He’s probably the worst of the major right wing talkers. How any halfway intelligent person can stand to listen to him for more than 5 minutes is beyond me. But he’s also a prime example of what I wrote about it in another thread (I’m the OP for “Do Right Wing talkers actually believe their own schtick” here on Great Debates). Years ago he was the stereotypical tree-hugging hippie and even wrote a few books on alternative medicine. But I guess he followed the money and today is so far to the right as to make Rush Limbaugh look like a tie-dye wearing friend of Bill Ayers.
In case you don’t remember, he was also the guy who get a fired a few years back from MSNBC for telling a gay caller “Oh, so you’re one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how’s that?”
And another classy comment he made years ago about female volunteers helping the homeless: “They can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it.”
He also suggested that Condeleeza Rice, a dyed-in-the-wool neo-con if there ever was one, was an affirmative action hire.
As a supporter of free speech I think this list put out by the British government is ridiculous, though at the same time I can understand why they wouldn’t want him in their midst.
Er yes, I didn’t actually realise this had submitted, I got distracted and never got around to finishing it. And of course I was going to see if people were aware of this.
He doesn’t sound that bad from his wikipedia article, just a standard eccentric guy with odd, possibly offensive, but not incredibly nasty views. And so I fancied the straight dope on why the scum in charge of my country have banned his entry.
You are right. It was 22 people last year and 101 or so since 2005. Still pretty tolerant.
I can name 22 people I’d ban from the country just in my open-plan office.
Awa?
On the slightly dodgy but realistic grounds that his presence and deliberately actions could lead to public disorder.
Compared to USA no-flight and similar ‘not welcome’ lists that until comparatively recently included Nelson Mandela this is amateur hour.
I am a conservative, but i can’t take Savage-he never talks at a volume level below a scream.
I’d let all these people in, personally. I don’t like seeing free speech superseded by the fear of what our own intolerant minorities might do in response to its exercise.
Whenever I hear the name of ultraconservative shock jock Michael Savage, I think of ultragay sex columnist Dan Savage* who, unlike Mr. Wiener, was born with the name.
Although I can understand not wanting him in the country, putting him on the list was stupid because (a) he doesn’t seem like that much of a threat and (b) it makes him seem a lot more important that he really is. Ironically, if the U.K. were less tolerant it wouldn’t be that big of a deal, but to include him on such a small list seems nonsensical. And although I’m cynical about his motives for threatening to sue, I think he’s justified in his complaint.
*Site contains some profanity and sexual language but no pornographic images.
ETA: I would support a ban on people known for consistently making explicit calls for violence, but not on people whose speech might incite violence in others (as I believe the responsibility in that case lies with the others and it opens the door to banning almost anyone with an unpopular view).
I’m a libertarian/conservative and I find Savage strident and offensive. I don’t listen to him. Lumping him in with neo-Nazis and terrorists may be stretching it a bit, however. I don’t think Savage had any plans to visit the UK anyway.
I think everyone should write to Michael Savage with questions about gay sex. The more graphic the better. Let’s make his head asplode!
Which head?
All you really need to know is that his real last name is Weiner. This probably explains why he 1) hates everyone, and 2) changed his name to something that conveys the complete opposite-- “Savage.”
“Savage Weiner” would make a good porn name, though…
By all means, let him in; and let him be picked up at the airport by a cab driver with secret instructions to ditch him on a random street in the East End of London.
Why? What do you think would happen to him?
What impression do you guys have of the East End of London?
This sounds like there might be some ignorance to be fought!
I agree. Savage is despicable, but it’s better to have these cockroaches out in the light where we can all examine what they have to say.
Mark Levin had it in for Michale Savage for a while and would often go on a little rant about ‘the Weiner Nation show’. I miss that. (Not really!)
I had the impression it was the most proletarian and minority-heavy (including black-heavy and Muslim-heavy) part of the city; but I guess BBC TV shows are not always reliable. If you know of a place in the UK where he’s more liable to get a stomping, please let us know.
To be perfectly honest there is practically nowhere in the UK that anyone, even an American tourist, is likely to get a stomping - generally most of the mindless violence is feral youth upon feral youth. Your best bets are definitely certain council estates around tea time or 2am - try somewhere in Hackney in North London.
Or if you fancy a trip further north, Dewsbury.
Unfortunately I can’t really be more specific as I don’t frequent these areas very much.
Our Muslim population, as well as normal jobs, mostly run corner shops and curry houses. They are usually more law abiding than the native populace and are certainly not going to attack a septic for no reason. Our black population - particularly recent Somali immigrants - are less law biding than the native populace, but they certainly don’t go around attacking you for no reason.
We’re a nice bunch, really. Apart from the government, who are really nasty bastards.
Oh, I know British cities are safer and more law-abiding than American, generally. I was wondering where an American RW bigoted asstard talkshow screamer is most likely to get a stomping.
I used to listen to Michael Savage back in the bay area before he was nationally syndicated. I never agreed with him at all, in the slightest, but I listened because I wanted to see what the other side thought.
Back then, he seemed to be a lot closer to someone who was basically reasonable, but who I strongly disagreed with, and he had a somewhat grandfatherly tone which I found honestly appealing. He also still talked some about herbal remedies and other stuff like that, clearly a carryover from his previous life. But as he got more and more popular, he became more and more aware of his own popularity, and more and more convinced that he was some kind of lone voice of truth who would go down in the history books as the savior of America, yada yada yada - and he got more and more extreme, etc. Now, as others have pointed out, he’s worse even than Ann Coulter.