Michael Savage has the nerve to ask Hillary for help
I actually think the UK was wrong to ban Michael Savage from their shores no matter how whacked out he is.
Britain on Tuesday published its first list of people barred from entering the country for allegedly fostering extremism or hatred, including Muslim extremists, a right-wing American radio host, an Israeli settler and jailed Russian gang members.
The U.K.'s law and order chief, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, said she decided to publish the names of 16 of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October so others could better understand what sort of behavior Britain was not prepared to tolerate.
Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."
It's their country, so you'd think a conservative like Savage would leave the choice up to them, because they are taking personal responsibility for their own welfare, right? Isn't that what he preaches? Anyway. I don't agree with them, but when he asks Hillary Clinton for help, well, that's insane.
Michael Savage, who has since expressed his outrage at the decision. “It is demented,” Savage said. “I want my name off of that list and I want a letter of apology from this [British Home Secretary] Jacqui Smith.” Now it appears that Savage is seeking help from an old nemesis: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The San Fransisco Chronicle’s Rich Lieberman reports that “[l]awyers for Savage are formally asking [that] she call on the British Government to withdraw its ban.” It’s interesting that Savage is now turning to Clinton for help, considering what he has had to say about her in the past. Some examples:
– “Hillary Clinton, the most Godless woman in the Senate.”
– Regarding one of Clinton’s speeches: “That’s rubbish. That’s Hitler dialogue. Goebbels would be proud of you, Hillary Clinton. I know Mao Zedong would have been proud of you.”
– “[Clinton has] destroyed the war effort against terror. And if, God forbid, a suitcase bomb goes off you’ll know who to blame.”
– On Clinton’s run for the presidency: “[She would] stir up a race war, a civil war in the country to get that hag, that harridan elected.”
Savage also once suggested that Clinton had something to do with the death of John F. Kennedy Jr. so she could run for U.S. Senate in New York.
The venom directed at Hillary from talkers like Savage is despicable, but I do find it ironic now that he's actually asking her to intervene on his behalf. How miserable does it make him feel that he has to seek out Hillary for help. Hahahahahahaha.
Digby has a nice line about it: People In Hell Want Ice Water, Too.
Next, Limpballs will ask Chelsea Clinton for a loan to buy a pony!
to pay for the horse.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
The "White Horse."
"SSHHHHRRREEIK! Hillary isn't doing her job because she won't bully the Brits into letting ME have MY waayyy! sob; sniff"
Obama is the protector for Bush , Cheney and their administrations criminal crimes..
None
not the whole truth pete hes the head of the new repig party and must keep the lid on the monster in the barrel, supression of criminal acts constitutes , obstruction of justice!
that for a failing shock jock like Savage, pulling Secretary Clinton through his personal manure pile will be good for his ratings. Nothing more.
We have surrendered our passion for freedom to the acquisition of stuff. We cannot even mount a decent opposition to wars that are destroying what little we have left in our treasury or to resist the oligarchy that has taken over our electoral process.
He shouldn't be banned, in fact it's so nice when he is not here. Don't they have a planned manned mission to Pluto or something? Where do we sign this asshole up? Can somebody please take him?
America has a planned time-machine mission to pack up all republicans and boink them to Jurassic Park.
Considering how unmanly Savage has to be to come crawling to a woman for help...
I think it sent the right message to him, nothing else will reach his obstinate head. If anyone spreads terror it's him.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
And I'm not even disagreeing with you... I guess I just have a narrower view than most... but why to you disagree with him being on that list?
If this knuckle dragging bag of pus showed up at my front door wanting in to spew the kind of bile he spews on a daily basis, I'd most likely kick him where his nuts are supposed to be and throw him down a flight of stairs.
Isn't that all the UK is doing?
What Tom said.
Also, didn't we, meaning the US, deny my favorite trainwreck, Amy Winehouse a visa?? Cuz she likes herself some crack and such??
Frankly, I'd take Amy, and her crackness, any day over Savage. She provides (when she's got her shit together) great music (Frank, especially)and Savage contributes nothing of any value.
Yeah, what Tom Said!
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
to say that he disagreed with the UK banning Weiner but without explanation. I'm curious too, as to why he believes that banning a racist hate monger from it's shores is wrong. What is so "wrong" about the UK banning Weiner? If he wasn't an American citizen, I'd support banning him from the United States.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
John is running for public office.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I say we beg them to let him and Rush (to get a fix) Limbaugh in permanently
Since given the current state of communications technology (Internet and all that) banning someone from your shores because of what they say will no longer actually stop their words from entering your country. PLUS all it does is add to their 'hate' cachet which ends up making him more dangerous and grants him more influence amongst those that sit around listening to their radios, fingering their dicks and guns and just need ONE more voice they trust to send them over the edge.
To sum up: Banning no longer does what it was intended to do, and actually ends up helping the person banned.
Completely disagree. Brave people stand up to say, "This is wrong." We need more brave people.
When you are in a foreign country, you are being allowed the pleasure of being there, and that may be curtailed at any time, for reasons you may not even understand. It's the same planet-wide.
I know, I work on a visa in Asia. I can be kicked out at any time: no recourse. Just get out.
What do you think the US no-fly list is about? It, effectively, stops people from leaving or entering countries.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I think the ban is entirely appropriate. He's not a UK or EU citizen, has no right of free passage, etc. For a legalistic ninny-mungins like Savage to have the contradictions of his own thought presented to him in such a concrete way is a perfect opportunity for him to work through the karmic repercussions of his life's work.
They're doing him a favor, in fact.
You can't enter the UK if you are HIV+.
Nor can you enter the USA (if you are HIV+). You can not enter the USA if you have had a convition of any kind for marijuana, no matter how many years ago it was, or how old you were.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I don't know what the leeway is concerning HIV, but there are plenty of people with convictions for drug crimes who are most definitely allowed into the USA. One right off the top of my head: Paul McCartney.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
I know plenty of average schmucks that must pre-arrange a special pass to enter the USA, even just for a day, because they got caught with pot in their youth. If your record gets on any official list, at the border, you will not be allowed entry from Canada.
Another (fashion designer) friend has always wanted to work in NYC, but he got caught with some joints in high school, and can not enter. He's worked in Italy and France instead.
I know some (gay) guys in BC that were turned back at the border because the border guard though they were "too fruity".
When you drive up to the kiosk, if the border guy doesn't like you, you can forget it.
(Grew up in a border town-- Niagara Falls, Ontario. We hear all the border crossing stories because there is a great deal of cross-border traffic, both ways.)
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I seriously doubt that he's doing any more than just setting himself up to be the wounded party if and when the SOS tells him there isn't anything she can do about it.
The UK has the right to keep out whomever they want. If Hillary does what this nutjob wants, I will loose any respect I have for her. He is so egotistical he even wants an apology from the Home Secretary. HA HA HA.
US State Dept. routinely denies visas to scholars and artists whose opinions don't jibe with our policies.
Mr. Weiner has nothing to complain about.
Arar's unforgivable offense is that he was kidnapped by the FBI, renditioned to Syria and tortured for nearly a year. So I guess the disagreeable opinion he holds that doesn't jibe with US policy is the fact that he was tortured.
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
yahoo walkin around, all free and shit!
particularly in the land of the free.
Seems to me that any nation should be able to ban anyone from entering their country for any reason they want.
..only criminals would be stupid.
Isn't that how it works?
"In theory theory and practice are alike. In practice they are very different."
deserve to be banned from civilized society.
Hannity, Orally, Limbaugh are all terrorists.
When rightwing loonies start gunning down Unitarians and they're captured and their homes are searched, what do they find?
Books by Weenie, Orally and Manatee.
On behalf of all manatees! They are sweet, peaceful, gentle creatures, who don't cause irreparable harm or assault others.
Please choose something more appropriate for that bloated, hateful homonculous, thanks!
;)
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
More nerve than a 10 cent steak.
Let's see how far to the right they go before they fall off of the edge of this flat world.
HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! I am SO fucking using that!
This was one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Would that be like O'Mousedick asking Olbermann to help him stalk Rachel Maddow?
given the fact a more appropriate name for him is O'Loosedeck.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
at the Mena Airport.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
If I were Hillary I'd give Savage the Cheney response..."Go FUCK yourself."
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
and invite them over to discuss it at a back yard watermelon shoot.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
All these Right-Wing-nutO hate monguerers should be banned from the USA too. The Reslug bedwetters cry like babies when they are called out on their spewing of hatred. Let Savage continue to be banned.
The UK is now a better place.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
That is what I truly wish to be
cause if i were a oscar weiner savage
everyone would be in love
oh everyone would be in love
everyone would be in love with me
after you spread the dijon on real thick.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
came down upon his head! Do do do dooo do
It will be even more astonishing when hillary turns about in the spirit of either reaching out or political expediency or her wont to appear to be the everything and everyone's candidate and she actually helps this piece of excrement. HIllary, don't do it. enough is enough. this guy has stepped over the line so many times, it's incredible what he has said. i really want you to review what he has sid in so many instances. it's time for him to pay the piper. spit in his face figuratively.
I really doubt whether she will turn her back on him as she should. watch the news on this one.
"Godless" is a compliment....
fucking religion
Going to wake up and see just who our enemies really are...
None
Seriously. It's like Obama reaching across the aisle in the beginning of his term, over and over, even offering Repubs cabinet positions...don't these people get it, Repubs will throw them under the bus as soon as they can. They don't deserve anyones help or consideration.
... Savage Wee-wee exercised his right of free speech. It's earned him his place on the PNG (persona non grata) list.
No apologies should be forthcoming.
The article describes Hillary as Michael Savage's "old nemesis". But this an inaccurate and misleading use of the term. It unfairly characterizes Hillary in a particularly negative light. The definition of nemesis is "one that inflicts retribution or vengeance" (Merriam-Webster). Hillary has never inflicted retribution or vengeance on Michael Savage. If anything, it is Michael Savage who would be Hillary Clinton's nemesis, not the other way around.
of it.
This idiot makes millions but he has a legal fund set up to pay for his fight. I guess it's the principle behind it. All Americans should be paying for his right to free speech and not him.
is intended to be a factual statement
Betraying his legion of racist hatemongers, Savage crawls to the enemy wagging his tail and begging, asking Hillary to disregard the sovereignty of another Nation just for him...what a pussy.
what a pussy.
Which makes him a perfect fit for his party. They're all whiny pussies.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
The reason that he can ask Hillary Clinton for help is like all the rest of right wing talk radio, all of what they say is just an act. They don't actually believe any of the crap that comes spewing from their holes. They have no soul. They laugh at the people that listen and make them rich. They have no love for this country and could care less for 99.99% of all of humanity.
...wait until she takes a pass on this opportunity to be Savage's free-speech friend.
C'mon people - I thought liberals/progressives were not so petty.
Freedom of speech, including stupid and offensive speech, is and should be protected. The Secretary of State has the responsibility to promote American values and human rights abroad, even (or especially) for political enemies. If her political relationship with a citizen prevents her from protecting his rights, she is not professional enough not be Secretary of State.
And while the United States government clearly has no jurisdiction over British immigration/visa policy, it should certainly encourage other countries to live up to our standards of human rights.
Anyone born on this planet should, morally, have the right to travel anywhere they see fit, absent a clear and compelling danger to others. Being highly offensive doesn't meet that standard.
Yes, Eric. I'm glad to see the right embracing the idea of diplomacy now that Michael Weiner has a problem with his big mouth.
Freedom of speech, including stupid and offensive speech, is and should be protected.
Should be? Oh...and what oh great seer of the First Amendment do you mean? Would you like to see people be allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre...or stand outside an NAACP meeting and yell "N****"?
By the way...I really need to properly address you...so tell me...are you a Wop, Dago, Kike, raghead, or camel jockey?
[Poster's name corrected in comment-Sitemonitor]
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
"Eric."
Not Evet.
unfortunately, I can no longer amend it.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
That the one person who doesn't get the fact that nobody is interfering with Weiner's speech and that the Constitution of the United States of America doesn't apply to Great Britain, is the one calling the rest of us "idiots". Reminds me of the guy with the sign, "Get a brain Morans".
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
It's my understanding that the right of free speech carries the obligation of responsibility.
If I knowingly engage in inciteful, hateful, obscene, or untruthful speech, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that says I am free from consequences.
I cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. If I launch into a foul-mouthed screed in the middle of the symphony performance, damn skippy I'll get tossed out, with no recourse to protest or even get a refund.
Sure, Savage has the right to say what he says. But he's also gotta deal with what comes his way as a result.
The right of free speech is accorded in the United States through the U.S. constitution. No other nation is required to honor the free speech rights of Americans. Great Britain is not violating Michael Savage's right to free speech as accorded by the U.S. constitution because Great Britain is not obligated to uphold the constitution of another country.
As I read it, the 1st Amendment doesn't provide for any speech that is *not* protected. The standard "fire"-in-a-crowded-theater exception is a necessary exception, but not one written into the Constitution (and I have no problem with that).
I agree that there should be limits on speech that constitutes a specific threat to a person or group, but I do not like legal prohibitions on obscene or untruthful speech. Lying and cursing are sometimes necessary, and generally not an immediate threat to anyone. In addition, they're both very hard to define and prove legally.
General hate speech that doesn't rise to the level of specific threat, I'm not sure about. If the laws are too restrictive, it prevents useful public debate with racists and bigots - which I think is necessary.
None of this would prevent the management from kicking our someone disrupting a symphony performance - but on the grounds of being disruptive, not for the opinions they express.
Finally, I don't believe that the 1st Amendment guarantees anyone the freedom of consequences for their speech - just the freedom from government retaliation for speech. You, as a private citizen, can (and should) exert all kinds of social pressure against speech you don't like.
...Nation to allow a notorious bigotry agitator to their country with his corrosive bullshit. Tell you what troll, allow Savage to go to England, lock that hate merchant out, then hire Dobbs, Tancredo, and another attention starved bigot, Joe Arpaio to keep Savage across the Atlantic.
Do not
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
For the simple reason that I don't believe we should impose domestic laws abroad, or try to.
But I do think it's appropriate to *request* that other countries be permissive in the public speech they allow - not as a legal issue, but in the interests of freer public discourse globally.
I have no sympathy for Mr. Savage's opinions, but I think our integrity as a country hangs on allowing people to express themselves publicly. Subsequent public shaming for those opinions is also appropriate.
I agree that Mr. Savage is a fine example of a hypocrite. I would be happy to see him lose his public platform for that reason, especially in favor of a more rational voice (of any political stripe).
The social problem, as I see it, is that too many people take Savage, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. seriously. I'm not convinced that restricting their travel helps this, and I think it sets a bad precedent.
In the last several years, people (some I know personally) have had trouble traveling into, out of, and within the U.S. because of their political beliefs. I think the right line to draw is to allow travel and speech regardless of content. Even for people who oppose those rights for others.
When the GOP literally falls over itself to apologize and fawn over Rush Limbaugh, damn straight I take him 'seriously' - like any highly-visible threat.
And the integrity of our country is hanging on observing the freedom of speech? As Robert A. Heinlein posed in his novel Starship Troopers, when a student quotes 'the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' - a drowning man has no unassailable right to life, a convicted prisoner no guarantee of liberty, and if my chosen form of happiness is going on a shooting spree - there's no guarantee there, either.
You're mistaking 'freedom of speech' with 'freedom from responsibility.' Period.
... the courts disagree with you. The airwaves are regulated, and broadcasters are answerable for obscenities - in fact, the FCC just reiterated its policy on 'incidental' obscenity: a broadcaster can be fined for an instance where someone in the crowd yells 'FUCK!'
Truth is also critical to libel/slander law. While there are considerations for the impact of such statements and the visibility/public nature of the victim, the ultimate defense against a charge of libel/slander is truth.
I'm not sure where your argument for 'freedom from government retaliation' comes from. Congress may not be able to enact a law that restricts free speech, but it can act in the public interest (a key provision of broadcasting licenses) and public safety, and it can and does levy fines and punishment to this end. What the 1st Amendment DOES guarantee is that, given the freedoms enumerated therein, there is also the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances - i.e., Howard Stern can protest an FCC fine, and CBS can argue that Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' wasn't their fault.
the trolls.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Some of us enjoy toying with trolls.
suggestion.
But since you mentioned it, evaluate your points about bigots and free speech in light of this case from your area. Skokie.
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/0...
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I just don't believe that a foreign Nation has to adhere to it...particularly protecting a man known to inspire exclusion and violent hate crimes.
Have a nice day.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
freedom of speech in any way shape or form. They simply don't want him over there, which it is their right.
Or are we so self centered as a nation, that we think the rights of an US citizen in the US of A, trump the collective rights of a foreign nation?
I forgot to add, that I find mighty ironic that the original troll was chastising the UK for not having the same standards and rights as the US of A. Given that the US of A, in the XXI century, we are still having an open debate regarding the viability of torture as a state sponsored policy... I must say it takes a specially large set of brass balls for an American to talk as if we somehow had any moral authority on personal and civil rights over other civilised countries... like the UK.
and allowed us the freedom to enjoy the Reverends Robertson, Falwell and Ike and other Protestants.
Wait, we came up with that freedom on our own and just stuck it in the same place as free speech.
I guess they were too busy surpressing and torturing wogs while we did that.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Or are we so self centered as a nation, that we think the rights of an US citizen in the US of A, trump the collective rights of a foreign nation?
YES, we do!
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
that nobody is infringing upon Weiner's right to speak. Even the UK didn't say to him, "STFU or you can't come here anymore". They just banned him outright. Typical of a conservative to cherry pick what sounds good to them and leave the much more relevent facts aside.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
Eric, while you are technically correct I'm not sure wanting other countries to "live up to our standards of human rights" is something we should be wishing for. As others have noted, the US feels compelled to keep out dangerous singers (Winehouse, Islam/Stevens, etc.) and other terr'rists and do we really want the right to be waterboarded spread across the globe?
He has no more "right" to enter the UK than I have the "right" to yell fire in a theater. Every society has limits. Even if denying somebody entry into your country is deplorable (which I think it is) it is their country. For the US to insist that another country "do as we [like to project that we] do" strikes me as just another instance of the US taking a do as we say, not as we do attitude and I think the world is getting a little tired of that - given the realities of what we "do."
So you think people should have the right to call black people n****s, Jewish people k***s or Spanish people s***s?
Freedom of speech protects that?
I think not
(I self edited those words btw)
Try it out.
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/0...
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
...worthless pile of gangrene. Why should they be forced to allow a renowned hate pimp like Savage to come over with his vile anti-Muslim bigotry? Look, we don't want that racist fuck here, I don't blame the British for rejecting this hate spewing bastard.
BTW, little Eric has been trolling here 20 minutes.
Congratulations!
BTW, Michael Savage has the right to say whatever he wants, in fact the UK is not squashing or impeding that right in any way shape or form. It turns out that the UK also has the right to let in their country whoever they want, and it turns out they don't want Mr. Savage to enter their country... So what was the point you were trying to make? Rights for you but not for thee...
The issue is that Mr. Savage would be the first one in line squashing other people's right to speech or deporting all those furigners he considers disagreeable. So excuse us if we point out that serious hypocrite MO.
Alas, it turns out that no matter how big of an asshole a conservative is, we will always get concern trolls like you bitching and moaning when their precious and sacrosanct right to the benefit of the doubt no matter what... is somehow compromised by us "petty" liberals.
I assume you are one of those who flips out at all those illegal aliens. I guess it is only white Americans who have the right to travel anywhere they want, right?
Fifteen minutes after LandL called him out and totally trashed him. That ought to make sure he puts down the Cheetos and wastes more bandwidth.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
.
I think I may have pointed to it higher in the thread.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Learn it, appreciate it, love it... just my $0.02
Twoodles.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
"sense" almost sounds like "cents" due to the lack of consistency between pronunciation and writing in the English language, oooohhhh nobody must have thought about playing games with pronunciation before... you're so witty! Damn!
even a common troll trapper could get it.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
which is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, not in Great Britain. What does "freedom of speech" have to do with banning somebody from the UK? Wingers love to cite "free speech" issues when they can't defend their arguments for infringing upon other peoples' rights. They seem to interpret the first ammendment to say something about making other people listen to their points of view without argument. They seem to feel that the first ammendment guarantees are being violated when media do not give them a platform from which to spew hate. The content of the first ammendment is simple:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That means that CONGRESS shall pass NO LAWS prohibiting free speech. Michael Weiner isn't being charged with a crime first and second, in case you failed Geography and History, Great Britain is part of the United Kingdom, not the United States.
Your argument is specious.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
His books are still available to UK citizens. They can listen to his podcasts or whatever. His freedom of speech hasn't been abridged at all. The British just don't want that shit on their island.
You think we should lift the ban on people like Winehouse and others who have been declared persona no grata too?
in exactly which tome is it written that liberals can't be petty? Seriously, I can't stand guys like this mendacious fuck. I would never go out of my way to hurt him, but I really believe that karma is catching up with him and he's getting exactly that which he deserves. Ooh, poor Savage (not his real name, but makes this pussy look like a tough guy), he can't go to the U.K. Yeah, we should all drop what we are doing and support his efforts to go to the U.K., I'm sure to attend a lucrative speaking engagement or something like that, because you and I both know it's not a humanitarian mission. I think we gave up our right to have opinions on what goes on in the U.K. when we rebelled.
From who, a foreign country, who isn't even trying to spread it's jurisdiction past it boarders?
Look, Little Mikey over there got his privilege to enter Britain revoked, no one has the right to enter any country they chose (you have heard of illegal immigration right?).
So who is trying to strip him of his "rights" as he resides in the U.S.? It's not like Britain told him to stop broadcasting.
that's true in the US. We don't have jurisdiction in England, Einstein. And they actually have laws governing speech, no Constitutional guarantees about it or anything.
C'mon Eric I thought neocons/regressives were all about knowing everything about everything. I guess it really is just all about forcing the will of the US minority party upon others with you lot.
me-oww!
I wonder if this jerkoff ever travels anyway? He seems too xenophobic and too self-righteous an American to ever want to open his eyes and see something different.
Can't get on a plane...the pilot might be black, the stewardess might be Jewish and they might sit him next to a Muslim.
Savage may be textbook example of an obvious gay bashing closet case..
Michael Savage is an ideological terrorist, as he preaches hate and intollerance. Through preaching his ideology of bigotry, he wants his listeners to oppress those he hates, and may prompt bigots in his audience to engage in hate crimes...
The UK is well within their rights to ban that racist filth frm their shores.
One has to remember that the US constitution ends at our borders. We only have those protections here at home, not in other countries.
It would IMO be wrong for Hilary to try to intervene in this case. With the exception of the state dept. asking for information refused to Savage.
We have to respect the rules of other countries and not demand unfettered access, even if we don't agree with their rules of entry. Don't like the rules of entry, don't go to that country.
As private citizens traveling abroad we have to obey the rules of the country we are in. If we break those rules our embassies should help with the legal process, but it would be wrong to try to circumvent it.
We'll trade you for...Jack the Ripper's bones. Good trade.
the Elephant Man Skeleton...or does Michael Jackson still own it?
I'm a simple man anyway. Let's trade Savage for a dinner of Mash and Bangers for the whole blog.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
... ought to be a night at the pub with a hosted bar.
... for free.
I wonder if it works? I've been known to stop using products promoted by spamming but maybe other people don't see a problem with it.
[We don't. And if you find spam, please flag it, instead of commenting on it. It would help us greatly. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
... that become a job unto itself.
When I worked on an online game, we had the tools to deal with foul-mouthed cusskiddies ... but we had to jump through hoops to get any service provider (this is back when AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserve were the norm) to block anyone.
And it was easy to end up not getting work on new stuff done because you had problem players or whiners complaining about other things.
Banning spammers and deleting their posts on my forums. I hate that crap with a passion.
These spammers plaster this shit everywhere, even at sites like C&L from which they expect no direct hits.
What they're trying to do is raise their profiles on Google. The more sites their links are on, the closer to the top of the search results page they are.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
If SOS Clinton doesn't do anything, Weiner will whine.
If she jumps right on it, Weiner will bray that he made her do his bidding.
Since it's a lose-lose situation, she should deal with this "in the order received."
Savage wants back into england and the kids in hell want ice water the other old saying is hold one hand out and the other on your ass and see which one gets filled first
As a bloke, England has no reason to allow this yankee trash in. Don't ask. J.Smiths decision is proper. In fact put this bastard on a 14 year review. That should be enough time for him to learn "MANNERS".
BullDog
Shut the hell up and take it like a man. It's not like you were ever going to visit Great Britain anyway, you homophobic, misogynist, racist pig.
Shut the hell up and take it like a man.
Wow. Is that you Sen. Craig?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
England, or any country, has the right and mandate to keep "un-desirable" people away from their populace. Savage is a social disorder and dysfunctional mirror of what is sick in America. We should not send our social VD to others.
Good for Britain . I hope Hillary Clinton has a good laugh . This mentally deranged jackass shouldn't even be on the loose here in the states let alone on the public air waves .
Michael Savage is a boil on the body politic. His rants go further than any other major radio hack, even Beck, in promoting hate and the resurgent militia movement.
Under Bush we had no fly lists, and people banned from speeches. We have lived with odious "free speech zones" for decades now.
Progressives have rightfully railed against these abuses consistently...except, apparently, when it comes to Wiener.
On what possible moral basis can you support someone being banned from a country because of their speech, hateful or not? With Savage and the UK, it is particularly absurd, because Savage seems to be a uniquely American cancer that could probably never take hold on their soil.
Don't tell me that there is a technical legal right to ban Savage under UK law or even the US Constitution. No fly lists and free speech zones are legal as well. They shouldn't be. And they are immoral, and against the values of a free society.
I think Hillary and Barack will have a chat about Savage. After they are able to pull themselves together after fits of hysterical laughter, I expect them to do the right thing: stand up for American values and free speech.
Weiner can go on the airwaves and spew whatever he wants, insofar as it isn't violating existing law in regards to slander/obscenity/hate speech.
His being banned from the U.K. is the direct consequence of his exercising his right to free speech. He shares the distinction with a number of others, including Rev. Fred Phelps, who routinely protests outside funerals - even if the deceased was a soldier killed in action, or victim of a murder (hate crime or not), and several Muslim clerics known for their inflammatory speech.
You seem to be arguing that free speech trumps both legal and moral determinations of what is good/evil, right/wrong, hateful/acceptable, and it doesn't, even in a 'free society.'
You are also conflating a no-fly list - which has numerous entries for people who pose no significant threat to our national security, including people named 'Robert Smith' and 'Edward Kennedy' - with Savage, who has a track record for speech deemed offensive (and, in particular, by the British Government). If, as you argue, that's not legal and not supported by the morals of your 'free state,' then we should have no problem allowing Osama bin Laden or even Moqtada al-Sadr inside our country to proselytze their views of Islam.
It's flat out laughable that you describe Savage as a 'uniquely American cancer' that could never take hold - but nonetheless insist that the unique American rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment should be the deciding factor. What, then, about American culture, gives rise to cancers like Savage? A lack of education? A disparity of wealth or opportunity? Too many wogs about?
Free speech DOES trump determinations over what is good or evil, right or wrong. That's the only way it can work: unless speech is directly inciting violence, it should not be restricted on public property. That goes for Fred Phelps, too. That also goes for radical Islamic clerics. The only exceptions are people who are subject to arrest for violations of law - but that's an entirely different matter.
Honestly, I'm shocked that progressives would disagree with that.
The problem with no-fly lists is that they are idiotic and anti-freedom. It has nothing to do with over-breadth. What, exactly, is sought to be accomplished? Keeping dangerous people off planes? That's what the insane routine at the airport where you need to take off your shoes is for. Keeping dangerous people from leaving their hometown, to prevent them from associating with other dangerous people? In the modern world, that's futile. Banning people from the country, without having to deal with the messy legal issues, because boarding a plane is clearly a privilege that can be most easily taken away? That's cowardly.
My understanding is that the man is banned from the country, entirely. He can't fly into the airport and visit a relative. He can't have a layover on his way to Paris. Why? It's incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't ban Michael Savage from walking on a public sidewalk in the United States. Why should it be different in Britain?
I don't see what you find laughable about invoking the values of American society or the Constitution when talking about posts on a message board dealing with American politics, among American posters. I don't think it's laughable to refer to American values or the US Constitution in criticizing the free speech policies of China, Iran, or Britain. Do we hold values as Americans, or not?
I'm saddened that so many choose their values on convenience.
As to my comment that he's a uniquely American cancer, the fact is that he is tied to certain forms of racial hatred, gun worship, and ideas about the nature of government that I don't think have deep roots in the UK. The only aspect of his rhetoric that could take hold is his Islam-bashing. It isn't that the UK lacks ignorant haters, but their themes are different. Political radical speech generally doesn't travel well from country to country.
Considerations of morality, fact, and incitement to violence DO impact free speech, and do - on a day-to-day basis, impact our lives.
You are arguing that not only is Savage entitled to spew his vitriol, he is free from consequence of his actions, and, furthermore, we should encourage other countries to celebrate that same mismatch of freedom/responsibility.
No-fly lists, shoe removal, and the rest of the security theater that takes place at the airport are the product of the same shoddy reasoning as you exhibit regarding Savage. No amount of 'you progressives' and other choice insults lend credence to your argument.
Despite your attempt to spin my reply as laughing at American values, what I am laughing at is your attempt to dismiss Savage as a uniquely American problem while touting the very freedoms under which Savage flourishes, and which you think the U.K. is obligated to respect in the same manner. And I also think you severely underestimate the power of hatred in the U.K.; they've had much more experience with domestic terrorism in regards to issues of faith and politics than we have.
You seem to be suffering from the standard fallacy plaguing trolls - that insistence on our Constitutional freedoms means some namby-pamby willy-nilly free-for-all, and that to speak to anything else means we're hypocrites.
That's not flying here.
Defending free speech makes someone a troll here.
You are hypocrites. Not only that, you are dangerous, and against progressive values. That goes for anyone who does not defend this man's free speech rights (or Phelps, or any Nazi group, or anyone else's). That isn't namby-pamby: that's courage of conviction, standing on principle, and consistency. It is also reality based, instead of a series of selective rationalizations.
I don't know what has happened to some on the left.
... freedom of speech.
You are advocating freedom of consequence.
And, because you cannot defend your viewpoint, you are reduced to calling me a hypocrite, dangerous, and anti-progressive values.
No, Sir. I am not obligated to protect Michael Savage from the consequences of his own speech and/or actions, because the same freedom of speech would thus apply to British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
You don't know what has happened to some on the left because you're not on the left, and we're defying your preconceived notions and not buying into your fallacies.
Obviously his speech has consequences. Just not government-enforced consequences. That is what "freedom of speech" is - the RIGHT to be free of GOVERNMENT interference in expression, regardless of whether the expression is stupid, hateful, offensive, or anti-social, as well as the corresponding RIGHT of PRIVATE individuals to shun, criticize, or boycott people for their speech.
I'm not "reduced" to calling you a hypocrite. You ARE a hypocrite. It's obvious, and I say it loudly and proudly.
Ask anyone else who stands with the ACLU on Nazis, Phelps, etc. The ACLU sued to defend Phelps' free speech rights:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
THAT is an illustration of progressive and American values. THAT is who I stand with.
I have have the utmost DISGUST for anyone who doesn't stand for those values, right or left.
It USED to be that only the right had these backward views. Unfortunately that isn't true anymore.
freedom of speech in the US of A.
Awaiting eagerly, thanks.
The government imposes consequences ALL THE TIME. Regardless of your Constitutional protections, which carefully ennumerate freedoms that we take for granted, these have always been under the purview of law so as not to be meaningless.
There is nothing progressive about this 'no government interference' tripe. It's the same 'free market' garbage that landed us in this depression - that somehow, the pure ideals of freedom, absent government interference, will shine through and everyone will live in peace and harmony, prosperity for all!
Where does this 'freedom' line you're singing come from? People like Rush Limbaugh, who insists that his venal dialogue is the product of the 'marketplace of ideas.' It's the same idiocy pushed by the Bush Administration - hold an election, sprinkle some magic democracy dust, pay lip service to God and his Amazing Gift of Liberty, and Iraq will become a model of peace and prosperity.
Most tellingly, you are confusing the physical body of Michael Savage and his ability to enter the United Kingdom with the censorship of his ideas, which are disseminated in print, on radio, and on the internet.
"Freedom of property" and "free markets" are distinct from civil liberties.
Conservatives confuse the two; I thought I was in good company on the left in separating them.
Property is a limited resource, not an expression of basic human liberty, and largely a system to promote hegemony.
Personal freedom of the physical body is the core of human liberty. Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of free society. I haven't conflated civil liberties with property rights. And Rush would never advocate for free speech for anyone he disagreed with. By the way, the ACLU came to Rush's defense too, to defend his medical records, despite his vitriol against them. Rush stands for property rights first, and free speech when convenient. I have no use for property rights at all. I think a good round of confiscation of property is long overdue.
I'm not confusing the physical body of Savage with his ability to communicate over the internet. The problem is that his physical body is being restrained because of what he has said. It is government retribution for speech.
Savage's 1st Amendment rights stop where another country's border begins. We have no right to dictate to another country how they should deal with issues of speech and the sovereignity. Ironically, wingnuts scream all the time about how non-U.S. citizens are not entitled to the rights granted to citizens, and yet here is one wingnut grasping for rights in the UK that he is not entitled to as a non-citizen.
I've never seen change without a fire
We are constantly criticizing the policies of other countries, and they are criticizing ours. Countries band together and enact sanctions against countries for policies they enact within their sovereign borders. Documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights purport to tell countries what to do within their sovereign borders. Many times, the issue other countries are meddling in have to do with free speech.
I doubt anyone will be taking the Weiner issue to the UN. But I disagree that there is some sort of prohibition on the United States alone or in concert condemning, persuading, punishing, boycotting, or taking legal action against other countries, just because they are sovereign.
It is government retribution for speech.
Oh, puh-LEEZE! Take your complaints about that to immigration authorities in the UK, sweetheart.
government retibution for speech?
Is the UK not a government?
Retribution:
1. requital according to merits or deserts, esp. for evil.
2. something given or inflicted in such requital.
3. Theology. the distribution of rewards and punishments in a future life.
I agree with you completely regarding free speech.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Savage Weiner.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I was probably getting a touch overheated about this. I do have strong opinions about it. At least I'm not alone in the asylum.
"we're on top of it, no worries..." And go on with her day. It is not like the secretary of state does not have any more pending issues than wether or not some jackass can't go on a shopping spree for his wife in London, which is probably the only reason why a boob like Savage would even wanna leave the precious US of A.
I agree. Why not ban the guy? I don't get it.
on this one. As has already been pointed out Maher Arar has been banned from entering the US despite being cleared of any wrongdoing. Savage has committed no crime of which I'm aware. The fact that the US, Canada, Britain and just about every other country in the world bans individuals based on their distasteful opinions does not make it right.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
basis lambasting the US of A, or making cases against "undesirables" entering his precious country. Like Mr. Savage does.
It may not be a correct thing, from an ideological standpoint, for any country denying individuals entrance based on their opinions. The problem is that in this case, Mr. Savage should be the last one to protest, since he is basically requesting on a daily basis that the USA does the same to others, as the UK is doing to him. Thus, dues to his overwhelmingly hypocrisy some of us think that Mr. Savage doth protesting too much on this issue.
Furthermore, there is a big f*ck off difference between being extraordinarily renditioned, tortured, and then literally shat on by the USA legal system.... and being denying an entrance visa. The self centered nature of some Americans, that can with a straight face try to equate both situations is astounding sometimes...
They have a different idea and laws on how the press should operate, have an office of press oversight actually, so I gotta disagree with both you and John on this.
It's much easier to sue the press in GB than it is here for libel. He may have broken laws of which you are unaware.
However, I think it is more likely than an official in the Home Secretary's office somehow got ahold of his 'work' and probably shat himself. Books like his probably wouldn't be published there. The statement about his banning was focused on the hate, and how they don't want it in their house.
Would you want it in yours? Like I said, it IS their house.
me-oww!
that every sovereign nation has the right to ban whomsoever they please. The legality of this is not in question. I ask you to consider a parallel case. British MP George Galloway was banned from Canada. This was done because of his " material support for terrorist organizations". He had, at that time just completed a speaking tour in the US. I consider this Canadian ban something of a disgrace. I do not agree with Galloway's views but I absolutely agree with his right to come to my country and speak. Nor would I object to Savage coming to speak. These bans are a form of censorship and "censorship always serves the status quo". (D.F. Wallace)
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I totally disagreed w/ Canada on that, probably because I support Galloway's views on many things.
Hilarious. Thanks for pointing that out, Peter G.
me-oww!
Oh the irony! I don't disagree with the UK banning him though. He would not be welcome in my home.
to ban undesirables. I totally support their right to exercise selectivity. I do when having people to my place. It's why there are passports and visas and requirements to get into other countries. I'm just shocked that Rush and Beck Oreilly and Hammity weren't on it.
Great Britain is NOT the US, their laws are different; they exercise
moredifferent control over their press than is done here.First Savage said he had no interest in visiting Blighty, then he was going to sue them, now he's asking Hillary to waste her valuable time doing war prevention and talk to the Home Secretary.
That's not her fucking job, arsehole. You don't even want to go there.
me-oww!
The irony of this whole situation, a racist xenophobe complaining about being the victim of xenophobia, is doubleplusgood.
Hey, Weiner, there are consequences for spewing dreck.
Who is "spewing dreck"? And what are the consequences to him/her?
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I'm not arguing that Savage shouldn't have consequences for his speech. He is rightly reviled and criticised. Those are the consequences, in a free society, for spewing vitriol.
I'm stating that no government has no right to restrict his speech and no government has the right to take action against him for his speech.
Which should be apparent to anyone without argument.
If you don't get it, you never will.
(First, watch the double negative: NO government has NO right - means a government has the right.)
You must have this really cockamamie view of liberals/progressives if you think advocacy of free speech means free-for-all with no consequences. If Savage advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, the government would have the right to take action against him. If Savage advocated burning homeless people on the street, the civil authorities would have the right to take action against him.
Your simplistic no-rules is apparent to you, because you truly are 'without argument.'
I don't think you're examples are applicable to Savage.
Savage probably has the right in the abstract to advocate burning homeless people on the street, and in the abstract, to advocate the overthrow of the government. The governor of Texas, for instance, recently advocated succession. Although the legal distinction can be split pretty fine, in general my understanding is that forming a political party for the overthrow of the government, or inciting an angry mob to burn homeless people would be prohibited, but an idle opinion such as the governor's would not be.
To the best of my knowledge, Savage has done nothing but engage in idle talk. The militia folks love him, but he isn't affiliated with a militia. The racists love him, but he isn't affiliated with the KKK. Of course, even if he were, that wouldn't be enough to ban him. There are white supremacist groups and websites that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the current President, and in general would seek the violent overthrow of the government, who are probably protected by the First Amendment.
Violent people should be jailed. Anti-social destructive loudmouths, even if they are an influence on violent people, no.
I think this is sensible. I thought it was the liberal position. In the end, we will see who is vindicated. My guess is that Savage will, in the end, get considerable support from the left.
Comments are closed on this entry