NationStates Jolt Archive

But alas, it is true. Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton for help on the Britain ban.

Radio host Savage seeks Clinton's help over ban

(05-14) 19:33 PDT --

In an unexpected twist, sharp-tongued, conservative talk show host Michael Savage, who in the past savaged Hillary Clinton as a "dangerous human being" and "fraudulent huckster," has asked for help after being banned in Britain - from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Attorneys for the controversial San Francisco host of the syndicated "Savage Nation" radio show, say the ban is of a blatant human rights violation and formally asked Clinton on Thursday to demand that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith "rescind the arbitrary and capricious decision" last week to "name and shame" 16 individuals, including Savage, who have been barred from entry into the country.

Smith made headlines - and raised eyebrows - when she included Savage on a list that also includes Islamic terrorists, Russian skinhead killers and neo-Nazis, saying that the individuals don't represent the United Kingdom's "values."

"It's ironic that the person Michael Savage is appealing to is someone who does not agree with him on 99 percent" of his political views, said attorney Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., which is representing Savage.

"But I think this is a case of the U.S. government protecting a U.S. citizen, regardless of what he said," especially since it involves a violation of international treaties signed by both the United States and Britain, Thompson said.

He said Clinton should act on Savage's behalf because it's the right thing to do - to make a statement about the importance of protecting "the rights of an American citizen," who happens to be the third-most-popular talk show host in the United States "and has done nothing illegal." Savage is guilty of one thing alone, he said, "exercising his right to free speech."

Savage - whose show reaches an estimated 8 million to 10 million listeners on nearly 400 stations nationwide, according to industry sources - told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview Thursday that "I've been very harsh on Hillary and Bill (Clinton) over the years."

"But precisely for this reason, she should take my case. It would show that she can rise above partisan politics," he said, "because Jacqui Smith is in violation of the European Union's laws themselves."

Savage acknowledged that this development is unexpected and said it underscores the oldest of political adages: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

Thompson's letter to Clinton urges her to immediately "call upon the government of the United Kingdom" to undo the decision to put the outspoken right-wing host on a "least-wanted list."

He argued to Clinton that the banning of Savage is both "arbitrary" and "suspicious" given that his show is not even broadcast in Britain and it has never been explained to Savage, who has had no contact with the British government.

Moreover, Thompson contends, the move by Smith is clearly illegal: Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights clearly protects the right to "freedom of expression." Article 10 states that "this right shall include the freedom to hold opinions ... and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Thompson also said that Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed by both the United States and Britain, "protects the right to freedom of expression."

A U.S. State Department official, speaking on background, did not appear to support Thompson's contention.

"We recognize that countries have the right to determine who is eligible to enter," said the official, who declined to speculate on whether Clinton would act on the matter.

And Robin Newmann, spokesman for the British Consulate in San Francisco, responded in an e-mail that "His exclusion from the U.K. is both lawful and justified."

The British Home Office, in making the announcement last week banning the 16 individuals, said Savage's radio show constituted "engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence."

Newmann said last week that "the U.K. has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist activities and serious violence since 2005. During this time, 101 people have been excluded for unacceptable behavior, including animal rights extremists, right-to-life, homophobe and far-right extremists, as well as those who advocate hatred and violence in support of their religious beliefs."

Newmann added that in 2008, Smith "introduced new measures that favored excluding people who have spread hatred."

In releasing the list of 16, Smith issued a statement: "I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life. Therefore, I will not hesitate to name and shame those who foster extremist views as I want them to know that they are not welcome here."

But Savage said he does not intend to let the British home secretary have the last word.

He vowed Thursday that his representatives will appeal to the White House if necessary to seek redress - and said he intends to file a lawsuit against Smith herself later this week, charging her with defamation of character.

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNR817KL85.DTL)

Why should he care about what "Liberals" and British "Nanny state" government think? He's a Conservative Talk show host dammit! :p

But alas, it is true. Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton for help on the Britain ban.



Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNR817KL85.DTL)

Why should he care about what "Liberals" and British "Nanny state" government think? He's a Conservative Talk show host dammit! :p

Oh, so the guy that called liberals child predators wants help from one in defying the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

Why doesn't Michael Savage go fuck himself?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. By force. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire. Repeatedly. To death.

Oh, so the guy that called liberals child predators wants help from one in defying the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

Why doesn't Michael Savage go fuck himself?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire.

Aren't those the lyrics to West High School, traditional rivals of Savage High School, in Paducah, Kentucky?

Oh, saw this and thought of you: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/etc/1166943650.html

Aren't those the lyrics to West High School, traditional rivals of Savage High School, in Paducah, Kentucky?

Oh, saw this and thought of you: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/etc/1166943650.html

So. My fury at Savage might have landed me my first job from the US? Wow! Thank you! :D

And even if it doesn't work, I thank you nonetheless. You remembered me and tried to do me a favor. :)

Really, why does Wiener want to go to the Great Socialist State of Britain?

Next thing you know, Hugo Chaves'll want to come to Wall Street.

Really, why does Wiener want to go to the Great Socialist State of Britain?

Next thing you know, Hugo Chaves'll want to come to Wall Street.

It's not about going, it's about being able to go. Or, more accurately, it's about complaining about not being able to go. After spouting hatred.

How is it anyone's right to go to a country not theirs if said country doesn't want him? I say Savage should get a letter stating that British sovereignty means exactly that and if they don't want him, tough.

How is it anyone's right to go to a country not theirs if said country doesn't want him? I say Savage should get a letter stating that British sovereignty means exactly that and if they don't want him, tough.

I'm starting to imagine that the BNP is going to push to have him allowed over, in that "But Mein Fuhrer, We Are Nazis, We Have No Brains" spirit of comraderie amongst pinheads.

I'm starting to imagine that the BNP is going to push to have him allowed over...
Having no truck with the BNP or Michael Savage whatsoever, I'd push for him to be allowed over, or at least, push for this ridiculous ban to be lifted.

I see no good reason to disallow him, or indeed folks like the Phelps', into the UK.

Savage should ban Brits from his show. That'll show 'em.

Having no truck with the BNP or Michael Savage whatsoever, I'd push for him to be allowed over, or at least, push for this ridiculous ban to be lifted.

I see no good reason to disallow him, or indeed folks like the Phelps', into the UK.

Perhaps not, but it is within the rights of Britain to refuse entry to any non-citizen they like, for whatever reason they care to think up. Entry to another country is a privilege, much like a drivers license, not a right.

So his blather about protecting American rights is just that. Blather. Lying blather at that, whether an assumption by puffed up sense of superiority or just plain ignorance.

So his blather about protecting American rights is just that. Blather. Lying blather at that, whether an assumption by puffed up sense of superiority or just plain ignorance.

Or both.

But alas, it is true. Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton for help on the Britain ban.



Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNR817KL85.DTL)

Why should he care about what "Liberals" and British "Nanny state" government think? He's a Conservative Talk show host dammit! :p
so because he doesnt like the person who holds the post of sec of state he should not avail himself of the services that might solve his problem?


its not hypocrisy unless he praises mrs clinton in an effort to get her help.

Perhaps not, but it is within the rights of Britain to refuse entry to any non-citizen they like, for whatever reason they care to think up.
Doesn't make the ban any less moronic.

Oh, so the guy that called liberals child predators wants help from one in defying the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

Why doesn't Michael Savage go fuck himself?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. By force. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire. Repeatedly. To death.

This statement belongs in a museum somewhere. True beauty.:tongue:

I don't think he's protesting so much the UK's right to keep him out as he is appearing on their list of 16 wackos to avoid.

It's one thing to tell someone that wants to come in that they aren't welcome, it's another to proactively publish their name for all to see.

That's the kind of thing Michael Savage would do. ;)

Doesn't make the ban any less moronic.

If someone does something moronic, harping moronic statements (yes, I know the irony of saying that on NSG) that have no basis in reality don't help your case much.

Oh, so the guy that called liberals child predators wants help from one in defying the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

Why doesn't Michael Savage go fuck himself?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. By force. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire. Repeatedly. To death.
See, here's where all you liberals are supposed to be above petty jealousies and do the job that you were appointed to do. It doesn't happen, I know, but Clinton is supposed to serve all Americans, not just the ones that voted for Obama. Weiner, or is it Whiner?, is just testing her ability to do that.

so because he doesnt like the person who holds the post of sec of state he should not avail himself of the services that might solve his problem?


its not hypocrisy unless he praises mrs clinton in an effort to get her help.
No, if she does help, she deserves his praise, or thanks anyway. Okay, technically it is her job and thanking someone for doing their job isn't necessary, but it is nice.

This struck me as particularly humorous:

He said Clinton should act on Savage's behalf because it's the right thing to do - to make a statement about the importance of protecting "the rights of an American citizen,"

Which amendment of the Constitution covers our inalienable rights to visit the United Kingdom?

This struck me as particularly humorous:



Which amendment of the Constitution covers our inalienable rights to visit the United Kingdom?
Everyone thinks they have rights that are bogus. Most Obama voters think they have a right to "free" medical care. Go figure.


As far as the SoS's duties, this is probably as close as it comes... From state.gov...
"Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;" She may well respond that his difficulties with the UK aren't her problem.

I fail to see in any way how this is hypocritical of him.

No, if she does help, she deserves his praise, or thanks anyway. Okay, technically it is her job and thanking someone for doing their job isn't necessary, but it is nice.
right

did any democrat deny themselves the services of government when mr bush was president? i dont think so.

Having no truck with the BNP or Michael Savage whatsoever, I'd push for him to be allowed over, or at least, push for this ridiculous ban to be lifted.

I see no good reason to disallow him, or indeed folks like the Phelps', into the UK.

Not that Im a a fan of Savage or anything, but, this ^^^


I would be quite disturbed if the US started banning BNP members, for example...

See, here's where all you liberals are supposed to be above petty jealousies and do the job that you were appointed to do.

By ignoring someone demanding non-existent rights and actually doing productive work. I see no reason why any loudmouth with a talk show should get preferential government treatment the way you pseudo libertarians seem to demand everytime things don't go your way.

By ignoring someone demanding non-existent rights and actually doing productive work.

I think we consider them "Self-Evident" or some shit on this side of the pond, :p

I know that the local right wing talk radio stations actually dropped Savage for being too far to the right (populist right). That's an impressive feat, IMHO.

Having no truck with the BNP or Michael Savage whatsoever, I'd push for him to be allowed over, or at least, push for this ridiculous ban to be lifted.


Agreed 100 billion trillion percent. This ban is fucking retarded. Micheal Savage is about a 0.1 percent as bad as thousands of BNP nuts in this country, and Britain routinely lets in faaaar more 'extreme' people than this guy. It was a totally arbitrary PR stunt. I'm convinced that we only did this to distance ourselves from USian far right wing politics. Nobody in the UK knows or listens to Micheal Savage, he is not a threat, in any way, to the UK.

Savage should ban Brits from his show. That'll show 'em.

They're already pretty much covered by his ban on people who sound like they might have some idea what they're talking about.

No, if she does help, she deserves his praise, or thanks anyway. Okay, technically it is her job and thanking someone for doing their job isn't necessary, but it is nice.

How is this her job? This is a job for some low-level clerk at the British Consulate. If he got audited would it be Secretary Geithner's job to hear his appeal? If he wanted whole-wheat toast would it be Secretary Vilsack's job to bake it for him?

If he thinks he does not deserve the treatment he's getting, he should go through channels like everyone else.

By ignoring someone demanding non-existent rights and actually doing productive work. I see no reason why any loudmouth with a talk show should get preferential government treatment the way you pseudo libertarians seem to demand everytime things don't go your way.
Is he demanding preferential treatment? Or is he asking for the same treatment that should be offered to any American? I say it's the latter. Your bias is getting the upper hand. Hopefully Clinton is better than you.

right

did any democrat deny themselves the services of government when mr bush was president? i dont think so.

We didn't have to. They were denied for us.

How is this her job? This is a job for some low-level clerk at the British Consulate. If he got audited would it be Secretary Geithner's job to hear his appeal? If he wanted whole-wheat toast would it be Secretary Vilsack's job to bake it for him?

If he thinks he does not deserve the treatment he's getting, he should go through channels like everyone else.
I don't know about you, but when I want service, rather than obstruction, I go to the person in charge. Clinton wouldn't ordinarily read these letters, but someone in her office would. Then they can delegate it down.

Additionally, I always make sure my Congressman has a copy of the correspondence. It helps to keep things moving when an elected official puts his office to work.

Is he demanding preferential treatment? Or is he asking for the same treatment that should be offered to any American? I say it's the latter. Your bias is getting the upper hand. Hopefully Clinton is better than you.

If you ran afoul of the British government do you think Secretary Clinton would intervene personally for you? That's not equal treatment, it's preferential.

This is why countries have embassies. That's their job. It is not the Secretary of State's job.

We didn't have to. They were denied for us.
What service of government was ever denied to a person that criticized Bush? Did Randi Rhodes ever suffer? Did Al Franken? Of course not.

I don't know about you, but when I want service, rather than obstruction, I go to the person in charge. Clinton wouldn't ordinarily read these letters, but someone in her office would. Then they can delegate it down.

Additionally, I always make sure my Congressman has a copy of the correspondence. It helps to keep things moving when an elected official puts his office to work.

Well I work for the IRS and when people send their audit appeals, and requests for expedited refunds, and their complaints about insufficiently prompt service directly to the director, or anyone else above the level of front-line management I know it get's ignored. It doesn't get delegated. It doesn't get a response that it was transferred to the correct office, or even sent back with a note saying that it was submitted to the wrong office. It's considered crank mail and gets disposed of as classified waste.

Bureaucracies exist because people at the top are busy and it's the job of people underneath them to get actual work done. Secretary Clinton's job is to promote peace between nations. By suggesting that she take time away from that so that she can tend to Mike Savage's hurt feelings he is basically saying that his desire to go to a country to which he doesn't really have any interest is more important than peace in the Middle East, nuclear non-proliferation negotiations, or terms of international trade.

Michael Savage is not that important and doesn't deserve a moment of time from anyone above the level of Receptionist at the British Consulate.

Is he demanding preferential treatment?

He's asking for the Secretary of State to intervene on his behalf. So yes he is. At best, he could complain to the British consulate and dicker it out with them and some flunky from the state department in order to get the ban withdrawn. You know, like other run of the mill Americans. What next? Demand that Obama kiss his boo boo away because he stubbed his toe?

The rest of your argument is the usual bunk expecting the government at the highest level to drop everything and kowtow to your demands.

What service of government was ever denied to a person that criticized Bush? Did Randi Rhodes ever suffer? Did Al Franken? Of course not.

Well, it started with Al Gore being denied a count of the votes in Florida. Now Al Franken is being denied certification of the election that he won. Tom Delay used to keep a book listing the people who had donated to TRMPAC and refused to talk to anyone who wasn't in it. Protesters were allowed nowhere in sight of the President wherever he went.

Yes. Rights were denied by Bush and his supporters for nothing more than being liberal.

I have a deal for Michael Savage. He can go to Britain whenever he wants; HOWEVER, he has to swim there.

See, here's where all you liberals are supposed to be above petty jealousies and do the job that you were appointed to do. It doesn't happen, I know, but Clinton is supposed to serve all Americans, not just the ones that voted for Obama. Weiner, or is it Whiner?, is just testing her ability to do that.

He does not HAVE the right to visit the United Kingdom. If they don't want us there, neither do I or you. He's not demanding that Clinton "does her job" and "serves Americans", he's demanding that Clinton gives him the privilege of her personal time and demands that the UK gives him the privilege of being there, whether they want him there or not.

Him, the motherfucker that called liberals FUCKING CHILD MOLESTERS! Him, who is prevented from entering Britain EXACTLY for spouding hatred - and spout it he does, again, by calling liberals CHILD MOLESTERS, among other things.

That you try to make this about "having voted for Obama" is plain shameful.

Especially from one of the people that complained about "illegal immigrants". Remember? What's the difference between the crazy motherfucker radio nutjob asshole and the Mexican who wants to make a living? Do they get to complain to Mexico's SoS to get the US to take them in, wanting or not? Do they?

Britain has laws against spouting hatred. Michael Savage spouts hatred FOR A LIVING. Fuck him. If he were on fire I'd only piss on him if I could be sure it would make his agony longer but not save his life.

I have a deal for Michael Savage. He can go to Britain whenever he wants; HOWEVER, he has to swim there.

In a special pipe-like pool from the US to the UK, filled with acid.

Well, it started with Al Gore being denied a count of the votes in Florida. Now Al Franken is being denied certification of the election that he won. Tom Delay used to keep a book listing the people who had donated to TRMPAC and refused to talk to anyone who wasn't in it. Protesters were allowed nowhere in sight of the President wherever he went.

Yes. Rights were denied by Bush and his supporters for nothing more than being liberal.
In neither case, did the GWB administration affect the outcome. Gore was forced to follow existing law by a court operating under the Clinton administration and Franken has his quarrel with the State of Minnesota. If presidential administrations were so influential, wouldn't he be seated by now?

Cindy McKinney made her staffers ask the supplicant if they had voted for Cindy. Guess what the answer had to be before you could get assistance.

And what the hell is so wrong with asking a public official for help, anyway? We aren't supposed to be in a society of castes, where one can't talk to their 'betters'.

He does not HAVE the right to visit the United Kingdom. If they don't want us there, neither do I or you. He's not demanding that Clinton "does her job" and "serves Americans", he's demanding that Clinton gives him a privilege.

Him, the motherfucker that called liberals FUCKING CHILD MOLESTERS! Him, who is prevented from entering Britain EXACTLY for spouding hatred - and spout it he does, again, by calling liberals CHILD MOLESTERS, among other things.

That you try to make this about "having voted for Obama" is plain shameful.
Kudo's to Obama for not appointing you to a cabinet position. I was silly to mention something about setting aside petty jealousies to you, wasn't I. I should have remembered my audience.

Is he demanding preferential treatment? Or is he asking for the same treatment that should be offered to any American? I say it's the latter. Your bias is getting the upper hand. Hopefully Clinton is better than you.

Of course he is demanding preferential treatment. You can't honestly believe otherwise. If you found yourself banned from enterring the United Kingdom, do you think Hillary Clinton herself would personally intervene on your behalf? Or would it be more likely that some low level bureaucrat with the US State Department would be involved?

He's demanding that he be given special treatment because he is a celebrity. He wants a service from the State Department that you or I or any other poster here would never receive. This is no different than when celebrities get absurdly lenient sentences for DUIs and such. Celebrity should not entitle someone to preferential treatment.

In a special pipe-like pool from the US to the UK, filled with acid.

Only if you pay for it. UK's broke.

Kudo's to Obama for not appointing you to a cabinet position. I was silly to mention something about setting aside petty jealousies to you, wasn't I. I should have remembered my audience.

Nobody that's not from Britain has the right to expect Britain to accept them in. Savage isn't demanding a right, he's demanding a privilege, no matter how much you want to pretend this is about a "petty jealousy". And "Kudos" doesn't have an apostrophe.

And another thing: Savage demanded that all Muslims are kicked out of the US and prevented from entering, remember? So, no, he doesn't get to fucking demand from the UK that he gets allowed to enter the UK.

When Savage dies from something horribly painful, it will be a glorious day.

Only if you pay for it. UK's broke.

Bloody MPs took all the money

Bloody MPs took all the money

We could always borrow that moat and fill it with acid. :)

We could always borrow that moat and fill it with acid. :)

Make sure it's strong enough for him to die painfully from it, but not strong enough for it to be quick.

Make sure it's strong enough for him to die from it, but not strong enough for it to be any quick or painless.

So fill it with his own bile?

So fill it with his own bile?

A snake survives its own poison.

A snake survives its own poison.

Maybe Limbaugh's Bile then...gotta find a use for it someday, :rolleyes:

Maybe Limbaugh's Bile then...gotta find a use for it someday, :rolleyes:

Painless. Filled with painkillers, remember?

Myrmi, let me give you an example...

***Kakemushire... Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou!***

I hope Savage gets kidnapped in the middle of the night, his family told he's gonna be tortured to death and they can't do anything about it unless they want in on the action. Then his family tries to, and gets in on the action. The torture - for all of them - would consist of their eyes being gouged out with a rusty spoon, then them being electrocuted at all times at a varying current that doesn't kill them, but makes them suffer. While they go through this, acid is put on their mouths, with a drug added to prevent them from swallowing it by making them vomit if they try to do so to end their suffering. They are told that the base is under attack, and then loud sounds of war are played around them, in a way that gives them the impression (they are blinded, remember) that they are blind people (they are) in the middle of a shootout. To improve this, some of them are shot with rubber bullets. And then they are quartered.

I would like the same, with slight and creative variations, to be done to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other people like them, and their families.

Would you like me to have the right to enter the US now? No? Good. That paragraph is way less than 30 minutes speaking in a radio show, and I don't write or say that for a living. Michael Savage DOES write and say that kind of thing for a living. The US would have every right to keep me out if I seriously said that for a living everyday. The UK has every right to do the same to Savage.

Nobody that's not from Britain has the right to expect Britain to accept them in. Savage isn't demanding a right, he's demanding a privilege, no matter how much you want to pretend this is about a "petty jealousy". And "Kudos" doesn't have an apostrophe.

And another thing: Savage demanded that all Muslims are kicked out of the US and prevented from entering, remember? So, no, he doesn't get to fucking demand from the UK that he gets allowed to enter the UK.

When Savage dies from something horribly painful, it will be a glorious day.
Sloppy fingers. I don't know where the apostrophe came from.

But more to the point, way to be off topic on so many different threads... I believe this has nothing to do with Savage and his 'right' to enter the UK. This also has nothing to do with how Savage runs his radio show. But I know how sensitive you are and it is just too hard to let these things slip by without trumpeting them to the world, isn't it?

I think we're discussing Savage's right, or possibly privilege, to communicate directly with the Secretary of State. Then, as a corollary, what responsibility the SoS has, as a public official, to citizens of the U.S. Is that wrong?

I think we're discussing Savage's right, or possibly privilege, to communicate directly with the Secretary of State. Then, as a corollary, what responsibility the SoS has, as a public official, to citizens of the U.S. Is that wrong?

Does the SoS have to talk to every American in there? If she does, then she must talk to Savage. But it's quite likely she doesn't, so she has no obligation whatsoever of talking to Savage or listening to his demands. May he die slowly and painfully.

Myrmi, let me give you an example...

***Kakemushire... Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou!***

I hope Savage gets kidnapped in the middle of the night, his family told he's gonna be tortured to death and they can't do anything about it unless they want in on the action. Then his family tries to, and gets in on the action. The torture - for all of them - would consist of their eyes being gouged out with a rusty spoon, then them being electrocuted at all times at a varying current that doesn't kill them, but makes them suffer. While they go through this, acid is put on their mouths, with a drug added to prevent them from swallowing it by making them vomit if they try to do so to end their suffering. They are told that the base is under attack, and then loud sounds of war are played around them, in a way that gives them the impression (they are blinded, remember) that they are blind people (they are) in the middle of a shootout. To improve this, some of them are shot with rubber bullets. And then they are quartered.

I would like the same, with slight and creative variations, to be done to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other people like them, and their families.

Would you like me to have the right to enter the US now? No? Good. That paragraph is way less than 30 minutes speaking in a radio show, and I don't write or say that for a living. Michael Savage DOES write and say that kind of thing for a living. The US would have every right to keep me out if I seriously said that for a living everyday. The UK has every right to do the same to Savage.
Unless you made a direct threat on him and have the means to carry it out, I don't care if you enter the US properly, or not. Come to Atlanta and I'll buy you a drink. I figure you're a lot more personable without a keyboard in front of you.

I don't care if the UK allows Savage in or not. The discussion isn't about that.

Painless. Filled with painkillers, remember?

Damn, I thought I finally found a use....

Maybe Olbermann can spit on him, I think he's liberal enough to melt someone as far right as Savage, lol...

Unless you made a direct threat on him and have the means to carry it out, I don't care if you enter the US properly, or not. Come to Atlanta and I'll buy you a drink. I figure you're a lot more personable without a keyboard in front of you.

I don't care if the UK allows Savage in or not. The discussion isn't about that.

Ah, good, you're not a hypocrite. But the fact remains that the US does have the right to deny me a Visa (I had to go to São Paulo to get one; everyone has to).

About the "personable" part, your case is quite likely the same. But, nice though you may be, I have no intention of ever setting foot on deep-red states.

Does the SoS have to talk to every American in there? If she does, then she must talk to Savage. But it's quite likely she doesn't, so she has no obligation whatsoever of talking to Savage or listening to his demands. May he die slowly and painfully.
If I write a letter to my Congressman. I don't expect he will read it. He is responsible for representing me and he hires a staff to help with that. Same with any public official. Maybe my county commissioner reads all her mail, but certainly not at the state or federal level. Why should the SoS be any different? She is a public official and therefore must fulfill her duties where any American is concerned. If that involves delegation, I wouldn't be surprised.

Seems to me he's wanting the UK government, via their department of immigration, to stop officially associating him with terrorism, as he has neither been tried or found guilty of such. The UK has every right to deny him entry, but publishing his name on a persona non grata list seems pretty stupid from a diplomatic point of view.

That being said, I quite enjoy this political faux pas. Good for you, Britain!

Unless you made a direct threat on him and have the means to carry it out, I don't care if you enter the US properly, or not. Come to Atlanta and I'll buy you a drink. I figure you're a lot more personable without a keyboard in front of you.

I don't care if the UK allows Savage in or not. The discussion isn't about that.
I think the point was that the UK has laws against speech that incites hatred. If all this man does on his radio show is speak in an attempt to encourage hatred, then he would probably be arrested promptly in the UK if he did anything other than go there as a tourist with laryngitis anyway.

Ah, good, you're not a hypocrite. But the fact remains that the US does have the right to deny me a Visa (I had to go to São Paulo to get one; everyone has to).

About the "personable" part, your case is quite likely the same. But, nice though you may be, I have no intention of ever setting foot on deep-red states.

Atlanta is a island of navy in a red sea.

If I write a letter to my Congressman. I don't expect he will read it. He is responsible for representing me and he hires a staff to help with that. Same with any public official. Maybe my county commissioner reads all her mail, but certainly not at the state or federal level. Why should the SoS be any different? She is a public official and therefore must fulfill her duties where any American is concerned. If that involves delegation, I wouldn't be surprised.

Then her duties ARE fulfilled. Her department told Savage and the media that it does not think it has the right to get involved per sovereignty principles. She didn't tell him she'd not get involved because he's a jerk who spouts hatred about her and other liberals for a living (though he is), she told him she'd not get involved because Britain has the right to choose who enters it.

The UK has every right to deny him entry, but publishing his name on a persona non grata list seems pretty stupid from a diplomatic point of view.

And yet it's something the UK has every right to do.

Atlanta is a island of navy in a red sea.

Mmm. Well, if you buy me a drink it'd be a cheap one. I don't drink liquor, and learned about Dr Pepper in New York. ;)

If all this man does on his radio show is speak in an attempt to encourage hatred, then he would probably be arrested promptly in the UK if he did anything other than go there as a tourist with laryngitis anyway.

Or with his speech centers removed in a lobotomy...

I think the UK just got wind of our plans to try and export him is what it is, lol...

And yet it's something the UK has every right to do.

Are you entirely sure of that?

Approaching this from a libel perspective, I'd be interested to see him pursue this in the civil forum.

Are you entirely sure of that?

Approaching this from a libel perspective, I'd be interested to see him pursue this in the civil forum.

Then, every liberal can sue him for slander. He called liberals child molesters. I'll be glad to see him sue the UK government, because that would result in him going bankrupt from all the lawsuits he'd get.

Then, every liberal can sue him for slander. He called liberals child molesters. I'll be glad to see him sue the UK government, because that would result in him going bankrupt from all the lawsuits he'd get.

You lack even a modicum of subtley or understanding.

A large group of extremely diverse people referred to in general terms cannot sue for defamation. Please read the definition for defamation, it's annoying correcting your glaring misconceptions. In short, no, none of the things you've said above are correct.

Then, every liberal can sue him for slander. He called liberals child molesters. I'll be glad to see him sue the UK government, because that would result in him going bankrupt from all the lawsuits he'd get.

You could no more sue him for that than you could sue me for saying that all Brazilians are serial rapists.

You could no more sue him for that than you could sue me for saying that all Brazilians are serial rapists.

Yeah, but now youve been barred from entering Brazil, :p

Then her duties ARE fulfilled. Her department told Savage and the media that it does not think it has the right to get involved per sovereignty principles. She didn't tell him she'd not get involved because he's a jerk who spouts hatred about her and other liberals for a living (though he is), she told him she'd not get involved because Britain has the right to choose who enters it.
Okay. Case closed.

Seems to me he's wanting the UK government, via their department of immigration, to stop officially associating him with terrorism, as he has neither been tried or found guilty of such. The UK has every right to deny him entry, but publishing his name on a persona non grata list seems pretty stupid from a diplomatic point of view.

That being said, I quite enjoy this political faux pas. Good for you, Britain!

He's not the only one of the list where they weren't associated with terrorism - it's hate speech, not terrorism, that's stopping them from coming in. And personally I'd rather they made it open who they aren't letting in, and why, then keep it secret. More transparency.

I think the point was that the UK has laws against speech that incites hatred. If all this man does on his radio show is speak in an attempt to encourage hatred, then he would probably be arrested promptly in the UK if he did anything other than go there as a tourist with laryngitis anyway.
The local AM station started carrying him in Atlanta. I used to listen to that station in the shop because it came in loud and clear at night. After hearing a couple hours of Savage whining about how unfair someone in San Francisco was to him, I tuned to a country music station that was a little less self-absorbed.

Point is, I haven't listened to him try to incite any hate and discontent. I'm not sure he has time with all the complaining he does about how other people treat him.

The local AM station started carrying him in Atlanta. I used to listen to that station in the shop because it came in loud and clear at night. After hearing a couple hours of Savage whining about how unfair someone in San Francisco was to him, I tuned to a country music station that was a little less self-absorbed.

I agree, Like, he doesnt even talk about politics much, he just goes on and on about himself and stuff that happens to him...

meaning I get bored fast...

To be fair, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and any other number of talking heads should be banned from Britain as well.

Mmm. Well, if you buy me a drink it'd be a cheap one. I don't drink liquor, and learned about Dr Pepper in New York. ;)
Sorry. We're Coca-Cola drinkers down here. Y'all are gonna have to like Mr Pibb. :)

Seems to me he's wanting the UK government, via their department of immigration, to stop officially associating him with terrorism, as he has neither been tried or found guilty of such. The UK has every right to deny him entry, but publishing his name on a persona non grata list seems pretty stupid from a diplomatic point of view.

That being said, I quite enjoy this political faux pas. Good for you, Britain!

The list was not about terrorism, it was mainly about people who were likely to say things that promote discrimination. Though I am not sure why they thought it wise to publish it.

Sorry. We're Coca-Cola drinkers down here. Y'all are gonna have to like Mr Pibb. :)

I did hear Coca-cola tasted different in the US and in Brazil. Certainly tasted different in Germany.

I did hear Coca-cola tasted different in the US and in Brazil. Certainly tasted different in Germany.
They do doctor it up differently for different regions. Mr Pibb is a sorry substitute for Dr Pepper. Must be the lack of letters.

And another thing: Savage demanded that all Muslims are kicked out of the US and prevented from entering, remember? So, no, he doesn't get to fucking demand from the UK that he gets allowed to enter the UK.
Thankfully, you are not some ultimate arbitrator, and are unable determine who can and cannot demand anything off of the UK government.

Thankfully, you are not some ultimate arbitrator, and are unable determine who can and cannot demand anything off of the UK government.

I'm not. The UK government is, and it SAID Michael Savage doesn't have the right to demand access from it.

I'm not. The UK government is, and it SAID Michael Savage doesn't have the right to demand access from it.
Nope.

It's said Mr. Savage cannot enter the UK. Nothing about him lacking a right to demand anything.

Oh, so the guy that called liberals child predators wants help from one in defying the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

Why doesn't Michael Savage go fuck himself?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. By force. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire. Repeatedly. To death.Too merciful.

We should parachute him over one of the "Axis of evil" nations. Let them deal with him.

I don't think he's protesting so much the UK's right to keep him out as he is appearing on their list of 16 wackos to avoid.

It's one thing to tell someone that wants to come in that they aren't welcome, it's another to proactively publish their name for all to see.

Precisely Goofballs. Until Savage applies for a visa, there is no need to even inform him that he will be refused entry.

Public shaming (which the minister cannot deny, having used that exact word in publishing the names) does exactly nothing to protect any British citizen from crime. It is blatantly ideological. It is the targetting of individuals who are not a part of the country's politics, for political gain.

Hate speech is already a worrying area, with the potential to stifle free speech which does not quite meet the standard of "hate speech" but is near to it. Ministerial discretion in individual cases is also worrying, with the potential to make partisan and ideological attacks against individuals (other than parliamentarians, who obviously volunteered for that) under cover of preventing "hate speech."

This public "shaming" completely crosses that line. It is exactly the abuse of power which is a worrying possibility of a minister or government enforcing the law, rather than making the law.

Precisely Goofballs. Until Savage applies for a visa, there is no need to even inform him that he will be refused entry.

Public shaming (which the minister cannot deny, having used that exact word in publishing the names) does exactly nothing to protect any British citizen from crime. It is blatantly ideological. It is the targetting of individuals who are not a part of the country's politics, for political gain.

Hate speech is already a worrying area, with the potential to stifle free speech which does not quite meet the standard of "hate speech" but is near to it. Ministerial discretion in individual cases is also worrying, with the potential to make partisan and ideological attacks against individuals (other than parliamentarians, who obviously volunteered for that) under cover of preventing "hate speech."

This public "shaming" completely crosses that line. It is exactly the abuse of power which is a worrying possibility of a minister or government enforcing the law, rather than making the law.

This is the man who would have Americans extradited for being MUSLIM.

This is the man who would have Americans extradited for being MUSLIM.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5030/picture1d.jpg

I considered posting to the Moderation thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14795734) concerning Heikoku 2's little pastiche of Savage. But all I really have is a "me too" so I'll post here instead.

I will say that I find this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14795714) extremely distasteful, though it does make its point. It is hard to escape the impression that Heikoku enjoys writing graphic descriptions of torture. First he blew off steam with the raping with a poleax comment at post #2 ... then it looks to me like he devised a rhetorical way (a pastiche of Savage) to indulge in torture fantasies. There are ten hours between those two posts, making it look a lot like a campaign of flamebait.

The same point could have been at least as well made by simply quoting Savage and then asking "would you let me into your country if I had a long record of saying such things publicly?"

"Savage does it for a living" isn't a very strong point. Savage not reading or posting to NSG (how do you know that anyway?) is relevant to whether the passage describing torture constitutes a personal threat ... but that isn't the only problem with the passage.

The passage is graphic: it uses enough detail to be comparable to pictures of torture which ARE banned on NSG. My objection is very like Neesika's, however much Heikoku might try to recast the question as whether he did or did not threaten Savage personally.

This is the man who would have Americans extradited for being MUSLIM.

I was speaking of the principle of ministerial discretion (of politician enforcing not just making law) and how this case of "naming and shaming" is in fact abuse of that power.

I admit it isn't immediately on-topic, but I'm not very interested in the strict topic, of whether Savage is or is not a hypocrit for appealing to the very person he criticized previously.

When we argue by cases, by picking individuals who we think "deserve" such an abuse of power, we play right into the hands of those who are every day making bad law and invading individual rights. Let's not be such suckers, huh?

I considered posting to the Moderation thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14795734) concerning Heikoku 2's little pastiche of Savage. But all I really have is a "me too" so I'll post here instead.

I will say that I find this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14795714) extremely distasteful, though it does make its point. It is hard to escape the impression that Heikoku enjoys writing graphic descriptions of torture. First he blew off steam with the raping with a poleax comment at post #2 ... then it looks to me like he devised a rhetorical way (a pastiche of Savage) to indulge in torture fantasies. There are ten hours between those two posts, making it look a lot like a campaign of flamebait.

The same point could have been at least as well made by simply quoting Savage and then asking "would you let me into your country if I had a long record of saying such things publicly?"

"Savage does it for a living" isn't a very strong point. Savage not reading or posting to NSG (how do you know that anyway?) is relevant to whether the passage describing torture constitutes a personal threat ... but that isn't the only problem with the passage.

The passage is graphic: it uses enough detail to be comparable to pictures of torture which ARE banned on NSG. My objection is very like Neesika's, however much Heikoku might try to recast the question as whether he did or did not threaten Savage personally.

1- My enjoyment of using my Language and Literature schooling for naughty ends isn't moddable.

2- Public figures are, as Ard once wrote, public. It's not flamebait to describe something one would enjoy seeing done to them.

3- Basic Linguistics shows that, no, words don't make a picture.

4- Who said I was threatening Savage or not? This question never came up.

No, he purely did a "What if" someone did make that threat. Savage does it himself, so it must be legal.

No, he purely did a "What if" someone did make that threat. Savage does it himself, so it must be legal.

Y'know, there's a moderation thread that could really use you in it. :p

Myrmi, let me give you an example...

***Kakemushire... Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou!***

I hope Savage gets kidnapped in the middle of the night, his family told he's gonna be tortured to death and they can't do anything about it unless they want in on the action. Then his family tries to, and gets in on the action. The torture - for all of them - would consist of their eyes being gouged out with a rusty spoon, then them being electrocuted at all times at a varying current that doesn't kill them, but makes them suffer. While they go through this, acid is put on their mouths, with a drug added to prevent them from swallowing it by making them vomit if they try to do so to end their suffering. They are told that the base is under attack, and then loud sounds of war are played around them, in a way that gives them the impression (they are blinded, remember) that they are blind people (they are) in the middle of a shootout. To improve this, some of them are shot with rubber bullets. And then they are quartered.

I would like the same, with slight and creative variations, to be done to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other people like them, and their families.

Would you like me to have the right to enter the US now? No? Good. That paragraph is way less than 30 minutes speaking in a radio show, and I don't write or say that for a living. Michael Savage DOES write and say that kind of thing for a living. The US would have every right to keep me out if I seriously said that for a living everyday. The UK has every right to do the same to Savage.

You have a long, notorious history with moderation, and should be expected to know better. A longer time out may help the rules sink in. 1 month Ban.

Obscene and Explicit Content: Sexually graphic images and posts, and violent images such as bloody corpses. Very strictly forbidden. Obscene imagery and content in the forums should be reported to the Moderation Forum. Please provide a link to the topic, but do not quote it while explaining its illegality. Then we have to find and delete your posts too.

The standard for both forums and game is the US movie rating "PG-13". Mild swearing may be tolerated, mild sexuality may be hinted, but explicit or excessive versions of either or both may result in proportional mod response.

Sorry. We're Coca-Cola drinkers down here. Y'all are gonna have to like Mr Pibb. :)

Root Beer > Pepsi > Coca-Cola.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is a guide dog for the king.

I'll miss you Heikoku. I had no idea the banning stakes were that high. :(

But alas, it is true. Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton for help on the Britain ban.



Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNR817KL85.DTL)

Why should he care about what "Liberals" and British "Nanny state" government think? He's a Conservative Talk show host dammit! :p

You should be more careful with your capitalizations. In Britain, Conservative is the name of a major political party. In Australia, Liberal is the name of a major political party (the conservative one, ironically enough.)

Perhaps you are planning to start a party of your own? Nappy changes for everyone regardless of age, breast feeding for life, creation of a new Ministry of Cooing and Clucking, and the abolition of labour unions in favour of nice naps after lunch.

Link me up. I'll join the Nanny party right now!

Root Beer > Pepsi > Coca-Cola.

Dr Pepper > all. :D

Dr Pepper > all. :D

Dr Pooper = http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif

Dr Pooper = http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif

It ill behoves a devotee of something called "root beer" to be making fun of the name of some other tipple.

Dr Pepper > all. :D
Damn straight!

***Kakemushire... Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou!***


Seriously?

***Senbonzakura Kageyoshi Shūkei***

I thought this was going to be a thread about Fred Savage :(

But alas, it is true. Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has asked Hillary Clinton for help on the Britain ban.

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/05/15/MNR817KL85.DTL)

Why should he care about what "Liberals" and British "Nanny state" government think? He's a Conservative Talk show host dammit! :p

And how exactly does it make him a hypocrite?

Really. Screw Savage. In the ass. By force. Sideways. With a poleaxe. On fire. Repeatedly. To death.

Rapist

And how exactly does it make him a hypocrite?





I think it was the whole calling being a tad disparaging towards liberals and then asking that Clinton fella to make Britain let him in..

I don't see what Clinton could do anyway.

I don't see what Clinton could do anyway.

I imagine she might have a bit of influence..

I imagine she might have a bit of influence..

Like?

Like?

Like, "I'm a very important person in your allies government, would you fancy doing me a favour?"

Of course that does assume Clinton really cares and it no way garantees that the foreign office would change it's mind just because she asked..

Anyway, there are proper ways to go about doing this stuff..

Like, "I'm a very important person in your allies government, would you fancy doing me a favour?"

Of course that does assume Clinton really cares and it no way garantees that the foreign office would change it's mind just because she asked..

Anyway, there are proper ways to go about doing this stuff..

I doubt she'd care enough to do anything and if she did I doubt we'd listen.

I doubt she'd care enough to do anything and if she did I doubt we'd listen.

Probably not.. It's only an issue because it was made public. Apart from that I don't see what the big deal is. I don't let arseholes into my house. I wouldn't let them into my country.

Dr Pepper > all. :D
Indeed.

the right of another country's sovereign government to not want him there?

There's no such thing.

Individuals are sovereign over their own property; government is most emphatically not sovereign over the entire country.

If there happens to be no one in the UK who wants him on their property, that's one thing. But if someone doesn't mind, then no government ever has any morally legitimate authority to pre-empt that decision.

There's no such thing.

Individuals are sovereign over their own property; government is most emphatically not sovereign over the entire country.

If there happens to be no one in the UK who wants him on their property, that's one thing. But if someone doesn't mind, then no government ever has any morally legitimate authority to pre-empt that decision.

Actually, by your definition the British government is. The Queen technically owns all of the UK from a certain depth, and the government is her Majesty's government charged with governing her affairs. Therefore if the Queen, via her government, rules that they do not want someone on their property, that covers all the country.

But ultimately I disagree with your premise - a government is elected by the people to represent their sovereignty in collective issues and as such most certainly does sovereignty over a country.

Actually, by your definition the British government is. The Queen technically owns all of the UK from a certain depth, and the government is her Majesty's government charged with governing her affairs. Therefore if the Queen, via her government, rules that they do not want someone on their property, that covers all the country.

But ultimately I disagree with your premise - a government is elected by the people to represent their sovereignty in collective issues and as such most certainly does sovereignty over a country.

Yeah wot you jus' sed!

Actually, by your definition the British government is. The Queen technically owns all of the UK from a certain depth, and the government is her Majesty's government charged with governing her affairs. Therefore if the Queen, via her government, rules that they do not want someone on their property, that covers all the country.

But ultimately I disagree with your premise - a government is elected by the people to represent their sovereignty in collective issues and as such most certainly does sovereignty over a country.

Oh I agree with him, and if Savage can find a willing person in England, and manage to get to that man's property without stepping on any publicly owned property (or entering any government owned airspace) on the way, not only is that impressive, but he can knock himself out.

a government is elected by the people to represent their sovereignty in collective issues and as such most certainly does sovereignty over a country.
Doesn't work like that.

Neither "the crown" nor "the state" nor "the people" nor anything else ever possess any sort of morally legitimate authority over the individual and his property. And simply saying, "Well, under our form of government/under our laws, they do" does not change that fact. In truth, if a form of government or legal code purports to give, or allows the exercise of, authority by one party over another party that the first party does not already possess through prior objective moral principle, than that form of government or legal code is illegitimate and invalid.

any publicly owned property (or entering any government owned airspace)

The state is not a legitimate owner of land or airspace.

There's no such thing.

Individuals are sovereign over their own property;

I think you left out a step there. Is a dead body or a ghost "sovereign over their own property" ...?

That wouldn't make much sense, really, would it?

To be sovereign over "their" property, one would need to be alive.

And is that even enough? Are we to recognize a sovereign right of any creature to "their own property" ? Do we, ever ... even in the case of a beloved family pet, do we recognize and respect their "sovereignty" over their favourite flea-ridden blanket?

You fill in the missing step.

It's actually a rather vital step. Without it, there would be no such concept as "murder" and the use of force would be almost meaningless, amounting to nothing more than the destruction of property.

That's plenty of hints. Scratch yourself and have a think about it.

Oh I agree with him, and if Savage can find a willing person in England, and manage to get to that man's property without stepping on any publicly owned property (or entering any government owned airspace) on the way, not only is that impressive, but he can knock himself out.

Ok, I'll go with that. Better make sure that property isn't on a leasehold too :D

Doesn't work like that.

Neither "the crown" nor "the state" nor "the people" nor anything else ever possess any sort of morally legitimate authority over the individual and his property.Prove it. I'm not saying your wrong, just that a statement like that should never be taken for granted and therefore needs to have logical support. Unless you really do mean "morally" and not "ethically", because in that case it is irrelevant.

Doesn't work like that.

Neither "the crown" nor "the state" nor "the people" nor anything else ever possess any sort of morally legitimate authority over the individual and his property. And simply saying, "Well, under our form of government/under our laws, they do" does not change that fact. In truth, if a form of government or legal code purports to give, or allows the exercise of, authority by one party over another party that the first party does not already possess through prior objective moral principle, than that form of government or legal code is illegitimate and invalid.



The state is not a legitimate owner of land or airspace.


Moraly, yes perhaps you have a point, but litraly, realisticly, and lawfully, then no you're wrong.

And is that even enough? Are we to recognize a sovereign right of any creature to "their own property" ?
Please pay attention to what I actually said; if you did that you'd realize the absurdity of this question.

It's actually a rather vital step. Without it, there would be no such concept as "murder" and the use of force would be almost meaningless, amounting to nothing more than the destruction of property.


Precisely! And since private property is utterly sacred, and denying an individual sovereignty over his property is the worst sin one can commit, then all crimes against property are equally bad and equally dire, and deserve punishment by torture and painful execution.

Precisely! And since private property is utterly sacred, and denying an individual sovereignty over his property is the worst sin one can commit, then all crimes against property are equally bad and equally dire, and deserve punishment by torture and painful execution.According to whom?

There's no such thing.

Individuals are sovereign over their own property; government is most emphatically not sovereign over the entire country.

If there happens to be no one in the UK who wants him on their property, that's one thing. But if someone doesn't mind, then no government ever has any morally legitimate authority to pre-empt that decision.

Explain how 'individual soveriegnty' over property is any more legitimate than governmental sovereignty over same.

Neither "the crown" nor "the state" nor "the people" nor anything else ever possess any sort of morally legitimate authority over the individual and his property. And simply saying, "Well, under our form of government/under our laws, they do" does not change that fact. In truth, if a form of government or legal code purports to give, or allows the exercise of, authority by one party over another party that the first party does not already possess through prior objective moral principle, than that form of government or legal code is illegitimate and invalid.


I'm tempted to just ask you if you are trying to actually make an argument here or put together a lot of big words in a hope they may make sense, but I shall refrain from such things.

Instead I must ask, please do define "prior objective moral principle", since you seem to be basing your entire argument on it.

Prove it. I'm not saying your wrong, just that a statement like that should never be taken for granted and therefore needs to have logical support. Unless you really do mean "morally" and not "ethically", because in that case it is irrelevant.

Exactly.

I'd also like to know how the individual is suddenly inherently better than all the aforementioned entities.

I'm tempted to just ask you if you are trying to actually make an argument here or put together a lot of big words in a hope they may make sense, but I shall refrain from such things.

Instead I must ask, please do define "prior objective moral principle", since you seem to be basing your entire argument on it.

Can you not spy the look of a Randriod?:D

According to whom?

Objective moral principle, as proven clearly and conclusively from the first principles of the Universe.

Of course, Bluth's crappola should probably end up in a thread of its own.

Objective moral principle, as proven clearly and conclusively from the first principles of the Universe.Disproven by the disproving of objective moral principle. Come up with something more conclusive than one sentence or I win.

I'd also like to know how the individual is suddenly inherently better than all the aforementioned entities.

It's not "sudden"--it's always been this way. Six thousand years of dogmatic brainwashing by the incorrect and corrupt Judeo-Christian moral code simply means many people don't realize it, which is not the same thing as it not having been true all this time.

Disproven by the disproving of objective moral principle. Come up with something more conclusive than one sentence or I win.

A is A.

A is A.Says nothing about individual property.

A is A.

Which is nice is an abstract sense (though you'd be surprised how many mathematicians can actually prove A is not A) but in the real world, A is often also B, C, D and E, not to mention occasionally F depending on which way the wind blows.

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with an actual argument here rather than just quoting trite Randianisms.

A is A.

Heh except of course when the Letter A is used in formula to represent something that is not A?

It's not "sudden"--it's always been this way. Six thousand years of dogmatic brainwashing by the incorrect and corrupt Judeo-Christian moral code simply means many people don't realize it, which is not the same thing as it not having been true all this time.

So then all morals come from this Judeo-Christian source?

Objective moral principle, as proven clearly and conclusively from the first principles of the Universe.

Apparently he has familiarised himself with the writings of blah blah blah *loses interest*.

You're all being trolled.

Apparently he has familiarised himself with the writings of blah blah blah *loses interest*.

Ahhh man no, I love these sorts of people. It's a pity that their system is unworkable, but I do like to argue the toss with them. Umm is that wrong?

You're all being trolled.

Yeah, I was distracted by my daughter pretending she was a kitten.

Ahhh man no, I love these sorts of people. It's a pity that their system is unworkable, but I do like to argue the toss with them. Umm is that wrong?

When it's a complete threadjack, then yes.

You're all being trolled.Yeah, but appeaseing the Taliban gave Pakistan the moral high ground to annihilate them.

(though you'd be surprised how many mathematicians can actually prove A is not A)
No, they can't.

They may think they have, but all such attempts must necessarily failed. Since all logic and, indeed, mathematics itself depend on this proposition, to prove it false is to use logic to deny logic: clearly an absurd endeavor.

but in the real world,
Do you mean the world of human institutions and human creations that--gasp!--can be changed by humans if they're not found to be in accord with the way things should be?

A is often also B, C, D and E
As long as B, C, D, and E do not have any qualities that contradict A-ness, that's perfectly fine.

A = Me/I
B = Human being

A is A: I am I
A is B: I am a human being.

B does not have any qualities that contradict A-ness, so it is possible for A to be B.

A = Me/I
B = Not me/Not I

A is A: I am I
A is B: I am not I

B has a quality that contradicts A-ness, so it is not possible for A to be B.

See how that works?

I'm afraid you'll have to come up with an actual argument here rather than just quoting trite Randianisms.
Your denial of the fundamentals of logic an the universe is your failure, not mine.

When it's a complete threadjack, then yes.

Ahhh against the rules wrong yes, I meant moraly though.:D

So then all morals come from this Judeo-Christian source?

No.

Please pay attention to what I said: The Judeo-Christian moral code is a moral code (note the use of the indefinite article there). Specifically, it is an incorrect (that is, it is not compatible with the objectively correct moral code) moral code.

Ahhh man no, I love these sorts of people. It's a pity that their system is unworkable,

How so? Furthermore, when the discussion is of "the way things ought to be," how is that relevant?

Please pay attention to what I actually said; if you did that you'd realize the absurdity of this question.

I refuse to believe you cannot infer the missing step of sovereignty, without which INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY over PROPERTY is literally impossible.

You know what that step is. You do. The individual has sovereignty over something, without which they could not have sovereignty over property.

This isn't a matter of hints any more. Either you are aware of a fatal weakness in your argument, and think that by refusing to acknowledge it your argument will stand ... or your argument is not and never was serious.

Precisely! And since private property is utterly sacred, and denying an individual sovereignty over his property is the worst sin one can commit, then all crimes against property are equally bad and equally dire, and deserve punishment by torture and painful execution.

Lol!

What should be the punishment for murder, then?

No.

Please pay attention to what I said: The Judeo-Christian moral code is a moral code (note the use of the indefinite article there). Specifically, it is an incorrect (that is, it is not compatible with the objectively correct moral code) moral code.

Meh! Then I must also request that you too pay attention to what I have asked.

You said:

'Six thousand years of dogmatic brainwashing by the incorrect and corrupt Judeo-Christian moral code simply means many people don't realize it, which is not the same thing as it not having been true all this time.'

Reading this it leaves no room for moral codes arrived at independantly of Christianty, and so I asked the question I did. You know we sometimes do that so as to glean what has been left unsaid.

See how that works?It doesn't.
Your denial of my favorite tautology is the only acceptable means of dealing with tautologies.Fixed it so that it makes logical* sense.

*as in, can be supported by reasonable argumentation

Your denial of the fundamentals of logic an the universe is your failure, not mine.

And yet, there is still not an actual argument here that means anything - objective or otherwise.

*Yawn* Old troll is old and I have work to do

No.

Please pay attention to what I said: The Judeo-Christian moral code is a moral code (note the use of the indefinite article there). Specifically, it is an incorrect (that is, it is not compatible with the objectively correct moral code) moral code.

We've been over this before. Your ignorance continues to astound me.

There is no such thing as objectivity. There is no such thing as morality. Both are constructs of the human existence, and both are either just as valid or just as invalid as the human construct of society, and all it entails. There is certainly no such thing as a naturally existing moral code. A moral code can only exist in the minds of creatures capable of being aware of morality. Do you think sharks share our "objectively correct" moral code?

The only objectively correct opinion to have on this matter is the one I have. It is possible to have an opinion, but any opinion that is not compatible with the objectively correct opinion is wrong. So sorry.

You're all being trolled.

Fun, isn't it?

How so? Furthermore, when the discussion is of "the way things ought to be," how is that relevant?

In short then coz I have to leave now. It is unworkable because it turns people into emotionless robots, when we humans cannot escape from our emotions. It leaves it's aderants with a smug, condersedning attitude that alienates other people, and as we are social creatures then you'll find your self quickly on the outside wondering how these people can all be so blind.

Yet when we look deeper, we'll notice that the change in psyche has come not from the rest of humanity but from the disicple of Rand. So really the whole system is lacking in humanity, emotion and empathy. Really unworkable for an emotional, empathic and social creature.

As to how things ought to be, well any philosphy not grounded in reality, or the reality of the situation is not workable. Things ought to be the way they are, because wholesale change comes so very, very, very slowly.

Fun, isn't it?

Oh, I love feeding A is A man. We go way back.

What should be the punishment for murder, then?

My life is my property.

Reading this it leaves no room for moral codes arrived at independantly of Christianty

Yes, it does.

There is no such thing as objectivity.
Yes, there is, as I have proven conclusively countless times.

There is no such thing as morality.
So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.

Both are constructs of the human existence, and both are either just as valid or just as invalid as the human construct of society, and all it entails.
So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.

There is certainly no such thing as a naturally existing moral code.
So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.

A moral code can only exist in the minds of creatures capable of being aware of morality.
Not quite. A moral code only has relevance to, and can only be understood by, creatures capable of being aware of morality. But its existence is metaphysically indepent of their minds.

Oh, I love feeding A is A man. We go way back.

A is A is actually a syllogism. Not objectively, but that's just the point. Objectively, it's an oxymoron, but you see the vast majority hold an incorrect view because they've been brainwashed by those who would stand to gain by preventing the majority from realizing their own interests.

Specifically, the vast majority believe that A ≠ A, so to them A = A is an enlightening syllogism, which is why they all stand and applaud and beg the enlightened one for more such pearls of wisdom.

The only thing I don't understand, is why the enlightened one gives away such valuable and empowering knowledge for free. He should do seminars or something, maybe hawk his self-help book and some t-shirts on a table at the door.

In short then coz I have to leave now. It is unworkable because it turns people into emotionless robots,
Congratulations. You have just demonstrated that you understanding nothing of Objectivism.

Objectivism is the CELEBRATION of POSITIVE human emotion, not as a means for making decisions, but as the end towards which one's decisions should properly be directed!

Objectivism holds that the Universe has an existence metaphysically independent of our perception of it, and that man should apply his rational mind first to discover the substantial nature of that Universe and then to work out a means of promoting his own happiness (a positive emotion, no?) that takes into consideration the constraints of objective reality--because an attempt to attain happiness that ignores those constraints, and involves doing the impossible, is doomed to failure resulting in misery for the individual in question.

I am happy when my fellow human beings have the necessaries of life.

My life is my property.

Yay! Progress!

That took what ... ten, fifteen hints for you to get?

Now. Which is primary: your life, or all your other property?

Before you say "they are both property and of absolute value / sacred" ask yourself this: is one of these classes of property not possible without the other?

If so, the one which is required in order to have even the possibility of the other is primary. It is the GREATER sovereignty.

I actually really want to go to bed. It is 3 am. So I'm going to give you just one chance at this. I'm not going to fart around for twenty minutes like we just did to get to the bleeding obvious -- just say yea or nay please.

EDIT: goodnight all.

Yes, there is, as I have proven conclusively countless times.


So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.


So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.


So you keep saying, though I have proven otherwise countless times.


Not quite. A moral code only has relevance to, and can only be understood by, creatures capable of being aware of morality. But its existence is metaphysically indepent of their minds.

Squawk squawk. You have not proven anything ever. You've yet to prove that objectivity or morality or anything exist outside the minds of human beings. Unless you can demonstrate that there is an objective moral code in the universe without relying on human perception, you'll never be able to escape the undeniable fact that all of these concepts are constructs of the human mind.

Yay! Progress!

That took what ... ten, fifteen hints for you to get?
Zero, because I arrived at that conclusion when I first developed this philosophy years ago, and in fact have been saying it all along, in this thread as well as in other discussions.

Which is primary: your life, or all your other property?
Both are of equal status.

is one of these classes of property not possible without the other?
Neither is possible without the other, which is why they are of equal status, as I have been saying all along.

Squawk squawk. You have not proven anything ever. You've yet to prove that objectivity or morality or anything exist outside the minds of human beings.

That you have not recognized the proofs--whether because you dishonestly ignored them, honestly missed them, or ignorantly did not understand them--is your failure, not mine.

Oh, I love feeding A is A man. We go way back.

Ohh, do you have special food for him so he may grow big and strong to come back and troll another day. It must get tiring avoiding actually putting any substance into an argument.

That you have not recognized the proofs--whether because you dishonestly ignored them, honestly missed them, or ignorantly did not understand them--is your failure, not mine.

You have not presented proofs. You have presented mindless supposition masquerading as evidence through the liberal use of expensive phrasing. As always, you present no argument whatsoever. Just a pathetic attempt at employing intellectual arrogance to try to hide your complete lack of argument.

You have not presented proofs.

Yes, I have. Your insistent denials to the contrary--whether they're rooted in dishonesty or ignorance--does not change that fact.

No, they can't.

They may think they have, but all such attempts must necessarily failed. Since all logic and, indeed, mathematics itself depend on this proposition, to prove it false is to use logic to deny logic: clearly an absurd endeavor.


Do you mean the world of human institutions and human creations that--gasp!--can be changed by humans if they're not found to be in accord with the way things should be?


As long as B, C, D, and E do not have any qualities that contradict A-ness, that's perfectly fine.

A = Me/I
B = Human being

A is A: I am I
A is B: I am a human being.

B does not have any qualities that contradict A-ness, so it is possible for A to be B.

A = Me/I
B = Not me/Not I

A is A: I am I
A is B: I am not I

B has a quality that contradicts A-ness, so it is not possible for A to be B.

See how that works?


Your denial of the fundamentals of logic an the universe is your failure, not mine.

Can someone other than Bluth actually explain what this means and what the hell it has to do with morality because I really don't get it..

Yes, I have. Your insistent denials to the contrary--whether they're rooted in dishonesty or ignorance--does not change that fact.

No you have not. I will repeat this again for you, as you seem incapable of understanding the English language. What you have presented do not constitute proofs, under any reasonable definition of the word. You have not presented anything that even resembles evidence, under any reasonable definition of the word. In short, your entire argument is a complete failure, and you should cease embarassing yourself so completely.

Can someone other than Bluth actually explain what this means and what the hell it has to do with morality because I really don't get it..

It doesn't mean anything. It is intellectual masturbation employed to obscure the fact that he has no rational basis for anything he states.

It doesn't mean anything. It is intellectual masturbation employed to obscure the fact that he has no rational basis for anything he states.

There must be more to it than that, right?

There must be more to it than that, right?

Nope. Such is the magic of Duckspeak

There must be more to it than that, right?

Which is funny because BC is using objectivism to try and justify Weiner being allowed into the UK, when if we went by objectivism the Queen and thus by the extension the UK has a right to do whatever the hell it wants, namely keep Weiner out.

Which is funny because BC is using objectivism to try and justify Weiner being allowed into the UK, when if we went by objectivism the Queen and thus by the extension the UK has a right to do whatever the hell it wants

Nope.

Remember, Objectivism is all about the individual. Each individual has the right to decide whether or not he allows this person on his own property; neither "the queen" nor "the UK" nor "the people" or whatever else you want to use has the right to decide whether or not he's allowed into "the country."

What you have presented do not constitute proofs,

Not quite.

Of the arguments I have presented, the ones you have chosen to acknowledge and respond to do not constitute proofs; that much is correct. You simply have not acknowledged the arguments I have posted that are in fact proofs: either you missed them, you're ignoring them, or you simply don't understand them.

Nope.

Remember, Objectivism is all about the individual. Each individual has the right to decide whether or not he allows this person on his own property; neither "the queen" nor "the UK" nor "the people" or whatever else you want to use has the right to decide whether or not he's allowed into "the country."

Aren't you complaining about illegal immigration in the United States?

Not quite.

Of the arguments I have presented, the ones you have chosen to acknowledge and respond to do not constitute proofs; that much is correct. You simply have not acknowledged the arguments I have posted that are in fact proofs: either you missed them, you're ignoring them, or you simply don't understand them.

Well, post them again here, since I obviously missed your revolutionary posts where you demonstrated objective, natural morality in the universe independently of human perception. Go ahead and prove such a thing exists.

A is A.

One question: What does that even mean? I didn't ever really get it.

Aren't you complaining about illegal immigration in the United States?

No; I think you've got me confused with someone else.

I oppose immigration restrictions precisely because they violate the right of an individual to allow anyone he wants on his own property.

It's been years since I last agreed with any sort of immigration restriction.

No; I think you've got me confused with someone else.

I oppose immigration restrictions precisely because they violate the right of an individual to allow anyone he wants on his own property.

It's been years since I last agreed with any sort of immigration restriction.

And would you argue that the "right of an individual" trumps the right of a nation to protect itself from potential terrorist infiltration?

Nope. Such is the magic of Duckspeak

It all seems to be very South Park, you know?

Phase 1 : State the identity A = A

Phase 2 : ?????

Phase 3 : Claim universal objective authority!

And would you argue that the "right of an individual" trumps the right of a nation to protect itself from potential terrorist infiltration?

Does the right of an individual trump the rights of others to be safe from harm?

Neither "the crown" nor "the state" nor "the people" nor anything else ever possess any sort of morally legitimate authority over the individual and his property. And simply saying, "Well, under our form of government/under our laws, they do" does not change that fact. In truth, if a form of government or legal code purports to give, or allows the exercise of, authority by one party over another party that the first party does not already possess through prior objective moral principle, than that form of government or legal code is illegitimate and invalid.


I assume you favor the 'legalize' argument with regards to immigration, then?

Precisely! And since private property is utterly sacred, and denying an individual sovereignty over his property is the worst sin one can commit, then all crimes against property are equally bad and equally dire, and deserve punishment by torture and painful execution.

Wouldn't torture and execution be a crime against the person's property - A.K.A. his body? Wouldn't we then need to torture and execute his executioners? Oh, and their executioners, oh....

And would you argue that the "right of an individual" trumps the right of a nation to protect itself from potential terrorist infiltration?

"Nations" don't have rights. Only individuals do.

I assume you favor the 'legalize' argument with regards to immigration, then?

Of course I do; what makes you think I wouldn't?

In fact, I already addressed this very question earlier in the thread; have you not been paying attention?

Wouldn't torture and execution be a crime against the person's property - A.K.A. his body? Wouldn't we then need to torture and execute his executioners? Oh, and their executioners, oh....

Of course not. After all, only humans have rights, and when one chooses to violate the rights of another he has renounced his own humanity and thus no longer possesses any rights of his own.

Of course not. After all, only humans have rights, and when one chooses to violate the rights of another he has renounced his own humanity and thus no longer possesses any rights of his own.

Woohoo! I've been wondering how not to be a human. Can I be a unicorn?

Woohoo! I've been wondering how not to be a human. Can I be a unicorn?

I don't know, you need to ask my 3-year-old niece about that...she seems to know a lot about unicorns.

She certainly was willing to tell me everything about them last time I babysat her!

Of course I do; what makes you think I wouldn't?

In fact, I already addressed this very question earlier in the thread; have you not been paying attention?

No, not really.

The fundamental problem with the model you recommend, is that it's nonsensical.

If you define the ultimate state as ownership, and the ultimate owner as the individual - then I'm going to take everything that is yours, because I'm bigger than you.

Not quite.

Of the arguments I have presented, the ones you have chosen to acknowledge and respond to do not constitute proofs; that much is correct. You simply have not acknowledged the arguments I have posted that are in fact proofs: either you missed them, you're ignoring them, or you simply don't understand them.

No, you haven't presented any proofs. I'm a mathematician - my job is to prove things. Not one of your arguments yet has even come close to a true logical proof.

No, not really.

The fundamental problem with the model you recommend, is that it's nonsensical.

If you define the ultimate state as ownership, and the ultimate owner as the individual - then I'm going to take everything that is yours, because I'm bigger than you.

But now you've renounced your rights and will have the stuff revocked by... well I have no idea really. Some mystical right enforcing fairy who succeeds where Bluth failed?

Objective moral principle, as proven clearly and conclusively from the first principles of the Universe.

God is objectivist? o.O

What does this even mean? As far as I read it, it amounts to "I'm right because everything I say is the first principle of the Universe". That's about as much of a proof as Adam Sandler is a funny actor.

Zero, because I arrived at that conclusion when I first developed this philosophy years ago, and in fact have been saying it all along, in this thread as well as in other discussions.


Both are of equal status.


Neither is possible without the other, which is why they are of equal status, as I have been saying all along.

You believe it is not possible for a person to have life (to be alive) unless they own some other property?

And you have been developing this philosophy for years?

I'm sorry, I just don't know what to say.

I think it's best if I put you on my ignore list now. No offence intended.

But now you've renounced your rights and will have the stuff revocked by... well I have no idea really. Some mystical right enforcing fairy who succeeds where Bluth failed?

I'm not renouncing my rights, though. I like having all Bluth's stuff, and I'm going to make sure that the society I belong to polarizes such that there is a predatory group (to which I, obviously now belong) with all the shit, and a prey group (people like Bluth) who have nothing.

God is objectivist? o.O

What does this even mean? As far as I read it, it amounts to "I'm right because everything I say is the first principle of the Universe". That's about as much of a proof as Adam Sandler is a funny actor.

Adam Sandler can be funny at times (I loved Happy Gilmore I have to admit). Dane Cook or Pauly Shore would be a more apt analogy.

You believe it is not possible for a person to have life (to be alive) unless they own some other property?

What do you think food is? Air? Water? A place to be?

What do you think food is? Air? Water? A place to be?

You think you 'own' the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the land you stand on?

What a quaint view of the world you have.