Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

  1. #1
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

    Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so? - Telegraph

    Perhaps Jacqui Smith thinks that it "sends out a signal" about the kind of Britain we want. On the contrary, it reinforces a culture created by this Labour Government, and its addiction to political correctness where people are increasingly confused and panic-stricken about what they can say and what is forbidden, a culture where a police officer can seriously think he is right to arrest a protester for calling a police horse "gay". Our courts and tribunals are clogged with people claiming to have suffered insults of one kind or another, and a country once famous for free speech is now hysterically and expensively sensitive to anything that could be taken as a slight.
    Nice to read at least one British politician who understands that political correctness is evil.

    I especially liked the part where Michael Savage's radio broadcast very likely did not violate any British law.

  2. #2
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    I wonder if the libs over there will charge that politician with a hate crime or hate speech for defending Savage.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #3
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 01:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    I think O'Reilly interviewed a woman who said Savage was added to the Brits' list because they needed to add some non-Muslim white guys to offset the heavy representation of Muslim undesirables on it.

    OBL 11/24/02

  4. #4
    blond bombshell

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    uk
    Last Seen
    10-19-12 @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    I think liberal ideas make it impossible that the "poor little victims" can be wrong.So they have to add some white people because they are racist and you are racist if you treat people differently because of their race.
    The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

  5. #5
    Legend in my own mind!
    MrFungus420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Midland, MI
    Last Seen
    10-15-10 @ 08:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,018

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    On the one hand, this is getting into "thought police" territory.

    On the other hand, it's Michael Savage, and I wouldn't let him in my house, either.
    "And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit."
    - The Tick

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    07-18-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,041

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    Quote Originally Posted by bhkad View Post
    I think O'Reilly interviewed a woman who said Savage was added to the Brits' list because they needed to add some non-Muslim white guys to offset the heavy representation of Muslim undesirables on it.

    As dorky as that sounds.
    It is more likely then not in today's loon world.

  7. #7
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    If the US now unbans Amy Whinehouse then maybe we can talk about it And you claim this is about PC and the US bans Amy Whinehouse.. I see.....
    PeteEU

  8. #8
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    If the US now unbans Amy Whinehouse then maybe we can talk about it And you claim this is about PC and the US bans Amy Whinehouse.. I see.....
    We? Are you British?
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  9. #9
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    We? Are you British?
    We as in a general term of course.. time to take of your nationalistic glasses for once.
    PeteEU

  10. #10
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Michael Savage poses no risk to British security so why won't MPs say so?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    We as in a general term of course.. time to take of your nationalistic glasses for once.
    Your implied that if the US did this "we" would return the favour, but if your not British then what does it have to do with you.

    This is matter of national sovereignty, Britain has the right to decide who comes to it.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •