Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan America's most cuddly right wing talk show host is forbidden to enter the UK, and he's steaming mad about it. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8037025.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ame...7025.stm</a> It's odd he would have a problem with this. All England wants to do is preserve their borders, language and culture.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Yet, if it was the U.S., Savage would be touting that America has the right to prevent whomever they wish from entering this country and speaking (e.g. Hugo Chavez). It American sovereignty, gosh-dangit! BTW, freedom of speech is in the American Constitution Mr. Savage. The Brits have a much more…flexible notice of rights and liberties. Their “constitution” is whatever they say it is at the time it is said. Strange (to us), but true nevertheless.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Funny, isn't it, that he decries it when people here sue for their rights. He mocks the ALCU, screams about "activist" judges, wants all sorts of folks he disagrees with tried for "sedition." But when the shoe is on the other foot, it's wee, wee, wee all the way home. He bellows about borders, yet thinks he has a God-given right to go to a country that does not want him. More hypocrisy.
Originally Posted By Mr X Apparently someone who called for an Impeachment less than 2 weeks after the Inauguration. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJkOz3afFY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...kOz3afFY</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc While Michael Savage is an easy target, I have mixed feelings about this. Many European countries have strict laws against "hate speech." While we have "fighting words" laws, Europe's hate speech and "extremist" laws are much more stringent. I remember reading a story where a woman in France was denied French citizenship because she wore a Muslim headscarf. It was defined as "extremist clothing." Part of me is sympathetic, but it does seem like a can of worms. Where do you draw the line and when does that line simply become, we disagree with you so, sorry, it's "hate speech." What controls are there in place? It's tricky.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Where do you draw the line and when does that line simply become, we disagree with you so, sorry, it's "hate speech." What controls are there in place? It's tricky.<< Oh yeah, I hear ya. But it's still fun just to see this goofball on the receiving end of the big snub for once, especially since he's got more than a few opinions about who should be run out of the country (usually, anyone with politics different from his own.)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But it's still fun just to see this goofball on the receiving end of the big snub for once, especially since he's got more than a few opinions about who should be run out of the country (usually, anyone with politics different from his own.)<< Absolutely. And I think the criticisms of Savage are spot on - no doubt he'd be defending this very behavior if it were someone else that he just happened to disagree with.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Poor Michael Weiner...still bitter over Allen Ginsberg after all these years...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 My guess is if the Brits had just banned the Muslim extremists they also banned, he'd have been on his radio show extolling it, praising the Brits, and asking why the US couldn't do the same thing. He really doesn't see his own similarities to them, or why the Brits would see them in a similar light.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He should cut the act and stop acting like a moron. (That was his advice regarding kids with autism.)
