Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Michael Savage banned in UK

posted by Susan Johnson

OMH! How funny is it that they actually banned Michael Savage in the UK? They let in radical Islamist imams but not a talk show host:

Talk radio host Michael Savage is considering legal action against Britain’s top homeland security official after she released today a list grouping him with terrorists and neo-Nazi murderers banned from entry because the government believes their views might provoke violence.

He may be a xenophobe but I wouldn’t lump him with the terrorists, would you?
His response?

“Darn! And I was just planning a trip to England for their superior dental work and cuisine,” he recalled thinking.
“Then it sank in,” he told WND, “and I said, ‘She said this is the kind of behavior we won’t tolerate? She’s linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?’”

He plans to sue for defamation.
BTW, I think it’s smart to ban Fred Phelps, he’s pretty nutty and would probably try to protest funerals while he was there (they banned his daughter as well — I guess no family vacations in England for them).
(via)



Advertisement
Comments read comments(13)
post a comment
*yawn*

posted May 5, 2009 at 11:15 pm


If he had his way, the moneyed, white Christians would still be in charge of the world. Now, he’s feeling the backlash. After decades – nay, centuries – of marginalizing others, they balk at being relegated to the margins, themselves.
Welcome to the margins, Savage. Enjoy your stay.
Your own medicine tastes good, don’t it?
Why is it that bigots like Savage feel they should be given a free pass? What exactly is wrong with treating those b**tards the way they’ve treated everyone else for so long?
One would think, being a traditionalist, that the tradition of there being consequences for words and deeds would be welcomed.



report abuse
 

Dean

posted May 5, 2009 at 11:50 pm


Michael Savage on Autism:
“Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.
What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”
Autism — everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said — “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.”
I don’t believe in banning people from the airwaves. But if I were going to, a great place to start would be with bigoted idiots like Mr. Savage.



report abuse
 

Robert Morwell

posted May 6, 2009 at 12:19 am


Savage is an epic jerk.
But his banning from the UK is silly and intolerate.



report abuse
 

Cheryl

posted May 6, 2009 at 1:13 am


Michael Savage is banned from England! Using its same freedom-hating standards, Britain should now ban from its shores that “hate-fostering extremist” known as Jesus – and of course also ban the Queen since she is officially the “Defender of the Faith” that Jesus started!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 6, 2009 at 2:38 am


“Why is it that bigots like Savage feel they should be given a free pass? What exactly is wrong with treating those b**tards the way they’ve treated everyone else for so long? One would think, being a traditionalist, that the tradition of there being consequences for words and deeds would be welcomed.” That was the most shallow assessment of disagreeable speech I have ever seen. Not a single example. In more flowery language, you said, he said meany things so he should be shut up: “Why is it that bigots like Savage feel they should be given a free pass”. Free pass? A pass is something government gives out. Speech is free. Should he pay a costly pass to announce his views?
“What exactly is wrong with treating those b**tards the way they’ve treated everyone else for so long?” Whose speech has Savage ever denied, in the same way you want his denied? He argues against his opponents, you argue to silence your opponents. “One would think, being a traditionalist, that the tradition of there being consequences for words and deeds would be welcomed.” That is a conflated heap of nothingness. If the consequences of words and deeds are to silence opinion, the CONSEQUENCES are the evil, irrespective of the argument. He said words you dont like. You dont like his words. I dont know what his ‘deeds’ were, other than writing books.
All in all you have just given an argument, without specifics, why it is justified to silence and ban someone whose views you dont like. Who is the danger? Who is the evil? I am not a friggin supporter of Savage. I believe in his right to speak. But I have seen the signs of Muslim extremists at protests in Britain. If those crazies are the acceptable norm and Savage is the crazy, maybe the citizens of GB should look to emigrate. They are not welcome, like Michael Savage.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted May 6, 2009 at 7:21 am


Savage can be entertaining – but credible? No.
What is disturbing is the banning of political speech. If stations choose to not air the show, that’s a business decision. If stations are prohibited by the government from airing the show, that’s government censorship of political speech. Two very different things.
Understanding that I’m not entirely sure what protections are in place in England for political speech – they do not have our Constitution.
If he had his way, the moneyed, white Christians would still be in charge of the world.
I believe Savage is Jewish.



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted May 6, 2009 at 7:58 pm


This is one of the few Savage interviews I’ve ever heard … and I don’t care for his skepticism, although that could just be how he interviews. I appreciate very much that he allows the guest to speak at length and quite freely:
Michael Savage Interviews Carl Anderson, 5/8/08.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted May 6, 2009 at 10:00 pm


Savage is a true cynic. He can be entertaining, but too cynical for me to enjoy.
The bottom line should be NOT “is Savage worth listening to”? It should be about whether or not government censorship of political speech should be encouraged or applauded.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm


you haven’t given up reading world NUT daily yet?
the united kingdom allows radical islamist imams so they should also allow the radical, western ultra-conservative dolts? i don’t think so.
“It should be about whether or not government censorship of political speech should be encouraged or applauded.”
because not all speech is “free.” they banned him because he is that radical. they banned him for the same reasons as they banned neo-nazis and fred phelps (which michele is apparently in agreement with).
there’s actually a crackpot that drives around my neighborhood with a “michael savage 08″ bumper sticker.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted May 8, 2009 at 7:20 am


As I said, they do not have our constitution. We do have freedom of political speech here and we will soon come up against the question of whether or not we get to ban speech based on whether or not we agree with it.
If you have a quote from Michele supporting the ideas of Phelps (which is different from supporting his right to free speech), I would sure appreciate it if you used it. Otherwise, this is (yet another) false accusation.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 11, 2009 at 1:35 pm


The sentiment of liberals is that speech they really really dont like (note the 2 ‘reallys’) should be banned.
Case in point, anonymous reincarnate – “the united kingdom allows radical islamist imams so they should also allow the radical, western ultra-conservative dolts? i don’t think so.”
“i don’t think so” – Socrates couldn’t have afforded us a better retort.
“because not all speech is “free.” they banned him because he is that radical. they banned him for the same reasons as they banned neo-nazis and fred phelps (which michele is apparently in agreement with).”
Again, no reason, just this inbred’s moral compulsion that the speech that offended him/her/hermaphrodite justifies silencing it. Shame that the first amendment gets such short shrift.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 12, 2009 at 4:22 am


“We do have freedom of political speech here and we will soon come up against the question of whether or not we get to ban speech based on whether or not we agree with it.”
you mean like when bush had his lackeys haul out people who wore “no blood for oil” tees? or the handful of other documented cases of bush silencing and/or punishing those who spoke out against his policies?
“If you have a quote from Michele supporting the ideas of Phelps (which is different from supporting his right to free speech), I would sure appreciate it if you used it. Otherwise, this is (yet another) false accusation.”
i didn’t write that she agrees with his ideas. i wrote that she agrees with the ban. her quote: “BTW, I think it’s smart to ban Fred Phelps”. she didn’t seem so quick to support his free speech rights, huh? so park your “false accusation” and pull out a pair of reading glasses.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 12, 2009 at 5:03 am


Your Name, i see that you are incapable of reading intelligently, so you resort to name calling. it’s a true shame that ellen is too much of a hypocrite just like our gracious host to criticise you for that.
obviously, invoking socrates’s name doesn’t take the stupid out of you.
no worries, i’ll help you out. i’ll try to keep the words small and the sentences short (just like on the bag of your happy meal). maybe this way you won’t get lost.
the “case in point” is exactly that the uk has it wrong and so does michele. if they ban savage because his “speech” is radical and considered a danger to the stability of the country, then they should apply that measure equally across the board, including radical islamist imams. it’s not that allowing radical imams to broadcast should imply that savage should not be banned.
get it now, limpy?
by the way, asspimple, what the uk bans in the uk matters not to me, so your assumption is as wrong as the thought of you propagating your genetic ignorance through procreation.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Reformed Chicks Babbling. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:05:14pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.