and will be granted amnesty by Obama. And those who complain are called "haters" by the liberals.

So, if you're Britain and you want to exclude a dozen political radicals, liberals all of a sudden get high and mighty about Britain's right to exclude.

But if you're an American citizen who doesn't want illegals here in this country, liberals tack the other way and call you close-minded.

That's why I'm calling the the list ironic.

Think about this one, too.

Once upon a time, David Duke sought to affiliate with the Republican party for a race. The GOP opposed it. In doing so, the GOP argued its RIGHT TO EXCLUDE those it doesn't like... which is exactly the right David Duke appeals to! Duke, in his arguments, essentially said he's got a right to barge in on a group that doesn't want him.

Does he?

The GOP in that instance was acting like Britain's Home Office: they were declaring the right to exclude an excluder.

I personally support the right to exclude. Whites should be able to exclude blacks, blacks should be able to exclude whites, liberals should be able to exclude conservatives, conservatives should be able to exclude liberals.

Why not?

The right to associate with those you prefer is a fundamental human right, in my view. It's probably even more basic than free speech itself. But the right to associate must necessarily include a correlate right: the right to exclude.

The Supreme Court has said that the Boy Scouts have a RIGHT TO EXCLUDE homosexuals. But it did so on cobbled-together reasons involving free speech. I met a gay libertarian who SUPPORTED that decision. But I don't think the stated grounds were strong enough. I think the right to associate should be a right recognized by the court ON ITS OWN TERMS. And I think race should be included.

 

[midcan5]

My feelings in this area are ambivalent. In real life we do not allow, nor praise, nor tolerate speech of any kind. We do yell 'fire' for fun, or curse loudly because annoyed, or call the clerk a typical dumb white person, so why is anyone supposed to defend this moron? Do we tell our children the nice woman who lives next store with her partner is a sodomite as Savage does? Does hate grow out of reason or is it a learned and tolerated behavior. And if our children went around calling everyone derogatory terms would we say, sorry, my little girl is just expressing her first amendment rights to call you an ignorant trailer park trash whitey, who shops at walmart and can't get a decent job because you are stupid!

Maybe banning is going too far and what they need to say to those who will not incite violence is to broadcast on national TV, 'fellow Brits we have visiting today a real moron from America, a man who preaches hatred against gays and talks like a real fool, welcome him but please call him a dumb fuck too.' He will certainly call you that given his limited repertoire of speech and knowledge. Thanks folks.

OBTW Timothy McVeigh did not materialize out of nothing.

 

[WiseOldMan]

He's got the classic fat wimpy Jewish little kid who got picked on when he was young voice.

There's a good reason his last name is Weiner. It's because either he's a whiner and because he's a weener (dick).

 

[Diuretic]

...

The UK banning is silly, and further proof of the ever increasing liberalism of England. They are getting rather kooky over there - though of late, it appears our American government and media is hoping to give them a run for their money...

It's not an example of its liberalism at all, it's an example of growing authoritarianism. The Labour government in the UK will be booted out at the next election not just because of its complete cockup of the UK economy but also its descent into authoritarianism. Labour deserves to be placed behind the Tories and the LibDems in the next general election. Labour deserves to be out of office and out of contention for at least three terms. In that time it needs to flush out the fascists within its ranks, it needs to purge itself of the corruption by New Labour and it needs to destroy the last vestiges of that rubbish called the Third Way. Only then will it be cleansed and ready to be a Labour Party again.

Sorry to go off track. They should not have banned Savage, they should have allowed him to enter and do his thing.

 

[editec]

I listen to him on the way into work when their isn't a game on. He's a bat shit crazy, egomaniac but he's certainly not a partisan ... he hates everyone equally. He even calls out Rush and Hannity on a fairly regular basis.

I'd call him a fascist libertarian if that makes any sense.

It makes perfect sense.

As does facist liberal, fascist conservative, fascists for freedom, fascist communist and on and on and on.

We've taken the word Fascist and used in to replace the more accurate word totalitarian.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Obviously Britain doesn't believe in free speech.

 

[editec]

The Brits don't tolerate hatemongering nitwits like we do.

Not unless you are an Islamofacist. If you are the Brits protect you like American Men protect their families!

The difference is that Mike is NOT a Brit citizen so he is petitioning to be allowed it.

Those hatemongering mullahs are already in the nation so preventing them from entering is not possible.