Comments on: Why I Am Siding With … Michael Savage?

By: rexhump

rexhump — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:33:43 +0000

Thank you for not being a Kool Aid drinker and for seeing the issue where for what is it, this is censorship and unjust at that… Thank you for proving there are still people on the left that have some brains and not the typical leftist rhetoric.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:05:37 +0000

ks, dropped on head and loving it.

By: kensmith

kensmith — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:34:18 +0000

Michael Savage is 100% correct about everything. The truth is offensive to you people.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:13:22 +0000

OK, that was a partisan snark.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:51:36 +0000

What is partisan about any of my posts about this subject? ~ AR

Did you forget your own comment from earlier? Here it is again:

It never ceases to amaze me how anti-free expression most Liberals really are. ~ AR

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:49:34 +0000

JS - why 'sorry AR'? What is partisan about any of my posts about this subject?

All I ever did is defend the concept of free speech. I made a point of saying I never listen to Savage or Rush. I have said many times before I find commentators like them bloviating idiots.

Equating the talk of a Savage or a Rush to yelling fire in a crowded theater IS partisan, though, as it would be to say the same for an Olbermann or a Randi Rhodes. I don't listen to them either, but have no objection to their right to say whatever stupid things they want.

As for America having had more common sense in the past about free speech, are you referring to the days of party-run newspapers and their political smear campaigns every election, or to Sedition laws?

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:32:26 +0000

Well hells bells, all I said is that if he comes to a party at my house I'll throw his sorry ass out. If someone else want's to listen to his raving, be my guest. As for freedom of speech, such as it is in the 21st century (think republican accepted so-called “free speech zones”) my position on it is based on the law. As we all know, yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn't appropriate, which to my mind isn't so terribly far from a foaming at the mouth nut like Savage spewing his hateful blather into a crowd of gullible, reactionary morons. Maybe the UK just has a little more common sense in this area… sort of like America used to.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:29:18 +0000

GD you are either purposely misleading people or just don't know what you are talking about.

Airyn Bell was denied a visa because of a paperwork snafu which has already been rectified.

Narendra Modi was previously denied entrance to the United States due to his role in riots that overtook the Indian state of Gujarat from February to May 2002 in which 2,000 Muslims were killed, thousands raped, and over 200,000 displaced. Numerous reports, including reports of official bodies of the Government of India, have documented the role of Modi's state government in the planning and execution of the violence, and the failure to hold perpetrators accountable.

Aamir Bashir Khan was supposed to star with Shahrukh Khan but couldn't because his passport was on hold. Meaning it wasn't a US visa problem and he wasn't rejected for any free speech issues.He was one of those 6. If his was his own fault I sorry the idea that the US is "banning" any of those is without reasonable merit.

Members of terrorist organizations? You think a radio loudmouth should be equated with terrorists?

Amy Winehouse - are you referring to the visa she was denied right after being charged with assault in the UK or the one she applied for while she was in lockdown rehab? BS example if you ask me because why wouldn't we want violent drug addicts to visit.

John Demjanjuk - the nazi prison guard who was deported? Are you kidding me?

Cuban and Iranian officials? What are you smoking?

By: Celebritylife.org

Celebritylife.org — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 03:24:04 +0000

Celebritylife.org tracking back – Why I Am Siding With…. Michael Savage ??…

Celebritylife.org tracking back – Why I Am Siding With…. Michael Savage ??…

By: michaelwade

michaelwade — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:46:30 +0000

Mr: GreenDreams:
Once again, an impressive display of good research to make an important point! As a country, we are not restricting our own citizens' free speech, but simply letting people from outside our borders know that the right to come here is a privilege, and the things that one may say or do can determine whether that privilege is granted (the obnoxious party guest analogy from JSpencer's comment earlier is perfect). Great Britain apparently has a similar philosophy, and I, for one, am going to be disappointed if they relent and decide to let Mr. Savage in.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:56:48 +0000

Maybe EEllis, but UK has more Islamic immigrants than us. They don't need to invite trouble by letting a someone come and stir up racial hatred there. Why should they? It's like inviting a "guest" to your home who insults your relatives and calls you an idiot for putting up with them. Who needs a guest like that? Savage (aka Michael Weiner - I know him) has set himself up as a loudmouthed troublemaker. Here's the British statement, with which I happen to agree: ""This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," The rest of the list of 16 is here. Let me know if you personally would invite any of them into your home: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/1...

Frankly as I've suggested, I don't think our country would be any more accommodating. For example:

The Clinton administration has denied a visa to Cuban National Assembly
President Ricardo Alarcón to travel to the United States for an international
parliamentary conference

Although the United States has continued to grant the visas, it does sometimes refuse entry to Iranian government officials and professionals.

US immigration authorities have rejected a bid by alleged Nazi guard John Demjanjuk to keep his American visa.

Troubled British singer Amy Winehouse’s plans for a massive American comeback gig were shattered Sunday night after she was denied a US work visa.

Haaretz’s Akiva Eldar brings the bracing news that the Obama administration is contemplating denying U.S. visas to any Israeli politicians who were members of Kahane Chai. The party is designated by both the U.S. and Israel as a terrorist organization. The most prominent individual affected would be Avigdor Lieberman who, Haaretz claims, was a party member briefly after he arrived from his native Moldova:

"My Name Is Khan" stars Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol and is currently being shot in Los Angeles. The six team members who were denied a visa also included SRK’s personal staff and others from the production team reported Mid Day.

Airyn Bell, wife of radio talk show legend Art Bell, has been denied a U.S. Visa.

Claiming that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi is planning to apply for the US visa to attend the World Gujarati Conference in New Jersey in August, as many as 25 Indian American organisations urged the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he should not be allowed to enter the country under any circumstances.

By: EEllis

EEllis — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:11:52 +0000

while I personally dislike Savage and think the UK has the right to do what they want, it ain't my country, this action has lowered my opinion of the “freedom” of the UK. First Ireland then the big brother, 1984 ish cameras on every corner, now this. I truly don't believe that the UK is as “Free” as we are.

By: michaelwade

michaelwade — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:45:21 +0000

Mr. GreenDreams:

Thank you for your input. I couldn't have said it better.

Michael Wade

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:50:57 +0000

Just don't try it with the badly photoshopped Jack Russell terrier. They're not that cute and hence would make an awful smoothie. Try Pomeranian and pomegranate. Delicious and loaded with antioxidants.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:55:19 +0000

Do you guys stay up nights to dream stuff up to get outraged about?

Why yes, as a matter of fact that is exactly what I use my evenings for. I find it relaxing.

That, and following Glenn Reynold's recipe for a yummy puppy smoothie!

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:58:15 +0000

In case no one has noticed, this country has an enormous list who are not allowed to fly. Not a speech ban, but a travel ban. In the EU no one from the govt of Zimbabwe is allowed, most places refuse travel visas to Nazi groups. In the USA, foreign members of various groups are banned, individual members of which may or may not be provocateurs, let alone terrorists. The UN will impose a travel ban on everyone from N. Korea.

Our right to free speech applies only to American citizens, and only in America. We can, and do, keep out people for a vast array of reasons, some reasonable, some not. The USA, with a substantial population of African Americans and Hispanics, is under ZERO obligation to allow travel to the US by anyone who advocates violence against these minorities, or ideed, any American. We need not allow anyone to come exercise "free speech" that advocates violence or hate of an kind.

Get it? "Free speech" guarantees do not extend to foreign nationals here, nor does it or should it extend to foreign governments with respect to Americans seeking travel visas.

Do you guys stay up nights to dream stuff up to get outraged about?

By: michaelwade

michaelwade — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:16:03 +0000

Last comment. Not attacking all metaphors….just that one.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:51:55 +0000

michael -

Last comment.

That is because you still fail to see the real point. You cannot pick and choose who's right to free speech you will defend and who's you will not. You either believe in and defend free speech as a basic right, for good and bad, or you advocate censorship.

And I do not believe your defense, to be frank. I believe you started to realize what you were saying, and are now trying to cover your tracks. If you are going to attack all metaphors, then why believe in anything.

"Give me Liberty or Give me Death". Most people believe in the concept, very few will actually die for it. Does that invalidate the concept?

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden,
meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty."

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

Again, great concepts, but literal?

By: michaelwade

michaelwade — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:32:36 +0000

Though my comments may have sounded like a call for suppression of free speech, my purpose was to point out the hyperbole of the statement “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. It's hyperbole because the statement is clearly an exaggeration of what's probably true in this case. I can understand a person saying that he would fight to “the death” to defend this country if it were being attacked ( as in World War Two, for example), but implying that you would actually give up your life to defend Michael Savage's right to rant just doesn't seem believable to me. Sorry.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:50:22 +0000

Wow, a lot of commentors here have no idea what the freedom of speech is all about. I think some of you need to go back to grade school and learn the bill of rights, maybe touch up on the constitution a little bit.

Savage is an a$$, but he has the legal right to express his opinions.

What people don't understand is that the right to free speech cuts both ways. You have the right to express your opinions. Meaning you have a right to expose to the country that you are a massive ahole. Savage's free speech exposes him for what he really is...that is what is so great about free speech.