Michael Savage: Partisan Loudmouth or Dangerous Hatemonger?

[tigerbob]

I've never heard of him, to be honest.

But a lot of people in Britain and a growing number in the US seem to be surprised, upset or even angry that he has been included on a list of 16 people that have been banned from Britain.

Jacqui Smith, the British Home Secretary, released the list a couple of days ago, and I happened to see something about it on O'Reilly last night.

BBC NEWS | UK | Who is on UK 'least wanted' list?

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - Smith faces ‘shock jock’ anger

The list seems a very strange, almost arbitrary collection of individuals. Strangest of all perhaps is the inclusion of a radio show host next to terrorists and murderers.

Also included on the list are former KKK Grand Wizard Donald Black and Baptist Pastor Fred Waldron.

This is all in the name of 'Hate Speech'. Is Britain right to ban visitors from all sides if the political spectrum for what is termed unacceptable behaviour (Brit spelling before a wise ass corrects me)? Is pre-emptive banning before they have done anything wrong in Britain stupid? Is Jacqui Smith's head disappearing up her own arse?

This has been decried by several people not as banning people who are a genuine threat but as Liberals banning people whose views they don't agree with, which seems like an oxymoron (banning people because of their views is not a very liberal way to behave).

[youtube]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rbSYhzWwsJc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rbSYhzWwsJc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Interestingly, Lou Dobbs appears at first to agree with it but then reverses his position. This may be due to the editing in the tape.

What are the views of self described liberals on this matter? The views of the right I think I can guess.

Enquiring minds don't give a crap but I'd be interested to know.

 

[William Joyce]

The irony is that most of those banned seek to exclude others from their society. And Britain denounces that by... excluding them.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I wouldn't consider the UK to be that liberal. In some ways, yes, in others, no: they have cameras recording public places 24 hours a day for security. That's a little too 1984 for me. Anyway, I can understand why they would ban Michael Savage, but I think its stupid. If he doesn't do it here, he isn't going to foment violence in Britain.

 

[Iriemon]

Savage IMO is a classic demogouge and he regularly warns about the Muslim threat as well as the rest of his paranoid view of the world.

I disagree with the concept of banning someone for their beliefs, however inane, if they are not inciting violence or harm against others. Maybe Savage is doing that, but I haven't heard him go quite that far.

 

[xotoxi]

I think Savage should be banned because of his obnoxious New York accent.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMtrpHjD2is[/ame]

 

[GHook93]

I listen to him sometimes on the ride home from work. He is a rude, crude, yet very entertaining, asshole! However Britian grouping him along with these others is just wrong. You all know what this about. Its because Savage is a Jewish commentator that preaches about the dangers of Islmofacism and racial Islam. The Brits who are deathly afraid of their every growing and highly disenchanted Muslim minority. In an effort to APPEASE them (sound familiar Chamberian?) they ban a outspoken Jew on Islmofacism!

Note: Savage has spoken and differentiated peaceful Muslims from Islmofacist before.

 

[Sarah G]

He seems like just another Hannity to me and they both are a couple of Rush wannabes.

So, partisan loudmouth..

 

[GHook93]

He seems like just another Hannity to me and they both are a couple of Rush wannabes.

So, partisan loudmouth..

That is because you never listened to him! He is very different than both. One of the most obnoxious people out there and he treats his callers like shit! But he was brutal on Bush, much different than Hannity or Rush. I also think Savage has the 2nd highest ratings on the radio, right behind Rush!

 

[tigerbob]

He seems like just another Hannity to me and they both are a couple of Rush wannabes.

So, partisan loudmouth..

That is because you never listened to him! He is very different than both. One of the most obnoxious people out there and he treats his callers like shit! But he was brutal on Bush, much different than Hannity or Rush. I also think Savage has the 2nd highest ratings on the radio, right behind Rush!

So he's kind of like a cross between Rush and Howard Stern?

 

[tigerbob]

The irony is that most of those banned seek to exclude others from their society. And Britain denounces that by... excluding them.

That is ironic isn't it?

 

[Article 15]

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.

 

[GHook93]

The irony is that most of those banned seek to exclude others from their society. And Britain denounces that by... excluding them.

WRONG and IGNORANT! Always trying to play the victim when you are the prepetrator, huh WJ? Most of those on the list want to genocide another group of people and have instigated and committed violent acts in the name of racial and religious superiority.

Britian is excluding them for their actions and who they are, not because they are of a certain race, religion, national origin or sexuality! Big difference!

 

[tigerbob]

The irony is that most of those banned seek to exclude others from their society. And Britain denounces that by... excluding them.

WRONG and IGNORANT! Always trying to play the victim when you are the prepetrator, huh WJ? Most of those on the list want to genocide another group of people and have instigated and committed violent acts in the name of racial and religious superiority.

Britian is excluding them for their actions and who they are, not because they are of a certain race, religion, national origin or sexuality! Big difference!

What part of his comment are you disagreeing with? His observation that the decision is ironic, or his definition of irony?

 

[Shogun]

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.

I think the man is funny as hell. Batshit crazy, certainly, but entertaining to listen to. I disagree with a good 80% of his opinions but I would never support a ban on his free speech. England can do what it wants. Fuckem.

I once heard him refer to Boortz as a "hemorrhoid with ears" and I choked on the beer I was drinking. I know he's a wine drinker and have often thought about calling in to see if he's ever tried any bottles from Missouri.

 

[GHook93]

The irony is that most of those banned seek to exclude others from their society. And Britain denounces that by... excluding them.

WRONG and IGNORANT! Always trying to play the victim when you are the prepetrator, huh WJ? Most of those on the list want to genocide another group of people and have instigated and committed violent acts in the name of racial and religious superiority.

Britian is excluding them for their actions and who they are, not because they are of a certain race, religion, national origin or sexuality! Big difference!

What part of his comment are you disagreeing with? His observation that the decision is ironic, or his definition of irony?

He is trying rationalize his desire for racial separation (which is a code name for racial superiority), but equating their belief to that of the Brit's move!

 

[tigerbob]

WRONG and IGNORANT! Always trying to play the victim when you are the prepetrator, huh WJ? Most of those on the list want to genocide another group of people and have instigated and committed violent acts in the name of racial and religious superiority.

Britian is excluding them for their actions and who they are, not because they are of a certain race, religion, national origin or sexuality! Big difference!

What part of his comment are you disagreeing with? His observation that the decision is ironic, or his definition of irony?

He is trying rationalize his desire for racial separation (which is a code name for racial superiority), but equating their belief to that of the Brit's move!

Yes, I'm well acquainted with his usual M.O., but I didn't see anything about that in his post, merely an observation that Britain's decision was ironic. Which it is.

 

[GHook93]

What part of his comment are you disagreeing with? His observation that the decision is ironic, or his definition of irony?

He is trying rationalize his desire for racial separation (which is a code name for racial superiority), but equating their belief to that of the Brit's move!

Yes, I'm well acquainted with his usual M.O., but I didn't see anything about that in his post, merely an observation that Britain's decision was ironic. Which it is.

If you read just one of WJ posts then I would agree, but if you take it with some other of his posts, then you would see it as I do!

 

[tigerbob]

He is trying rationalize his desire for racial separation (which is a code name for racial superiority), but equating their belief to that of the Brit's move!

Yes, I'm well acquainted with his usual M.O., but I didn't see anything about that in his post, merely an observation that Britain's decision was ironic. Which it is.

If you read just one of WJ posts then I would agree, but if you take it with some other of his posts, then you would see it as I do!

OK, that's clearer.

 

[Shogun]

WRONG and IGNORANT! Always trying to play the victim when you are the prepetrator, huh WJ? Most of those on the list want to genocide another group of people and have instigated and committed violent acts in the name of racial and religious superiority.

Britian is excluding them for their actions and who they are, not because they are of a certain race, religion, national origin or sexuality! Big difference!

What part of his comment are you disagreeing with? His observation that the decision is ironic, or his definition of irony?

He is trying rationalize his desire for racial separation (which is a code name for racial superiority), but equating their belief to that of the Brit's move!

Should you really be pointing a finger at anyone regarding ethnic separation, zionboy?

 

[Article 15]

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.

I think the man is funny as hell. Batshit crazy, certainly, but entertaining to listen to. I disagree with a good 80% of his opinions but I would never support a ban on his free speech. England can do what it wants. Fuckem.

I once heard him refer to Boortz as a "hemorrhoid with ears" and I choked on the beer I was drinking. I know he's a wine drinker and have often thought about calling in to see if he's ever tried any bottles from Missouri.

I can say without a doubt you wouldn't be the kind of caller that spends half his time on the air gobbling Savage's cock.