Barred from entry to the UK

[headscratcher4]

But Savage is an American. We pulled their butts out of the fire in the Big WWII...they should welcome him!

 

[Architect]

The next time we have to storm a French beach under heavy German machine gun fire, then he's more than welcome at the front of the queue. Until then, he can b****r back of to his own country.

 

[Nogbad]

I have seen Savage on Fox News - he is a nasty mean hearted twit.

As a parent of an autistic child I am delighted he is not welcome to spew his poison.

Although not on the list I'm guessing Osama isn't invited.

In fact I am not sure what the point of this is really - there must be way more than 16 feckwits we don't want here.

In the UK you can claim compensation if attacked provided your behaviour was not reckless and did not contribute to the assault. They should have let Fred come over.

 

[rwguinn]

I'm torn on this one. I despise Weiner (his real name) but am somewhat uncomfortable with him being banned by the UK for the views he espouses which are not that far out of the mainstream. There is definite separation between him and, say, David Duke (who I note is not on the list). Indeed, even the Phelpses, as odious as they are, shouldn't be banned.

On the third hand, it's not my country, and I always support the rights of other countries to make their own decisions as to whom to allow entry.

It's their country, and if they are happy about it, so am I.
But I do expect the self-righteous tone to be turned down a bit when it comes to US policies, or Isriali policies, or any other country.
But it won't happen.

 

[Lonewulf]

Self-righteous meaning "We care about this issue and disagree with you on it", of course, in the stead of "We'll do whatever you want and take it up the behind!"

 

[Agatha]

What happens if they all train to be Gurkhas?

Then they definitely can't come in unless they have 20 years service or a medal.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hmmm...

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://vodpod.com/watch/1550994-audio-wow-shocker-michael-savage-said-something-crazy-goodasyou

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.

Linky.

About the problem of the Jews:

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]At one point in the exchange, Savage seemed ready to advocate violence against Jews. But he stopped short of spelling it out. [/FONT] [FONT=arial, sans-serif]"I'll tell you the truth, it's enough to break your heart to see what this country has become," he said. "And I have a lot of things that I really want to say today, that I'm going to have to control myself and not say, because there are things that need to be done that I can't say. But the country's at a terrible, terrible balancing point." [/FONT]

Linky.

Very mainstream.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm torn on this one. I despise Weiner (his real name) but am somewhat uncomfortable with him being banned by the UK for the views he espouses which are not that far out of the mainstream. There is definite separation between him and, say, David Duke (who I note is not on the list). Indeed, even the Phelpses, as odious as they are, shouldn't be banned.

It's not just their views, though. They show a flagrant disregard for the law and a very obvious goal of pure, outright trolling.

 

[Lonewulf]

SAVAGE: There are too many RDDBs [red-diaper doper babies, Savage's term for people supposedly raised by Marxist parents] in high places and in the media and in the courts for us to stand up to this fanatical enemy. And so unless the RDDB is reined in somehow or taken out of power, we're going to die as a nation. I swear to God that's what people are saying to me. And these are intelligent people, wealthy people. They are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die -- would you rather us die than them? I mean, what is it going to take for you people to wake up? Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you're going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later.

Holy ****ing ****.






I shouldn't be so surprised, though... there were people on this forum that seriously posited that we should nuke Mecca and Medina. Because "they got rid of our symbols, so we should get rid of theirs."

Some people.

 

[rwguinn]

It's their country, and if they are happy about it, so am I.
But I do expect the self-righteous tone to be turned down a bit when it comes to US policies, or Isriali policies, or any other country.
But it won't happen.

Self-righteous meaning "We care about this issue and disagree with you on it", of course, in the stead of "We'll do whatever you want and take it up the behind!"

As I said. Thanks for making the point. Do you ever actually discuss, or you just an Ad Hom 'bot?
It ok to Hate America (specifically, that part of America generally Known as the USA), regardless of what they do...

 

[Philip]

Hmmm...

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://vodpod.com/watch/1550994-audio-wow-shocker-michael-savage-said-something-crazy-goodasyou

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Linky.

About the problem of the Jews:



Linky.

Very mainstream.

That last bit is surprising since later in the article is the following:

There's just one thing. Savage is himself "a New York Jew," a man who was born — and legally remains — Michael Alan Wiener. According to the liberal media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), Savage is the son of Jewish parents in the Bronx. He adopted his pseudonym in 1994, with his first major radio show.

 

[Lonewulf]

As I said. Thanks for making the point. Do you ever actually discuss, or you just an Ad Hom 'bot?

Can you please show me where the "Ad Hominem" is? Or do you need to look up what that means?

It's okay, I'll wait.

Tip: One of us used the term "self-righteous", which is an adjective usually applied to a person or a group of people. One of us did not mention anything about people. I'll let you figure it out.

 

[Skeptic]

Folks, I'm surpised you can't see what's happening here. It's the usual UK government combination of (a) thought control, (b) incompetence, and (c) cowardice.

The thought control aspect is clear. There is NO difference between "expressing unpopular views" and "encouraging hatered". If you have the unpopular view that homosexuals go to hell forever, then ipso facto expressing these views might lead people to dislike homoseuxals, and therefore you are "encouraging hatered".

So having the power to stop people who "encourage hatered" IS nothing less than the ability to shut up anybody you disagree with. This is the power the UK government, in stages, is aiming to achieve. It's the same goal as the "hate speech" laws: thought control as a legal government right. As a caller on the BBC World's Service last night noted: "there are tens of millions of racists, antisemites, and homophobes in the world; should the UK make a list of them all?" I'm pretty sure the UK government's beaurocrats would if they could.

The REAL distinction that should be the limit of free speech is NOT whether the speech "encourages hatered", but whether it is likely to lead to immediate violence (the "shouting fire in the crowded theatre" test). Some of the guys on this list do fit this category, but the majority of them clearly don't. Most of them are guilty of nothing more than being jerks (e.g., Savage and Phelps.)

Second, incompetence: it is merely a huge boost to these guys' popularity, making them martyrs and victims. As every producer knew, "Banned in Paris!" is the #1 crowd-attractor; indeed, some deliberately did things to get their show banned in other countries to encourage their popularity in the USA.

These guys should all send a big "thank you" note to the UK government. (Phelps and his daughter, on the BBC world service last night, expressed just this "Thanks, UK!" view, by the way.) It increased their visibility a thousandfold, helping them recruit more people to their hate campaigns. So much for "fighting hatered" or "shaming" the shameless. But of course, that was never the UK's government's real goal.

Third, cowardice. Who are the people in the list? Well, SOME of the actually ARE terrorists, or members of terrorist organizations, or people whose words DO encourage people not to merely dislike or hate some group, but to actively, now, commit violence against it. To nobody's particular surprise, THESE guys are all, or almost all (perhaps the neo-nazi or the Jewish extremists also fit the bill, though I doubt it) -- you guessed it - Islamic preachers.

The UK, I think, wants to fight terrorism by not letting thugs who contantly DO shout fire to encourage immediate violence against infidels and (especially) Jews, or actually are members of organizations already committing such violence. But it is cowardly: it is afraid that if it bans THOSE people, who are 98% Muslims, it will be screamed at by the usual whiney charges of "Islamophobia" and "targeting populations". It doesn't make Islam look like the "religion of peace" we all know it really is that its preachers constantly and embarrasingly dominate the "world's most violent and hateful schmucks" list.

So what does the UK government do? It bans these guys, as it should -- but, to hide its actual goal, it also finds somebody -- ANYBODY -- from some other religion or political philosophy (e.g., Savage, Phelps, designated neo-nazi, etc.) and bans them too, even if THEY did nothing more than being jerks, so that people won't say it "targets Muslims". It also, by the way, does not release six of the names of those banned. I'll bet a large some of money those guys, too, are Muslims -- but that releasing their names will make the list too clearly the "Muslim preacher-terrorists + designated non-Muslim fig leaves" which it obviously is.

In sum, the UK took a worthwhile goal -- fighting terror by not letting terrorists into the country -- and made it into a thought-control incompetent witch-hunt out of a desire not to offend the designated victim group du jour (Islamists). On second though, perhaps it's not a incompetent as I think -- the UK government obviously thinks thought control is a GOOD thing.

 

[Lonewulf]

I just read that post.

I want my minute back, damnit.

Skeptic, I take your word with the same reverence and respect I give your opinions on "forcing" gay marriage, and THOSE EVUL PROGRESSIVES, and... well... actually, pretty much everything.

 

[Skeptic]

Ah well. I'll just have to live without your respect and appreciation, then.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, when you pretty much list someone's future actions in future strawmen, it's hard to take your arguments seriously. You seem to think that you have some mysterious tap into one's mystical leylines, and can predict everything they will do.

Of course, one can't disagree. I mean, if they don't think that gay marriage is an utter horrible thing, they're "forcing" it on you. "Forcing" meaning "letting other people marry", of course, but that's the real problem in the world, innit?

And, for chrissakes, it's "hatred". I don't know if you're misspelling that because it's funny or cute or to make fun of another poster, but when you do it 50 times in one post it gets old. Like saying "obamaniacs" 50 times in a row.

And for the record, I never said you were an idiot. If I thought you were an idiot, I wouldn't be disappointed in you. I am tired of your black and white characterizations, your strawmen, and your mystical "fortune telling". You can't just disagree with someone. You have tell people how progressives are going to end the world because they're in league with satan and **** babies. You can't just disagree with the government in England about something, you have to say that they're under control of Big Brother. You can't just disagree about gay marriage, you have to say that it's "forcing" marriage on you, even though no one's forcing you to marry anyone. You can't just disagree about palestine, you have to say that all "humanitarians" hate you and want to **** your babies.

And then you wonder why your arguments never get anywhere. You get out of a debate what you're willing to put into it, and you put nothing but divisive language from the beginning to the end. You don't just wait for someone to say something stupid, you have to insert that stupidity into their mouth before they even enter the thread.

And the saddest thing is, you're guilty of almost everything you accuse others of doing; or rather, your accusations of their future hypothetical actions based on your leyline mystical readings.

 

[dudalb]

Quite the opposite really. It was formed as a social club. The fact that all the original members were racist bigots that took the ball and ran with it was coincidence.

God, yes. The KKK started as one of the many Mason wannabe fraternal organizations that prolifilated in the first three decades of the 20th Century.
It always had an element of bigotry in it, of course, but the founder started it to try to cash in on the sucess of "Birth Of A Nation" in 1916.
One interesting side note: The Burning Cross as a Klan symbol was a creation of the Novel and Film "Birth Of A Nation". There is absolutely no mention of the Burning Cross in contemporary accounts of the Reconstruction or "First" KKK ,and in fact no mention until the novel was published in the early 1900's, and then was populized by the film. That image was so powerful that even many historians who hated the Klan made the mistake of saying and showing the Reconstuction Klan using the Burning Cross.

 

[dudalb]

The murderous, war-criminal UK government has a nerve preaching about the downside of encouraging violence and hatred.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yea, i kno, rite?

 

[dudalb]

To Skeptic and Lonewolf:

Please take the bickering to private messaging. Neither of you is looking particularly good at the moment.