Oh, the freaking irony: What Michael Savage said today.

[Joe Fields]

I'm one of these people who HAVE to monitor what the crazies are doing to whip the knuckle-dragging minions into a frenzy.

Today, on the "Savage Nation," Savage(Weiner) was spouting off about the Major at Ft. Hood, and how we need to investigate everyone in the armed services who is Muslim, because the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been infiltrated by terrorists. He just KNOWS that this was a religious jihad.

That wasn't the worst of it, though. He then went on to say (and this is your WTF moment) that the only way this country can be saved, is if we have a religious uprising and take back this country from the perverts and liberals.

So, to recap, Savage really doesn't mind a religious jihad, as long as it's HIS religious jihad.

Nice logic there, Mikey...


I have no comment, one way or the other about what happened yesterday. In a crime like this one, it takes a long time to sort things out. If you have been around awhile, like I have, the truth never comes out right away.

And on the subject of Savage and his ilk, they really should be banned from the airwaves and the radio and television stations that carry these messengers of hate should have their licenses permanently pulled.

I do believe in free speech, and embrace the first amendment, but there is a HUGE difference between a nut with a megaphone on a street corner, and a hate-mongering polished communicator that has millions of listeners every day that he/she knows can whip into a frenzy. It only takes one gunman to completely change the course of history.

With freedom comes responsibility, and to me, it is no different with speech. I see no difference in yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and intentionally creating fear, panic and anger on the airwaves, in order to incite easily manipulated losers.

[paulsby]

1. i love statements like

"i do believe in free speech BUT" and then you proceed to justify why you DON'T believe in free speech.

yes, savage spews hate. so does malloy fwiw. i listen to both on occasion.

i happen to AGREE with malloy more, but hate is hate

regardless, spewing hate is still free speech

even if one is on a radio station with lots of listeners

*if* you respected free speech, you wouldn't have used the ridiculous fire canard

first of all, it's FALSELY yelling fire

the case was schenck

schenck was SUPERSEDED by brandenberg. iow, the brandenberg standard is the law of the land, NOT schenck

oh, and also. the analogy about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater was the justification used to convict a WAR PROTESTOR.

his protesting war was tantamount to "yelling fire in a crowded theater"

it's so ironic, i could cut it with a ladle

[Joe Fields]

3. As I said, if you were listening, I believe that, with free speech

comes responsibility, but if you wish to defend what those inciters on the airwaves are spewing, then we're through talking.

One more thing: just because I called you a gun nut on another thread doesn't mean you can stalk me.

[paulsby]

9. spare me yer paranoia

i'm not stalking anybody. i always rebut people who try to do away with free speech, such as you.

i agree that with free speech comes responsibility. but that's a moral standard, not a legal standard.

you said he should be banned. iow, you want the power of govt. to PROHIBIT his free speech

you claim to believe in free speech and then clearly demonstrate you acually don't

fwiw, i respect both the 1st and the 2nd amendment. i don't even remember what "gun nut" instance you are referring to, but thanks for confirming with even more evidence, that you have a poor grasp on same

well, at least a poor understanding of the 1st and 2nd amendments

[Joe Fields]

21. I haven't clearly demonstrated any such thing. Only in your narrow mind.

It is you who seem to be paranoid about everything, except that, which is truly frightening. I see you don't put much stock in the right wing idiots who clog up the A.M. airwaves? Do you even listen to them? Do you have ANY idea what is going on? I think not, or you would not so casually dismiss them.

As for understanding the constitution and amendments, I do try, although I am not a constitutional lawyer. Are you?

[jbnow]

34. OK, I don't believe in free speech. I don't think

the phelps gang should be able to do their ugly thing at funerals.
I don't think people going to a clinic where abortions are done should have people there screaming at them.
I don't think that lies that inspire hate, fear or violence should be allowed over the air.
I don't think calls for violence are OK.

[obliviously]

8. I'm all for free speech too. As long as it's mine!

[paulsby]

13. lol . PERFECT nt

[Joe Fields]

18. Alright, let's go down this road, if you wish.

Let's say the unthinkable happens, and a moderate or liberal congressman or senator gets shot and killed by a gunman, who believes he/she was following Glenn Beck's command. Or, let's say, for the sake of argument, that somehow, someone assassinates the president, using the same Beck circumstance. Will it make you happy that free speech was protected? Would Beck, or your hatemonger of choice not share in any of the responsibility for the heinous act?

Would your feelings then change? Do you have an understanding as to the danger that these men create? The power that they hold? Or do you just laugh these idiots off? Do you understand the difference between the Neo-Nazis holding a public rally and a talk show host that reaches millions of viewers a day?

When the first amendment was written, no one could have imagined the technology created that could reach billions of people worldwide, instantly.

[obliviously]

23. I don't want him to have free speech just me.

I'm more responsible!

[Joe Fields]

24. you picked the right screen name, buddy.

[obliviously]

26. Why thank you pal!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Who Is Going To Decide What Speech Is Acceptable And Which Speech Isn't?

~

[Joe Fields]

36. That is a very good question, and probably the main reason why

these fomenters of hate are still on the air. Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, they all know that they're pushing the envelope. I understand the dilemma of this situation, but hate speech is pretty easily recognizable.

It might be a slippery slope, like so many the govt. and big business have forced us down, already.

I wonder if, instead of pulling these people off the air, if the govt. just can't charge them with some type of hate crime statute. These people do not have a legitimate place in our society.

It is one thing to criticize your political leadership. But these men crossed the line a long time ago. The bottom line is that they are dangerous and need to be held up as examples.

[cynatnite]

2. People like this truly scare the shit out of me...

They want THEIR rule of government and they want anyone not like them locked away or kicked out of the country. They also incite violence by their hateful talk.

[Joe Fields]

4. Those people, IMO, really are the most dangerous people in the U.S.

They have the ability to shape public opinion in a most harmful way. With people like them, this country will never become prejudice free.

[cynatnite]

6. The way they talk conjures up horrible images...

It's like they want to do away with us all which is why it's so frightening to me.

[paulsby]

15. the people who scare me

are the people who call for banning hatejocks. iow, a ninny like michael savage justifies trashing the 1st amendment

[Joe Fields]

20. hate speech breeds hate crimes. What is it about that, that you don't get?

So, let me get this straight; I scare you more than some unbalanced loser who listens to Glenn Beck, who has automatic weapons and a desire to kill a few "commie congressmen?

BOO!!!!!

[paulsby]

22. the 1st amendment doesn't have an exception for "breeding hate crimes"

it's crystal clear what it says, and what the SCOTUS said under brandenberg, which you, as a schenck citer (even though you missed the "falsely" part) apparently don't understand

is savage a putz? sure. is he hateful? heck yea. should he be BANNED, as you say?

no. not in a free country

[Joe Fields]

27. let me be clear. you would not be banning the freedom of speech by

kicking these sons of bitches off the public airwaves. They can go stand on a street corner and shout all the crazy bullshit they want to.

Nowhere in the first amendment does it say anything about television and radio, either.

[paulsby]

29. you cannot BAN without the power of govt

and thus, it's a first amendment violation

if the govt. BANNED me from using the internet, that would be a 1st amendment violation

note: the 1st amendment does not mention the internet, to borrow yer phrase

you are defending the indefensible. you called for BANNING savage. that means govt. action, and it's unconstitutional

i believe in the constitution. even for those who spew hate. it makes us different than many nations, and imo better

recall the ACLU defended the nazis right to march, even

if it's legal for nazi assholes to march through a town (how can you GET more hateful than that), savage is just a blip on the 1st amendment radar

[Joe Fields]

31. I hope denseness doesn't run in your family.

You truly do not understand the difference, between skinhead marchers and Glenn Beck? I'll give you a clue: the ability to reach millions of viewers every night, as opposed to maybe a few hundred people on one (that's one, as in 1)event. If you cannot see it, then fuck it, I give up on you.

[paulsby]

33. i hope lack of legal understanding doesn't run in yours

the scope of audience is irrelevant to the brandenberg standard, which is the legal standard by which such speech can be prosecuted.

it's clear that you, as a schenck citer (even though you did it wrong ), don't understand the LAW.

why don't you STUDY the law? you could improve your mind, instead of posting mindless drivel that runs contrary to US case law and our constitution

[Puzzler]

5. Fair enough, then let's have a jihad aginst all the anti-abortion religious wingnuts too...

... while we're at it, eh?

[Joe Fields]

10. Jihad for everyone, wheeeeeee!

:toast:

[Ozymanithrax]

7. The word is subversion...

1 : the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within

[kentuck]

11. Then, they would be subversives.

Right?

[Joe Fields]

14. Thank you. Succinct and well put.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Took a while

Today, on the "Savage Nation," Savage(Weiner) was spouting off about the Major at Ft. Hood, and how we need to investigate everyone in the armed services who is Muslim, because the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have been infiltrated by terrorists. He just KNOWS that this was a religious jihad.

-----------

They are so damn predictable....

The last time the country had this ahem issue it was one Father Coughlin which led to one Fairness Doctrine... that ain't gonna happen with the squids in DC.

[Joe Fields]

16. Yep, like a fine Swiss watch.

And I agree. Can you imagine the teabaggers reaction to the banning of a Savage or a Beck. There is zero political courage in Washington. (well, maybe 2% political courage.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Well fer a few of them... that second Ammendment does come to mind

and sadly I am serious.

Teabagger event, we went to counter protest... billionaire for a day.

Precious worlds....

They have the first amendment like we do (I respect that guy)

Second tea bagger... well they may have the first, I got the Second.

My retort... I have the second too, and are you making a threat?

Oh he walked away... but a few would reach for it.

[Joe Fields]

19. Some would jump at the chance to reach for it. Truly scary.

And the irony of those instances is that they have more freedom to carry at events than they ever have. No "free speech zones" either.

They cannot afford to allow logic to creep into their agenda, though. Their heads would split right down the middle.

[FrenchieCat]

25. He's still on?

I don't believe that we can find him here on the dial in the Bay Area; the place where he originated,
and if we can, please don't tell me....cause I said "Good riddance" long ago.

[Joe Fields]

28. you make a mistake by ignoring those people.

he was kicked off of his flagship station, but landed on another station in the bay area. I would love for him to take a long walk down a short pier.

[FrenchieCat]

30. If I ignore him, that's one less listener.....

Plus, I don't have that kind of time; to listen to haters hate.

[Joe Fields]

32. you had better take the time, and so should the rest of us.

It is because people ignored them that they have not been stopped dead in their tracks, and have been allowed to build rather substantial followings, which have impacted this country in a most negative way. Ignore at your peril.

[hayu_lol]

37. Mike Weenie was fired from his job at KGO, San Francisco...

and was picked up by the smaller SF station(sister station)KSFO.

[Mari333]

38. as much as I detest the words of the savage weiner

I still support his right to say them. I find it utterly amusing. He is so obvious. I listened to him last night and he knows who butters his bread. Hes a jew for petes sake, and he appeals his schtick to evangelical christians..what kind of sense does that make?? he knows who is listening to him and he knows how to keep his listeners happy, and keep his job.
Nonetheless, the first amendment is sacred and cannot be touched. even if nazis march in my town they have the right to do so. and I have the right to counter protest their march by standing there laughing at them.