Michael Savage Banned from UK

[gamewell35]

I'd be interested in you sharing all the "hate" you have heard him speak. Please share with us so we all know what you are talking about.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information nor should i have to; take the time and listen to his show and make your own determination.

[ScareCrow57]

I listened to him a couple of years back. All he could talk about was Bill Clinton. That tells me right away he had no valid point worth making considering the man was no longer President and hadn't been President in six years.

I guess when one finds a gold vein, you mine it till its empty.

I guess that puts him right up there with all the pundits running around blaming everything on Bush.

What I am finding interesting is that the only two who have listened to him are our liberal posters. I personally don't listen to these talk shows, none of them have anything of value to add.

[gamewell35]

I guess that puts him right up there with all the pundits running around blaming everything on Bush.

What I am finding interesting is that the only two who have listened to him are our liberal posters. I personally don't listen to these talk shows, none of them have anything of value to add.

Hey, you need to have a few liberal posters kicking around to keep the conservatives on their toes!

[jam24u]

He doesn't preach hate. That is what those that sit on the opposite side of the political fence say about him. He does bring up points on political issues from a conservative position. Which now is attacked as a matter of policy from the liberal position. Those are the ones preaching 'hate', attacking personal character. I can give you many examples, Joe the Plumber because he asked a question of the President who fumbled his answer. The liberals answer to this is to attack Joe the Plumber. Mike Savage doesn't preach hate, but gets accused of it because of the manner in which he delivers his message and the way his frustration shows. If you do not agree with the President, your a racist. That is a real example of hate.

[DaSharkie]

I'd be interested in you sharing all the "hate" you have heard him speak. Please share with us so we all know what you are talking about.

Don't expect him to answer the question. He rarely does.

[DaSharkie]

I'm not going to spoonfeed you the information nor should i have to; take the time and listen to his show and make your own determination.

You are a coward. You make accusations about a person, their statements, and that you essentially think that his program ought to be banned - but you lack the intestinal fortitude to defend your posiition with any substance in an argument.

Pretty freaking lame. Your tactics are pathetically weak.

[DaSharkie]

Hey, you need to have a few liberal posters kicking around to keep the conservatives on their toes!

Not if you are weak and refuse to answer questions, fail to back up your statements, can't handle any criticism of your posts (while trying in vain to criticise others'), and have nothing of substance to add to a conversation.

[scfire86]

While it may constitute beating a dead horse, it certainly isn't hate.

If the tone of one's voice has value, one could discern that Savage had hatred of Clinton.

In my opinion that is the case. Though I'm sure it is nothing more than a schtick to get idiots to continue listening. One of the reasons why I don't.

[scfire86]

I guess that puts him right up there with all the pundits running around blaming everything on Bush.

What I am finding interesting is that the only two who have listened to him are our liberal posters. I personally don't listen to these talk shows, none of them have anything of value to add.

You're not fooling anyone. You don't understand anything of value even when it is spoonfed to you.

[gamewell35]

What I am finding interesting is that the only two who have listened to him are our liberal posters. I personally don't listen to these talk shows, none of them have anything of value to add.

Crow, with all due respect, can you expand on why you find it interesting? Have you not ever listened to a liberal or conservative talk show host before?

[DaSharkie]

Crow, with all due respect, can you expand on why you find it interesting? Have you not ever listened to a liberal or conservative talk show host before?

So are you going to answer the questions proposed to you or just do your typical thing......and ignore them?

[ScareCrow57]

Crow, with all due respect, can you expand on why you find it interesting? Have you not ever listened to a liberal or conservative talk show host before?

I don't listen to talk shows at all. Let me qualify that, I don't listen purposely. Occasionally they are on or someone at the firehouse is watching them. You can listen to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or MSNBC and get one side, then you listen to FOX and get the other side. In the end you have to go in search of to find the truth. I know FOX is the brunt of a lot of jokes, but they bring balance to the table.

Here is a little article I had emailed to me. It's an op-ed piece but one that should make you think.

The things you don’t read about Barack Obama

Will Rogers famously pleaded that all he knew was what he read in the papers. If all a person knew of Barack Obama’s first 100 days as president was what they read of them in this newspaper, it would seem to be a very charmed young presidency.

The Chronicle Herald recently made space for an urgent Associated Press dispatch from Washington informing readers the Obamas had chosen a Portuguese water dog. Not original reporting, of course, but an AP rephrasing of a White House-arranged scoop in the Washington Post online.

That was followed by a crack Canadian Press report, drawn from such gumshoe news-gathering as reading the Huffington Post, on the "hillbilly" Republican governor of Alaska: her "family and political theatrics that would do Jerry Springer proud," like "the arrest and indictment of her sister-in-law on break-and-enter charges" and "the sordid revelations of her daughter’s ex-boyfriend."

The Portuguese water dog and Alaskan "hillbillies" news beats apparently leave little time for anything remotely skeptical of the president of the United States. And they wonder why folks aren’t buying the papers like they used to.

So here is a small selection of news on the most powerful man on Earth which has been deemed unfit to print:

•Obama’s first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus," cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years – $1.2 trillion vs. $650 billion.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise of "a net spending cut," his first annual deficit – not counting bailouts – being three times the worst deficit under President George W. Bush.

•Obama’s objective in his first G20 summit – commitments to spend our way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 – was rejected out of hand.

•Obama’s objective in his first NATO summit – commitments to combat troops for Afghanistan from "our European allies," which Obama and his party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone "enlightened" like him were running things – was predictably refused, with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.

•Obama’s Defence Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile defence, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range, multi-stage ballistic missile.

•Obama’s economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement had been candidate Obama’s highest economic credential.

•Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100 Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90 American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.

•Obama’s "tax cuts for 95 per cent" turned out to mean $13 a week from June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January – as compared with President Bush’s 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus $300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election campaign by Michelle Obama.

•Obama’s campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for businesses that hired new workers – repeated ad nauseam for weeks before the election – was discreetly retired even before inauguration day.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise that "lobbyists won’t work in my White House," waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently re-

defining his appointees’ past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists into his administration.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.

•Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 – over $100,000 – and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras "shaking with outrage" and siccing the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by Obama’s own legislation.

Why should these points, and many more like them, have to be made by some obscure contributor to The Chronicle Herald’s opinion pages?

Fox News Channel is the butt of jokes and the target of attacks like no other media outlet in the English-speaking world, not least by people who fancy themselves the guardians of a free press. But Fox News is today the lone television news service in the English-speaking world capable of serious skepticism and scrutiny of the sitting president and the Congress of the United States.

Fox News is also the second most-watched channel in all American cable television. It long ago became by far the most-watched cable news channel; more Americans watched Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined in every time slot from 6 a.m. to midnight in April. Now, while The New York Times is $1.3 billion in debt, Fox has expanded its operations with a business channel and a juggernaut Internet presence.

There’s a lesson there, though Fox News will be just as well pleased if the impeccably "mainstream" news business remains clueless about it.

The people need a Fourth Estate, not yet another adulator of Barack Obama, yet another smearer of Sarah Palin, yet another patrician editor to keep out anything disagreeable to progressive sensibilities, yet another laptop-and-latte journalism-schooler to spit on everything pre-dating 1968. And they wonder why the news business has come on hard times.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So are you going to answer the questions proposed to you or just do your typical thing......and ignore them?

If you ask him a question that is too hard, he puts you on his ignore list.

[scfire86]

I don't listen to talk shows at all. Let me qualify that, I don't listen purposely. Occasionally they are on or someone at the firehouse is watching them.

No doubt you'd cite a well known conservative columnist. Not exactly an objective perspective. You claim you don't listen to them yet you cite their talking points almost verbatim.

We're not as stupid as you, idiotboy.

[scfire86]

Someone asked for an example of Savage's hate speech.

Savage in 2006:

SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.

That's just the low-hanging fruit. You can Google plenty more, including a quote (paraphrasing) "when I see a woman in a burqua, I see a Nazi", or a long-rambling rant about "taking our country back (from Muslims)" and "take your (Koran) and shove it up your behind".

I'm not supporting the Brits' ban on extreme speech from all corners, but I am sympathetic to their desire to quell some of the unrest they've experienced within their own borders concerning Muslims in the past decade. They're seeking to promote a more civil discourse, and it doesn't matter if the speaker is advocating violence against Muslims or by Muslims. Whether it is nutjobs like Fred Phelps or Russian skinheads, someone in the government decided it would be a good idea to list the very sorts of folks deemed detrimental to the national conversation.

Savage should be sending commission checks to the Secretary of the Exchequer, since the Brits just made Savage relevant and (at least temporarily) boosted his audience. This ban is absolute manna from heaven for anyone whose only talent is provoking his audience with intemperate speech.

[ScareCrow57]

Someone asked for an example of Savage's hate speech.

Savage in 2006:



That's just the low-hanging fruit. You can Google plenty more, including a quote (paraphrasing) "when I see a woman in a burqua, I see a Nazi", or a long-rambling rant about "taking our country back (from Muslims)" and "take your (Koran) and shove it up your behind".

I'm not supporting the Brits' ban on extreme speech from all corners, but I am sympathetic to their desire to quell some of the unrest they've experienced within their own borders concerning Muslims in the past decade. They're seeking to promote a more civil discourse, and it doesn't matter if the speaker is advocating violence against Muslims or by Muslims. Whether it is nutjobs like Fred Phelps or Russian skinheads, someone in the government decided it would be a good idea to list the very sorts of folks deemed detrimental to the national conversation.

Savage should be sending commission checks to the Secretary of the Exchequer, since the Brits just made Savage relevant and (at least temporarily) boosted his audience. This ban is absolute manna from heaven for anyone whose only talent is provoking his audience with intemperate speech.

I see no hate. Merely criticizing those who are responsible for thousands of American deaths.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Someone asked for an example of Savage's hate speech.

Savage in 2006:



That's just the low-hanging fruit. You can Google plenty more, including a quote (paraphrasing) "when I see a woman in a burqua, I see a Nazi", or a long-rambling rant about "taking our country back (from Muslims)" and "take your (Koran) and shove it up your behind".

I'm not supporting the Brits' ban on extreme speech from all corners, but I am sympathetic to their desire to quell some of the unrest they've experienced within their own borders concerning Muslims in the past decade. They're seeking to promote a more civil discourse, and it doesn't matter if the speaker is advocating violence against Muslims or by Muslims. Whether it is nutjobs like Fred Phelps or Russian skinheads, someone in the government decided it would be a good idea to list the very sorts of folks deemed detrimental to the national conversation.

Savage should be sending commission checks to the Secretary of the Exchequer, since the Brits just made Savage relevant and (at least temporarily) boosted his audience. This ban is absolute manna from heaven for anyone whose only talent is provoking his audience with intemperate speech.

His percieved hate speech is a push, as I could pick a lot of "low hanging" liberal hate speech as well. There can be no dispute about that.

The point here is that an allegedly Democratic country is banning people from their country because of what they say and the ideology they believe in. These people are arguably despicable, but they are certainly not a physical threat to Great Britain.

[scfire86]

His percieved hate speech is a push, as I could pick a lot of "low hanging" liberal hate speech as well. There can be no dispute about that.

The point here is that an allegedly Democratic country is banning people from their country because of what they say and the ideology they believe in. These people are arguably despicable, but they are certainly not a physical threat to Great Britain.

I would agree. But they are a sovereign nation. The US has passed similar laws in its past regarding hate speech or speech that was deemed unamerican. Or past laws prohibiting "undesired" individuals to enter the country. They were eventually repealed or overturned. I have no doubt that will happen in GB eventually.

[jam24u]

No doubt you'd cite a well known conservative columnist. Not exactly an objective perspective.

What's he supposed to do, quote a liberal columnist? Anyway as far as television news is concerned, never was there a buisness that cared so little about what their audience thinks. That is the main reason why their numbers are tanking so badly. Yes the media has crossed a very bright line. This isn't media bias anymore, its media activism. They don't think conservatives are wrong, but that they're morally inferior. They think they are racists. they think conservatives don't like women, hate immigrants. This isn't about illegal immigrants, who we think probably shouldn't be in the county. They keep bringing up these so called facts because they are infatuated with it. Conservatives do not care what sex, or color or whatever you are. There is a great deal of reverse discrimination, the elimination of the independent individual and a war on prospertity and this is what Dr. Michael Savage's show is about.
Someone (who has a grudge) takes a few radio clips of his show ( which is not broadcast in England) and gives it to this Homeland Secretary and Dr. Savage is banned. Our country is about free speach, but its beginning to act like the old Soviet Union or present day North Korea. Say something against the administration and blammo, you guaranteed an attack.

Anyone defending this ban on Savage is one of the lost.

[scfire86]

Anyone defending this ban on Savage is one of the lost.

Hey farmboy. Have you seen me defending the UK's actions? The reason I dismiss his source out of hand is because he has done the same to me several times. An intelligent person would appreciate that irony. Which apparently doesn't include you.

Run along. I'm sure there is a sheep waiting for you.