About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Savage smears FCC diversity officer as a "communist vermin" "neo-Nazi," who wants to "put" him "out of business"

August 17, 2009 11:34 am ET

From the August 14 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by HistoricallyCorrect (August 17, 2009 11:35 am ET)
      2 1
      Methinks Michael Savage needs to look up "Neo-Nazi" in the dictionary.
      As well as Fascism, Logic, Reason and Integrity.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (August 17, 2009 11:42 am ET)
      11 2
      Dear Michael,
      Maybe if you weren 't so nasty, perfectly reasonable people wouldn't be going out of their way to get your show off the air. Maybe you should look into the mirror to see the real "neo-Nazi, communist vermin."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (August 17, 2009 11:44 am ET)
        2 22
        "perfectly reasonable people" don't go out of their way to shut people up. Your statement is the perfect example of the left unwilling to debate, in favor of silencing the 'opposition'. Classic!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (August 17, 2009 11:58 am ET)
          10 1
          Perfectly reasonable people don't call the President of the United States a communist. There is no debating that. Plain and simple.

          And calling everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't a vermin fascist or a Bolshevik.

          People like Savage what communism, socialism or democracy mean. They only know what they hate and lump it all under the evils of communism.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (August 17, 2009 11:59 am ET)
            9  
            And calling everyone who doesn't agree with you vermin, fascist or a Bolshevik isn't debate or dialogue.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 17, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
          13 1
          That's absurd. Your lot don't wnat to DEBATE you want to silence US. That were not willing to just BE SILENCED does mean in the leats that we don't want to DEBATE. You guys just forget (about 20 years ago) what DEBATE actually means.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by SMTDL (August 17, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
            2 2
            You need to change your screen name..YOU are defending someone who is not a NICEGUY!!!!!!Who is he to call somebody vermin?Vermin are not desirable and get eliminated by various means..like poison,being shot ,attacked and killed by a dog!!!!That is a despicable thing for a national radio host to say about an official of a national regulatory group!!!Using neo-nazi and communist as buzz words for someone you disagree with is disrespectful to the historical efforts made to fight end those oppressive doctrines.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Übermensch (August 17, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
              5  
              SMTDL

              I believe that NiceguyEddie was directing that response towards puppienrainbows
              Report Abuse
              • Author by SMTDL (August 17, 2009 1:49 pm ET)
                4 1
                You're right..my bad..sorry about that NiceGuyEddie...just went off seeing an unbelievable defense of Savage.
                We should be concerned that someone gets to say stuff like this on national radio without repercussions!!This is not free speech this is just promotion of hate and division!!!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Bronwyn (August 17, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  That is why talk radio despises the very thought of the "Fairness Doctrine". They would be debated on their lies and misinformation. Then where would they be?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by John Paradox (August 17, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Having taken Broadcast Law at a time the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, and working my first decade in radio under it, I know from experience all the claims against it are totally BS
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 17, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
                  3  
                  No prob. Obviously I'd agree entirely with your first post, assuming it was actually directed at someone who was defending that scumbag [Savage] and not at me! But it's all good. I've made that same mistake more than once myself.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by epkklk851 (August 17, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
              7  
              "Using neo-nazi and communist as buzz words for someone you disagree with is disrespectful to the historical efforts made to fight end those oppressive doctrines."

              Excellent point and currently being overlooked! And evoking these really only hurts any attempts at civil discourse and debate.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by epkklk851 (August 17, 2009 12:07 pm ET)
          10 1
          Mr. Savage doesn't debate, he yells and calls names and throws around insults. That isn't debate, it is verbal abuse. I don't listen to that pig even though I am a big advocate of free speech, however, I will not let his remarks go unchallenged. Usually, the response from his ilk is to pull the plug on me while I am talking and then to trash me afterwards without giving me a chance to respond. But I guess that sort of bad manners is okay with people like you because it was only an evil liberal who probably has actual facts to support their position instead of wild specutalion, innuendo, and guilt by association, and other smears and stubborn things like facts are really offensive and bothersome.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (August 17, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
          7 1
          And again, nobody is telling him to shut up or be silent. We just believe that people are entitled to a radio show. It's not a right we're all guaranteed.

          We do have a belief that our airwaves, the ones that we own here in the US, shouldn't be used to further hate and intolerance.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by progressiveright (August 17, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
          7 1
          Perfectly resonable people use debate not yelling over the otherside, insulting the other side, and promoting violance. There is far more of all three of these on the right than has ever been on the left. Savage dose not want a fair debate baised on facts for any issue because he knows the facts will prove the left correct.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by New Frontier (August 17, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
          2  
          epkklk851 has a lot of nerve calling that poor, persecuted victim--Saint Michael the Savage-- "nasty", when ALL Michael wanted to do was engage in "debate", starting with calling PBS and/or the FCC's Mark Lloyd "vermin fascist crazy spying curtailers, communist KGB pieces-of-garbage failinge drivelers, and neo-Nazi smearing syncophants". Let the debate begin!

          Leave Michael Savage Alooooone! And God Bless Major Garrett!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (August 17, 2009 1:18 pm ET)
          7 1
          Puppie:

          You pretend that what SavageWeiner says is reasonable itself. You are (at best) delusional or (more likely) lying. "Debate" involves actual reasoned arguments, which neither SavageWeiner nor you make. When you accuse us of your own faults, you reveal your own intellectual and ethical weakness.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (August 17, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
            1 5
            I said absolutely nothing about the veracity of Savage's remarks. I was responding to a poster who insisted that "perfectly reasonable people were trying to get him (Savage) off the air". People like epkklk851 feel it is appropriate to simply dismiss opinions from commentators like Savage and silence them rather than confront his ideas with rebuttal. The typical 'rebuttal' on this website is a barrage of insults, slurs and blanket condemnation. The debate starts when two or more parties recognize the differences, respect the validity of those differences and allow each to form a platform of ideas for comparison. If you silence someone because you disagree with their platform, no matter how vile it may seem, you stifle debate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by benjr (August 17, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
              2  
              puppienrainbows:
              The debate starts when two or more parties recognize the differences, respect the validity of those differences and allow each to form a platform of ideas for comparison

              That is true. Savage, however, NEVER does that, so that comparison is faulty. Also, nobody's silencing Savage because they disagree with his opinions, but rather the hateful way he expresses them
              Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
          3  
          Exactly why people have been complaining about the phony "protestors" who've been showing up at the town halls screaming and yelling over people attempting to ask relevant questions. They have no idea what they are talking about, they are simply trying to drown out others.

          Oh, and inciting violence? That's not reasonable debate. I'm not a liberal or from the left, but I will argue against hate speech and lies any day of the week.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
          3  
          BTW, you are aware that in true debates, each person is required to be able to argue both sides of an issue with equal knowledge and ability. Simply stating an opinion against the "opposition" is not debate.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (August 17, 2009 11:48 am ET)
      9  
      "Progressive is a code word for communist."

      And Weiner is a code word for moron.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dr. matt (August 17, 2009 2:01 pm ET)
        3  

        Just last month Newt was advocating that the reich-wingers start calling themselves "progressives".
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (August 17, 2009 11:51 am ET)
      2  
      Here`s a clue >>>>>>>> you should scream at the FCC with a empty bag of bullets, As see the FCC has the right to check on you rhate speech.
      As you are on mmmmm what is it now MMMMMMM oh yes PUBLIC AIRWAVES
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Indy (August 17, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
      9  
      Well what is it Neo-Nazi or communist? Make up your mind. He cant even rant with any historical consistency. But I'm sure his listeners don't know the ideological difference they just start foaming at the mouth at any hateful reference.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Martha (August 17, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
      2 1
      I thought .....hate speech.....was illegal?


      That should take care of Savage, Limburp and the entire of FOX news! And Lou Doobs too also.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmp079 (August 17, 2009 12:23 pm ET)
      3  
      What is he talking about??? It sounds like a bunch of complaining. People who actually listens to him and believe his crying needs their brain examined.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anarchosyndiclist (August 17, 2009 12:32 pm ET)
      2  
      Free speech does not remove the liabilities one will face for said speech…just means one can not be criminally prosecuted for speaking….one may call the President an Manchurian candidate who was raised in secret Islamic schools to destroy America…and deride other individuals in the society as communist who in reality just want more expansive social programs and a more equitable society…you can even say these same people are bent on rounding up elderly folks and gassing them to death….one can not prosecute you for said speech….doesn’t mean the society should still allow you to be gainfully employed though….Savage and a host of other people have coarsened the intellectual debate in this society…its done for cheap return on investment….and the society has failed such a large segment that it never developed the critical thinking skills needed to protect them from opportunist who are just turning a buck…that is truly where the Left failed…it abandoned a large segment of the community to their ignorance and poverty because there was no cache in helping those folks.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by 44Katster (August 17, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
      1 1
      People, please, we live in the US of the A.

      Freedom of speech -- I refer you to the constitution. This is the law of the land.

      Those politicians who do not follow it will not be re-elected.

      Americans will not tolerate silencing anyone whether it be a conservative, liberal, republican, democrat, independent, man, woman, etc.

      You get the idea.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (August 17, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
        1  
        The First Amendment applies only to the prohibition that Congress write laws to prohibit the exercise of free speech. I don't think anybody's requesting that the government step in, except to the extent that the FCC regulates what is considered acceptable speech on the airwaves. Hate speech and inciting violence aren't usually considered free speech.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 17, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
      2  
      Most of conservative(republican) talk is carried on AM radio stations.Most AM stations in populated areas of USA signal strength is the city limits.This means that the AM signal broadcasting a large percentage of conservative(republican) talk radio is confined to urban areas.The agreement radio station for use of the public airways,they are supposed to serve the market they serve.Does conservative talk radio serve an urban market?Small AM station owners have been tricked by the major conservative(republican) talk radio shows.They used the AM stations gather the audience.Then they come in with an FM station to cover area and take advertisers from the AM stations and still keep the audience.The AM station is left making no money with a signal confined to an urban market area.A literal marketing gold mine that has been hijacked to be used as republican campaign headquarters
      Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 17, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
        2  
        This allows them to get their real audience in surburban areas and count people in urban areas as part of their audience.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NdlovukaziThor (August 17, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
          2  
          I'm a little confused by what you're saying, but I do have to take issue with the difference in how far-reaching each type is - FM does not reach as far as AM does. (Higher frequency/shorter wavelengths vs. lower frequency/longer wavelengths)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 17, 2009 10:03 pm ET)
            2  
            I have only made an observation of what has happened.It is what it is.FM radio is more popular than FM because it is clearer.What part of what I have stated is confusing.I was not talking about the technical differences in AM and FM radio.I was speaking of a serious money game that Conservative(republican)talk radio has played on many AM radio stations because of that difference.Before their big conversion to conservative talk,many of these AM stations had started programing to the areas where there signal is clearest,primarily the city limits.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NdlovukaziThor (August 17, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
              1  
              I'm not disputing anything with what you said about the corporations, because of course they'll play dirty games, and I realized that was your own observation... just that AM isn't "confined to an urban market area", FM is. So, based on their "technical differences", it would have to be the opposite of what you said. Doesn't change the meaning, just switches the letters around.

              I was just noting something that I thought was incorrect (the rest of the post I didn't disagree on, but was still somewhat unclear overall to me). I teach adolescents about the electromagnetic spectrum (among other taboo science-y things) for a living, so I just felt obligated to say what I did. It wasn't an attack on your views or opinions or an attack at all, just a correction.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 18, 2009 1:19 am ET)
                1  
                Mediam range FM comes in clearer because AM clearness is more easily distorted by out side electronic sources.You are correct about AM range.I have picked up Miami Fl AM stations along the Texas gulf coast.Helped by the low electronic interference as the signal travels across the gulf.I like science
                Report Abuse
    • Author by jgibson349687 (August 17, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
      1  
      Whiner Savage going all-out making up lies about liberals. FCC should fine Savage.
      Report Abuse