It looks like some in SF want to spend tax money to condemn M. Savage for saying that the laws of the land should be enforced.

I rarely listen to Savage, but the law should be enforced.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=65727

It looks like some in SF want to spend tax money to condemn M. Savage for saying that the laws of the land should be enforced.

WTF?!?!?!?

You must have your links mixed up.

The link you give has absolutely nothing to do with condemning Mr Savage because ""he wants the law of the land enforced".

Nothing.

The link is to a San Fran government website where they are condemning Savage for the defamatory language being used on his radio program.


I rarely listen to Savage, but the law should be enforced.

Okey dokey.

But what you're putting forth here has nothing to do with whether or not immigration laws are enforced.

The Board of Supervisors in S.F. passed a resolution which commended R.I.S.E., and others for their dedication to improving the lives of the immigrant community in America.

Michael Savage, in his radio program "Savage Nation," urged the death of those students by declaring that the demonstrators should "fast until they starve to death".

Then, the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco condemned him for said language.

Here's hoping that clears up your gross misrepresentation of this incident.

Savage says alot of very bad things, I do not condone them.
i believe he also says alot of things he does not really mean.

Savage says alot of very bad things, I do not condone them.

Ok.

i believe he also says alot of things he does not really mean.

Well, I don't know why you think he'd say things that he does not really feel, but ok, whatever.

It still does not diminish the fact that what you posted has nothing to do with Mr Savage having taken the position that he ""wants the law of the land enforced".

The condemnation of his comments had zip to do with his "wanting the law of the land to be enforced".

Oh,

I did listen to Savage for a few minutes last night. He is saying that he never said those thinggs about fasting till they starve.

So what if Dr. Michael Alan Weiner, AKA Michael Savage said that the demonstators should fast until they die. While it was a tasteless thing to say he was not advocating murdering them. He was advocating that they commit suicide.

It is not the job of a government agency to try to censor free speech as the San Francisco City Council is trying to do. If private individuals wish to contact the radio station asking that they remove Michael Savage's program from their lineup that is one thing, for a governmental agency to advocate the same thing is another thing entirely.

Yep!

While people like FT and Dharm say they are champions of free speech, they can't seem to see it as clear cut as you.

People like FT and Dharm will pay lip service to freedom of speech, but that is as far as it goes for them.


So what if Dr. Michael Alan Weiner, AKA Michael Savage said that the demonstators should fast until they die. While it was a tasteless thing to say he was not advocating murdering them. He was advocating that they commit suicide.

It is not the job of a government agency to try to censor free speech as the San Francisco City Council is trying to do. If private individuals wish to contact the radio station asking that they remove Michael Savage's program from their lineup that is one thing, for a governmental agency to advocate the same thing is another thing entirely.

So what if Dr. Michael Alan Weiner, AKA Michael Savage said that the demonstators should fast until they die. While it was a tasteless thing to say he was not advocating murdering them. He was advocating that they commit suicide.

Ok. Nothing that has been said here contradicts that.

It is not the job of a government agency to try to censor free speech.........

There is nothing saying that a city government can NOT lobby for hate speech to not be allowed to be broadcast.

I agree --contrary to what the liar gmsisko has said here -- that Mr Savage has the right to speak his mind.

But I would also say that the Board of Supervisors in S.F. has the right to urge the termination of Mr Savage’s show.

First: I am not a liar.

Seccond: You ignored the post where I informed you that Savage informed us that he never said they should fast until they starve to death.


Third: You can't believe in free speech if you are advicating that the government try to have his show terminated. (It doesn't work both ways)

You are only paying lip service to freedom of speech, I find it very very hard to believe that you believe in it if you advicate such things.

Ok. Nothing that has been said here contradicts that.



There is nothing saying that a city government can NOT lobby for hate speech to not be allowed to be broadcast.

I agree --contrary to what the liar gmsisko has said here -- that Mr Savage has the right to speak his mind.

But I would also say that the Board of Supervisors in S.F. has the right to urge the termination of Mr Savage’s show.

So what if Dr. Michael Alan Weiner, AKA Michael Savage said that the demonstators should fast until they die. While it was a tasteless thing to say he was not advocating murdering them. He was advocating that they commit suicide.

It is not the job of a government agency to try to censor free speech as the San Francisco City Council is trying to do. If private individuals wish to contact the radio station asking that they remove Michael Savage's program from their lineup that is one thing, for a governmental agency to advocate the same thing is another thing entirely.

Very good post.

But I would also say that the Board of Supervisors in S.F. has the right to urge the termination of Mr Savage’s show.
Totally true.

But I would also say that the Board of Supervisors in S.F. has the right to urge the termination of Mr Savage’s show.

Do you think that's really a good use of their time? Worrying about what Michael Savage may or may not have said?

Yep!

People like FT and Dharm will pay lip service to freedom of speech, but that is as far as it goes for them.

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Do you think that's really a good use of their time? Worrying about what Michael Savage may or may not have said?He said it -- Sisko's denials notwithstanding. Hasn't anyone Googled this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article57096.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/13/BAGTDQVU6J1.DTL&hw=immigrant&sn=002&sc=974

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/15/215119.shtml?s=ic

And of course,

http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08142007.html

He said it -- Sisko's denials notwithstanding. Hasn't anyone Googled this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article57096.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/13/BAGTDQVU6J1.DTL&hw=immigrant&sn=002&sc=974

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/15/215119.shtml?s=ic

And of course,

http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08142007.html

Okay, he said it. Do we really need to bring the government into it?

There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right. So long as the speech does not try to generate violence it should be allowed. Private citizens can lobby to have the purveyers of hate speech removed from the air but that is not the job of government agencies.

Once the government begins deciding which free speech is really free and which should not be allowed no speech is any longer free but is only free on the sufferance of the government. Government agencies carry a certain cachet so when they call for a radio performer to be censored or fired it carries more weight than when private citizens do so.


Originally Posted by gmsisko1
Yep!

People like FT and Dharm will pay lip service to freedom of speech, but that is as far as it goes for them.


WTF is that supposed to mean?

It means that they seem to favor freedom of speech in some instances but not in others. It means they seem to wish to curtail free speech if that free speech does not fit their particular philosophy.

There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right. So long as the speech does not try to generate violence it should be allowed. Private citizens can lobby to have the purveyers of hate speech removed from the air but that is not the job of government agencies.

Once the government begins deciding which free speech is really free and which should not be allowed no speech is any longer free but is only free on the sufferance of the government. Government agencies carry a certain cachet so when they call for a radio performer to be censored or fired it carries more weight than when private citizens do so.



It means that they seem to favor freedom of speech in some instances but not in others. It means they seem to wish to curtail free speech if that free speech does not fit their particular philosophy.

I would agree with you except the City Council didn't advocate censorship of any kind. The Resolution in question stated:

"RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors condemns Michael Savage’s comments against the immigrant community; and, be it

FURTHER RESOLVED, That this speech is deemed by the Board as symbolic of hatred and racism which is neither endorsed nor tolerated by the City and County of San Francisco;"

It advocates no government action to silence Mr. Savage, it merely denounces what he said.

It means that they seem to favor freedom of speech in some instances but not in others. It means they seem to wish to curtail free speech if that free speech does not fit their particular philosophy.

merci

I do not agree but thanks for the interpretation.

First: I am not a liar.

Ok. But then you are grossly mistaken.

Second: You ignored the post where I informed you that Savage informed us that he never said they should fast until they starve to death.

I did not ignore it at all.

I simply do not believe it. For Savage to now try to deny he said something like that is hilarious; there are tapes of his shows for proof; and he has said things FAR, FAR worse than that in the past.

Originally Posted by gmsisko1
Yep!

People like FT and Dharm will pay lip service to freedom of speech, but that is as far as it goes for them.


Originally Posted by Sal WTF is that supposed to mean?


It means that they seem to favor freedom of speech in some instances but not in others. It means they seem to wish to curtail free speech if that free speech does not fit their particular philosophy.

And it is a lie.

I do not advocate Savage being silenced. He should be free to say whatever he wants. But others are also free to protest his speech when it equates to hate speech.

Also, your assertion that --""There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right""-- is hysterical in light of the fact that Rightwing commentators and programming is exponentially more prevalent than leftwing programming. I can tune my automobile radio --on both the AM and FM bands-- to dozens of RightWing talking heads. I can listen to Rightwing programs from 6:00 am until midnight, and probably all through the night if I searched the dial. I cannot recieve ONE radio station, not one single minute of programming, where a person has a show and is forwarding a leftist viewpoint. Zero. None.

And it is a lie.

I do not advocate Savage being silenced. He should be free to say whatever he wants. But others are also free to protest his speech when it equates to hate speech.

Also, your assertion that --""There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right""-- is hysterical in light of the fact that Rightwing commentators and programming is exponentially more prevalent than leftwing programming. I can tune my automobile radio --on both the AM and FM bands-- to dozens of RightWing talking heads. I can listen to Rightwing programs from 6:00 am until midnight, and probably all through the night if I searched the dial. I cannot recieve ONE radio station, not one single minute of programming, where a person has a show and is forwarding a leftist viewpoint. Zero. None.


FT. with your stance on every subject, you have posted about, everyone & everything is going to be to the right of you. Hell, you make dharma look like a radical conservative.

FT. with your stance on every subject, you have posted about, everyone & everything is going to be to the right of you. Hell, you make dharma look like a radical conservative.

Ok.

that does NOT however negate the fact that I can tune my automobile radio to dozens of far Right commentators, and I can listen to Rightwing programs from 6:00 am until midnight, and probably all through the night if I searched the dial......yet I cannot recieve ONE radio station where a person has a show and is forwarding anything remotely resembling a leftist viewpoint.

I don't listen to Savage.I have heard him comment a couple times
on the talking head cable outlets.He seems kinda nutty.
Like a juvenile before they realize the true import behind
flashing the middle finger to anyone in public.
If Savage wants to be taken seriously,then he shouldn't
make purposefull derogatory statements,just to be singled-out
as different and quite the character.
MSNBC has Keith the Kook Olberman,for that.

Ok.

that does NOT however negate the fact that I can tune my automobile radio to dozens of far Right commentators, and I can listen to Rightwing programs from 6:00 am until midnight, and probably all through the night if I searched the dial......yet I cannot recieve ONE radio station where a person has a show and is forwarding anything remotely resembling a leftist viewpoint.


That just tells me that leftwing, talk radio, is not a viable commodity. It can't draw listeners, so there are no advertisers. No advertisers, no program. It's economics, not politics, that drives radio programing.

That just tells me that leftwing, talk radio, is not a viable commodity. It can't draw listeners, so there are no advertisers.

Ok.

No problem with that explanantion. I agree. The number of leftwing persons inthe US, compared to the number of die-hard conservatives, is miniscule. Naturall, there is a very tiny base from which they can draw listeners.

I was simply pointing out that the claim that --""There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right""-- sends a false message; as if the two sides offset one another.

_________________________________

The idea that there is a huge "liberal Media" operation in this country that is equal in power to and acting as a counterbalance to the whitebread, status-quo, flagwaving, Corporate-owned-and-controlled Mainstream Media is a preposterous farce. It is a myth and an effort to further push us into a divisive mentality meant to create conflict and population division. The conservative mainstream Media, especially the talk radio shills, do not report anything that would cast negative aspersions against the ruling classes.....i.e., *the Administration*.

Ok.

No problem with that explanantion. I agree. The number of leftwing persons inthe US, compared to the number of die-hard conservatives, is miniscule. Naturall, there is a very tiny base from which they can draw listeners.

I was simply pointing out that the claim that --""There has been lots of hate speech on the radio spoken by both the left and the right""-- sends a false message; as if the two sides offset one another.

_________________________________

The idea that there is a huge "liberal Media" operation in this country that is equal in power to and acting as a counterbalance to the whitebread, status-quo, flagwaving, Corporate-owned-and-controlled Mainstream Media is a preposterous farce. It is a myth and an effort to further push us into a divisive mentality meant to create conflict and population division. The conservative mainstream Media, especially the talk radio shills, do not report anything that would cast negative aspersions against the ruling classes.....i.e., *the Administration*.


Thats also why there is only one, admitted, socialist in congress. Its also why that number will never be much higher.

talk radio is the only media dominated by the right...

Everything else, on the whole, leans left.

Granted, I expect people like freethinker to disagree because they ARE the farthest left you can go.. and pretty much everything that isn't at their standards is right. It's a very biased perspective..

talk radio is the only media dominated by the right...

Everything else, on the whole, leans left.

Granted, I expect people like freethinker to disagree because they ARE the farthest left you can go.. and pretty much everything that isn't at their standards is right. It's a very biased perspective..
I think I'm pretty moderate, but I don't think that there's a significant difference in, for instance, the number of newspapers that lean left or right. Here in my area, the Washington Post definitely leans left. But the Washington Times leans right, and the county Gazettes don't seem to lean either way.

It's a very biased perspective..
He seems kinda nutty.
Today's lessons in irony. :eek:

um.. he wasn't talking about me when he said that...

just thought i'd point that out to you

Today's lessons in irony. :eek:


Oh !

I was Hoping mores fur :


Under Western Eyes {1911}

" Remember ,Razumov,that women,children and
revolutionists hate irony,which is the negation of all saving instincts,
of all faith,of all devotion,or all action. "
-- Joseph Conrad {ne Korzeniowski}

Ha ha ha!

I got a two-fer. :)

Is it the fault of the right that the left can't hold their own on radio?

People just don't like left wing talk radio.

I know Allen Colmes has a radio show. In 2004, I would sometimes listen to left wing radio on Serius Radio. (Just to see what they are saying)


Ok.

that does NOT however negate the fact that I can tune my automobile radio to dozens of far Right commentators, and I can listen to Rightwing programs from 6:00 am until midnight, and probably all through the night if I searched the dial......yet I cannot recieve ONE radio station where a person has a show and is forwarding anything remotely resembling a leftist viewpoint.

From the article:

The City and County of San Francisco values the dignity of all its residents, regardless of immigration status.....
I feel a hate crime comin' on when I read shit like this.

Look people, if we're talking about ILLEGALS, THEN THEY'VE GOT NO RIGHT TO BE HERE, END OF DISCUSSION!

WTF is wrong with us!?! :mad:

:upyours: Paco and :upyours: San Francisco.

If anything makes me wanna move, it's shit like that.