Posted on 07/19/2009 1:48:41 AM PDT by xtinct
Britain's incoming home secretary says ban on radio talker's travel to be lifted
Radio talker Michael Savage told WND he was "stunned" by the quick decision by incoming United Kingdom Home Secretary Alan Johnson to scrap his predecessor's list of people banned from Britain – a list that included Savage along with Islamic hate preachers and terrorists.
Savage had sued outgoing Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for libel for listing him, along with 15 others, as "least wanted" visitors in the country. Meanwhile, Smith's successor, Alan Johnson, called the move a terrible blunder and told the London Daily Mail he would scrap the policy of maintaining such enemies lists.
"I am stunned by this sudden sign of sanity in the UK government," Savage told WND. "But I won't believe it until they send a letter to me confirming it."
Savage said he also demands an apology from Smith.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I just hope he moves there for life.
yitbos
That’s a very inteligent viewpoint. Savage was banned for merely speaking his mind and you want him to leave the country. You really don’t have to listen to him. Who’s side are you on anyway?
I like Rush.
And this thread has nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh.
So....explain why you’re against Savage’s right to free speech.
Oh please get off you high horse. People on Sarah Palin threads talk about Obama. What is the difference. I stand by my statement. If that ruffles you up too bad.
High horse has nothing to do with it.
You trolled the thread because you obviously don’t care for Savage.
I don’t care much for flag burners....but sure am glad people still have the right to do it.
I agree with you, but remember that in England they don’t have the right to free speech. We do thankfully here.
I don’t mind flag-burners, as long as they wrap themselves in it before lighting...Otherwise revert to the “defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic” clause.
Brit law on slander/libel is different from US and Mike S has a chance to really nail that clown. She is chumming the water right now with all this "I got no training!" stuff. Pathetic.
Michael Savage is the best of all talk show hosts. He’s brilliant, funny, insightful, quick, ironic and a regular guy. Three cheers for Savage!
I Like Cake!
Thank God for Rush, Savage would've never got this ban rescinded without the support of such radio titans like Rush and Hannity. (Barf)
Savage has points of views that with which I agree. Obama has points of view with which I disagree. Are you in disagreement with Savage's views? You agree with Obama?
He's a loudmouth idiot weinerhead.
Embarrassing speech is still free speech and should not be cause for being barred admission to the UK.
I’m glad to hear this. Savage is probably the most intelligent and best educated of the conservative talk show crowd. When it comes down to it, he can bring a heck of a lot more intellectual firepower to bear on an argument than the others. A lot more depth; you just have to listen rather than react to his bluster.
Thinking that Weiner is unlistenable does not mean I agree with Obama. Nice false choice there, but you really should work on your entrapment skills.
I prefer Rush and Levin.
Would you mind pointing out where I said that I agreed he should be banned from the UK? I merely said that Weiner did not need assistance from the UK government to embarrass himself.
Soaked in diesel, lots of diesel.
Well put!
Gasoline, easier to light...or a mixture.
But that still does not negate the fact that a totally uncalled-for injustice was visited upon him by the UK government.
Right?
Great. Agreed.
I feel less comfortable with Hannity. Medved and Hewitt give me occasional heartburn because I see liberalism sneaking through from time to time.
When they annoy me I change the channel.
Bottom line, though, is that we don't need to trash these guys. For the most part, they are on our side. Liberalism is the real enemy, from my perspective.
Again: I never said the UK was right to ban Weiner. I merely said that Weiner does not need anyone’s assistance to embarrass himself. Grouping Weiner with terrorist mullahs is absurd, and I’m glad the stupid ban was scrapped.
Savage doesn’t need any help in embarrassing himself.
“I merely said that Weiner does not need anyone’s assistance to embarrass himself. “
Nor do any of us, I imagine.
And he'll have no shortage of cash (donated by his loyal listeners to his "defense fund") to buy all the weiners his duplicitous heart desires.
He may even stop laughing long enough to shove them in his pie hole with out choking.
I was wondering about that. Did Savage get any support at all from other talk radio hosts?
No! Communism is the real enemy. The abolitionists were liberals.
I’m all for his right to free speech. And I’m completely opposed to the UK ban.
On the other hand, I don’t have much respect for a guy who can’t even broadcast under his real name.
Interesting analysis. I agree with some of that, but here’s my take, FWIW.
Limbaugh - Intelligent, witty. Obviously the original. His only flaw so far as I’m concerned is his insistence on remaining “above the fray” so far as other talkers are concerned. I see more professional competitiveness in him than others in his refusal to align with, or acknowledge them (except for Hannity and Levin, of course).
Levin - By far the smartest of them all. I listen to him at every opportunity. My only criticism of him is that he doesn’t debate lefty callers as effectivly as he’s capable. He’s lazy about that. I know he can eviscerate them if he’s patient with them. The shoutdowns are entertaining, but I’d rather see him pick their carcasses apart slowly.
Prager - I think he’s the most original thinker of them all in some respects. He’ll question underlying assumptions and conventional wisdom more readily and cleverly than most. Where I now live we don’t get Salem shows and I really miss him. Negative: “The Happiness Hour,” if he still does that. This was the one time I’d turn off his show and look for something else.
Medved - I really like him. Again I miss his show. My favorite thing about him is his willingness to bring in a lefty for an entire hour and debate him. I also like his treatment of leftist callers - he really engages them. The funny thing about Medved is that I’d put him as closer to libertarian than any other talker (except Bortz, of course) - yet he’s harshly cricial of libertarians, calling them “losertarians.” Small negative - his slavishness on adhering to the three-one-hour-segments format. It would be ok to go over once in a while if you’re on an interesting topic, Michael!
Hewitt - Less conservative than the rest, but very smart. He gives a bit of an “insider” flavor more so than the others, which can be good or bad, but which often helps provide some credibility. He’s GREAT on judicial stuff....not so good on economics.
Hannity - OK, I watch his show. And I listen to him fairly often as well. He’s engaging and ideologically solid. But he’s clearly the least bright of them all. And he can be stupifyingly repetitious. If there’s one conservative talker about whom the allegation of spewing “talking points” might have some validity, it’s Hannity. I woudln’t be surprised to learn he’s never read anything by Hayek, Friedman, Burke, Rand, Mises, or any of the great conservative thinkers. He just strikes me as a genial guy who looks good on tv, and has a pretty suface-level understanding of conservative/libertarian doctrine.
Savage/Weiner - He’s just not a conservative. Ironically, like O’Reilly, who he hates, he’s a populist. I think O’Reilly is more genuine, though. Savage is pro-union, protectionist, and believes in Global-Warming. Of the entire bunch, he’s the one who I could believe says things he doesn’t even believe. I’ll never forget that he interviewed Jerry Falwell and was shocked - or claimed to be - that Falwell believed you can’t get into heaven if you don’t accept Christ. If he was legitimately surprised that Falwell believed that, he’s a dope. If he wasn’t, it just shows he’s a huckster who says whatever he thinks will get an audience. Having said all this, I do appreciate his willingness to say things others won’t - I just doubt that he really believes them.
AND I HAVE TO ADD.....Mike Church. If you can afford satellite radio, it’s worth it just to get Church’s show. He’s a self-trained authority on the founding fathers, and a true constitutionalist. Not in the University-trained sense, but in the sense that he’s taken the time and trouble to really learn about the men, their writings, and their times. He’s produced a couple of audio documentaries on the subject and they’re fascinating. He’s also very entertaining and spot-on ideologically. Give him a listen if you get the chance - he’s one of the best things on radio.
Hank
I was very disappointed when Rush supported the Dubai ports deal. I don’t think he’s ever changed his mind on that.
A few months ago, he was still in favor.
You won’t find much sympathy from me on that particular issue.
“Did Savage get any support at all from other talk radio hosts”
You mean the radio hosts Savage trashes on his show? LOL
How do we know it is Weiner we are hearing over the radio and not some ten year old kid from Ohio?
Would there be much difference?
I, too, wish that Rush would take sides within our ranks a bit more. Truly, I wish he'd run for the highest office in the land. He does too well where he's at, now, though. It did frustrate me quite a lot when he was “carrying the water” for liberal Republicans, including Bush, whom I believe wasn't much better than Obama lite.
I'm not sure I agree with you on Medved, though. His enthusiasm for McCain soured me quite a lot. Additionally, I've reached a point whereby I don't enjoy listening to the debates with the average liberal schmuck. Air America is a bust precisely because very few people can listen to libs. It's like a fly buzzing in your ear. Occasionally, one comes on who can support his point with actual, classical debate. But usually even that is based upon very subjective interpretations of events. Those discussions are almost tolerable, but not quite.
Prager is still doing thee “happiness hour”, on which you and I are in agreement. But I feel he deals with liberal “scholars” the best, establishing very well their true colors.
Levin is brilliant, for sure. The shouting bothers me, though. I think he'd do better if he'd be more calmly informative.
I don't trust Hewitt. I have respect for his knowledge of law, but I think he's willing to use it to further his clientele at my pocketbook's expense.
Savage says stuff that needs to be said. And, bless him, he says a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be said. I like him, but I don't listen much because of the anger. I have enough anger all by myself.
Nice to hear from you. I'll look for this Church guy, but I'm not looking at sat. radio at the moment.
“No! Communism is the real enemy. The abolitionists were liberals.”
Ok. Point taken. But the definition has changed, by popular acceptance, with the times, and moves on to progressivism. Once they've sullied that enough they'll call themselves something else. They even managed to convince Republicans that conservatism (a term which has its own history) was ugly, so they had to use the term “compassionate conservatism”, which, surprise, was liberalism, or socialism, or communism, if you please. And communism is applied Marxism, no? Which gets us back to RINOs, B.O., Reid and Pelosi. At least we both recognize the enemy, huh?
Thanks for posting Xtinct and thanks to WITT for the heads up!
“Savage ban to be lifted?” (UK)
I've listened to virtually every show for nearly 15 years. He has mentioned the books he's written under his own name. One book for example is Herbs That Heal. Amazon: by "herbalists Michael and Janet Weiner this is a practical A to Z consumer guide to drug-free remedies. It contains the most up-to-date scientific studies ..." Their picture is on the paperback version.
He used to do a lot of this kind of stuff when he was strictly local (KSFO). I learned a lot and really appreciate it.
He's made no effort to hide his real identity and past. IMO there's nothing unusual about a media figure having a professional name (or a past). Big deal.
Personally I do not like his name-calling of fellow conservatives, that started shortly after his national show started. He's stated on the air that his family says, stop it!
In my opinion he definitely does not express opinions to attract listeners. After 15 years he sounds the same to me -- except as noted above (name-calling of competitors) and thankfully! he no longer tells risqué jokes. Some people just cannot tell "dirty" jokes.
As you pointed out he is willing to say things others won’t. That is true and it gets him all kinds of attention.
Since the name-calling of competitors (including authors especially Coulter) started I figure that as long as the good outweighs the bad I'll keep listening.
The man has guts. Like him or not.
Iran gets in on the Michael Savage bashing.
Not in decades has a media personality taken on America's foreign enemies the way Dr. Savage has. While other talk show hosts deserve our thanks for outstanding support of our military and their mission nevertheless national talk show hosts are lacking in taking on the enemy of America the way Dr. Savage has. IMO. To be fair I did hear Mark Levin dare CAIR to come after him. A few tepid remarks from time to time just don't cut it.
If there are other radio personnel targeted by the Islamic Republic of Iran or other radical Islamist enemies I am not aware of them.
I think Savage deserves the recognition despite his severest critics.
Well at least the tyrants in Iran have a cute little name for him, Dajjal. A little classier than the Savage-haters here in the states, like $#&^! *(#%^! Yeah, like those.
Wow, the leading cause of terrorism in the world, the Islamic Republic of Iran, has taken offense at our own Michael Savage!
What other talk show host can boast that? There is one: Rusty Humphries http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99331
Yes indeed. I think it's high time we (millions of us) take the language back from the RATs and just blatantly use stolen terms with their original definitions.
So if you or someone feels a mild euphoria or are in a generally giddy state of mind...state that you are gay (in the traditional sense) If anyone says anything, reply; "Not homosexual, who said anything about that you pervert."
Same with liberal...recite the actual definition and refer to the abolitionists and the original civil rights initiatives of the GOP and the history of the GOP regarding black and women candidates and voting rights etc.
There must be a million of them, we just need to get people used to hearing them in proper context.
On the other hand, let's not hesitate to refer to the RATs as American Socialists, or Communists if they happen to be particularly egregious....RINOs are Marxists as well just to be fair and balanced. At least we both recognize the enemy, huh?
Absolutely, now if someone would please tell me what we are allowed to do with them once we capture "enemies domestic"
“Absolutely, now if someone would please tell me what we are allowed to do with them once we capture “enemies domestic””
They used to coat them in hot tar, douse them in feathers and ride them out of town on a rail. It would be a very appropriate, if uncomfortable end for most of today’s congressional representatives, in both houses.
Now those "enemies domestic" have the White House and Congress, appointing "czars" and we Americans are about to be czarred and fettered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.