Stuck in AM Radio Mode: Ranting and Raving on the Airwaves

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around frustrations with AM radio hosts, particularly Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, who are criticized for their hateful rhetoric towards political figures, especially Obama. Participants express concern over the tone of their commentary, labeling it as hate speech and suggesting it should be regulated for factual accuracy and respectfulness. Some defend Savage, arguing he provides entertainment and a unique perspective, while others highlight his controversial statements as harmful. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of censorship and free speech, with differing opinions on whether government intervention is appropriate. Overall, the thread reflects a deep divide on how to handle inflammatory political discourse in media.
  • #151
maze said:
resolution A/C.3/62/L.35

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QMZ3za1ofksJ:www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/6231.doc+A/C.3/62/L.35&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

When I read that, I see nothing "making it illegal to criticize religion". What I do see are statements like

Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions ...
Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion ...
Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions ...

In other words, the resolution expresses the concerns and wishes of the U.N. but doesn't actually establish any law. As jacksonpeeble said, that would be outside their jurisdiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
Actually, I thought I'd remembered Richard Dawkins saying something to the same effect. That the US was more tolerant of atheism than his homeland.
 
  • #153
I haven't read every comment in this thread but I just wonder why is conservative talk radio continuing to thirve while liberal talk radio went bankrupt in 6 months?
 
  • #154
Redbelly98 said:
When I read that, I see nothing "making it illegal to criticize religion". What I do see are statements like

...

In other words, the resolution expresses the concerns and wishes of the U.N. but doesn't actually establish any law. As jacksonpeeble said, that would be outside their jurisdiction.

The bill aims to make "defamation" of religion illegal, particularly things like the Mohammed cartoon. It is non-binding though, so member states are not required to enforce it.
 
  • #155
Woody101 said:
I haven't read every comment in this thread but I just wonder why is conservative talk radio continuing to thirve while liberal talk radio went bankrupt in 6 months?

Noone wants to listen to liberal talk radio. I've listen to the only talk radio station here in Seattle and it pretty much sucks. Very little debate on liberal issues and a lot of snide conservative bashing. What I have heard lacks simply lacks content. The closest thing to successful liberal radio might be Dennis Miller (on a conservative radio station) but he doesn't really belong to any political camp as far I can tell. Good show.
 
  • #156
Thanks for the link! I have to say, I didn't really believe that they passed a resolution to that effect, but you proved me wrong. :wink:

maze said:
The bill aims to make "defamation" of religion illegal, particularly things like the Mohammed cartoon. It is non-binding though, so member states are not required to enforce it.

The United Nations never really looks to make things "illegal." They do exactly what their resolutions say - they make requests. None of the operative clauses include strong command words. In Model UN, we learned this firsthand. There's really no true authority in the UN. Only the Security Council, NATO, WHO, and WTO can truly act on their requests.
 
  • #157
Ivan Seeking said:
Let there be no doubt: The Republicans have earned my disdain.
:smile: Did you really imagine there was any?
 
  • #158
Cyrus said:
I accidently got into AM radio mode in my car for the last two days, and I can't figure out how to take it back into FM because there isn't a stupid AM/FM button. I had to have hit some funky combination of buttons to go into AM and now I am stuck. ANYWAYS, I've been stuck with this AM radio for the past few days now.

WoW.

This stuff is intense. One bozo is Michael Savage. This guy is a real jerk. He was saying stuff like: "See that, those evil white men with slide rules built the golden gate bridge in the 30s. With just a slide rule, those evil white men (sarcastically)."

Then there was Sean Hannity talking about how Obama wants to make this country have currency that's part of the world economy (think euros) and how were turning into a socialistic nation. On and on and on hating Obama, these two.

Now, I don't mind the if republicans disagree, but the tone of what these guys are saying is really to the level of hate speech. It's pretty absurd. Frankly, I'm shocked they have an audience. That scares me.

They weren't just against Obama, they were nasty about it - and I mean nasty. This Savage bozo wouldn't even call him obama, he called him 'chuckles'.


You just think the button is missing...sounds like you've been targeted for re-programming Cyrus...it won't be long now.:smile:
 
  • #159
WhoWee said:
You just think the button is missing...sounds like you've been targeted for re-programming Cyrus...it won't be long now.:smile:

LOL :biggrin: Resistance is futile.
 
  • #160
Build an AM transmitter and jam that program.
 
  • #161
Do you realize how many stations Hannity is on...in case you travel...use this station finder

http://hannity.com/AffiliateSearch.asp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #162
Cyrus said:
I care because the level of hate they spout of should be sensored. It's way way over the line.
No problem, get started on a Constitutional amendment, because absent direct incitement to violence, there's nothing else you can legally do about it. Nor should there be.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
In Cuba and North Korea they have jammers for sale...
 
  • #164
  • #167
Wait a minute...that means the UK is trapping the looney toones inside our country. We should deport him to the UK and make him their problem!
 
  • #168
Is this the hate thread for those who hate talk radio?
 
  • #169
Phrak said:
Is this the hate thread for those who hate talk radio?

Nope, I don't hate talk radio. I hate hate radio.
 
  • #170
Phrak said:
Is this the hate thread for those who hate talk radio?

hate in this thread is not equivalent to the hate talk radio.

Mr Weiner has caused offence in the US with his views on immigration, Islam and rape.

He also angered the parents of children with autism by saying most cases were "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out".

He was once fired from cable news channel MSNBC for calling a gay caller to his show a sodomite who should "get Aids and die," but later said he thought it had been a crank call.

Taking this as accurate, I wonder how much hate this thread contains relative to the above.
 
  • #171
Phrak said:
Is this the hate thread for those who hate talk radio?

As Cyrus implied, it is about discrediting these clowns and exposing them for who they are. Obviously the British Government agrees with the tone of this and other similar threads.

Frankly, anyone who listens to these hate-radio idiots should be ashamed of themselves.
 
  • #172
rootX said:
hate in this thread is not equivalent to the hate talk radio.

I'm inspired by conservative talk radio to listen closely for the logical falacies, as little as I listen to it. Limbaugh, for instance, is a dime a minute. On the other hand, our local political channel, PF\politics, is a Gordian knot.
 
  • #173
Ivan Seeking said:
As Cyrus implied, it is about discrediting these clowns and exposing them for who they are. Obviously the British Government agrees with the tone of this and other similar threads.

Frankly, anyone who listens to these hate-radio idiots should be ashamed of themselves.

Ashamed of what? I guess if I were to consider talk radio as something as vile as "hate-radio" I wouldn't listen to it. But, I don't see the "hate". And, please define what "hate-radio" is? What is it that is so hateful about it? :confused:
 
  • #174
drankin said:
Ashamed of what? I guess if I were to consider talk radio as something as vile as "hate-radio" I wouldn't listen to it. But, I don't see the "hate". And, please define what "hate-radio" is? What is it that is so hateful about it? :confused:

No one's saying talk radio is hate radio. Were saying hate radio, is hate radio.

You don't see the problem with Michael Savage saying things like kids with Autism are being "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out"?

Not only is this offensive, it shows a total lack of willingness to respect the medical community. Its along the lines of those nut job scientologists saying physcologists are evil. Why you listen to this horse **** amazes me. I tend to filter out the garbage on the TV and radio, not the other way around.
 
  • #175
Danger said:
Ah, yes... the good old days of burning witches at the stake, lynching blacks, keeping the women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen... I can see the attraction.

Hilarious!

Danger, where did you get that avatar? Every time I see you make a funny comment like the one above, I laugh myself to death.

Great stuff...*I'm still laughing*
 
  • #176
Cyrus said:
No one's saying talk radio is hate radio. Were saying hate radio, is hate radio.

You don't see the problem with Michael Savage saying things like kids with Autism are being "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out"?

Not only is this offensive, it shows a total lack of willingness to respect the medical community. Its along the lines of those nut job scientologists saying physcologists are evil. Why you listen to this horse **** amazes me. I tend to filter out the garbage on the TV and radio, not the other way around.

Savage isn't hate radio. What he said isn't hate. It's outrageous but he has a point. He often talks about how kids are diagnosed with acronyms all day long and pumped with meds to make them "behave". Savage is a doctor himself. It's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't give a damn if he's offensive, and that's what I like about him. He is the antonym to "PC". Him and Mark Levin are the only two I care to listen to.
 
  • #177
drankin said:
Savage isn't hate radio. What he said isn't hate. It's outrageous but he has a point. He often talks about how kids are diagnosed with acronyms all day long and pumped with meds to make them "behave". Savage is a doctor himself. It's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't give a damn if he's offensive, and that's what I like about him. He is the antonym to "PC". Him and Mark Levin are the only two I care to listen to.

Savage has a PhD in some field of biology (botany, maybe?) I don't think he has an MD.

I tend to agree that kids are overdiagnosed sometimes, but Savage acts as if autism doesn't exist, which is a ridiculous and irrational response to overdiagnoses.

Personally, I agree with Cyrus that Savage is a nut, along with Hannity and Limbaugh and are only concerned with pulling Obama into the mud. None fo them actually offer any constructive criticism for Obama or start any constructive political discussions.

As an example, a few nights ago a relative of mine was listening to Savage, who was in effect blaming Obama's views on immigration for the Swine Flu outbreaks in America. (Of course he conveniently ignored the fact that vacationing Americans or legalling visiting Mexicans were the sources for the American Swine Flu cases.) No real facts. No constructive criticism or advice for the administration. Just mudslinging.
 
Last edited:
  • #178
drankin said:
He often talks about how kids are diagnosed with acronyms all day long and pumped with meds to make them "behave". Savage is a doctor himself. It's not like he doesn't know what he's talking about.
He is generalizing. (It's a shame that's just one word, because it's a bigger crime than it seems. I really want to say overgeneralizing, but that's a duplication of redundancy...)

Just because something looks one way froma 30,000 feet viewpoint, doesn't mean it is that way. I wonder how many kids he's studied in-person to arrive at his conclusions.

I've only studied one, but in depth. My son has ADHD and his functioning is quite markedly different from other kids.
 
  • #179
drankin said:
Savage is a doctor himself.
In my opinion, Savage is just a terribly damaged person overcompensating for a past he seems to now be terribly ashamed of.

He used to wear a beret and smoke pot while hanging out at coffee houses in Greenwich Village, during the time he went to school in New York. He got a PhD from that Liberal Left haven - Berkeley - in, get this: Nutritional Ethnomedicine (which has nothing to do with neuroscience, or perhaps even science). He was the gatekeeper for a notorious LSD experimenter. Oh, and yes, his name is Micheal Weiner - Savage is just his pen-name/stage name for his antics. He raves against abortion and calls it murder, but his first wife had two while they were married. His past spells out LIBERAL LEFTY so clearly, that he just can't seem to do enough to run away from it.

So when he responds to a gay caller with "Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that?", he's not really expressing his homophobia (oh, that's not hate, is it?), he is simply projecting a self loathing that he can not seem to get over.

Poor, troubled Michael Weiner.
 
  • #180
Gokul43201 said:
In my opinion, Savage is just a terribly damaged person overcompensating for a past he seems to now be terribly ashamed of.

He used to wear a beret and smoke pot while hanging out at coffee houses in Greenwich Village, during the time he went to school in New York. He got a PhD from that Liberal Left haven - Berkeley - in, get this: Nutritional Ethnomedicine (which has nothing to do with neuroscience, or perhaps even science). He was the gatekeeper for a notorious LSD experimenter. Oh, and yes, his name is Micheal Weiner - Savage is just his pen-name/stage name for his antics. He raves against abortion and calls it murder, but his first wife had two while they were married. His past spells out LIBERAL LEFTY so clearly, that he just can't seem to do enough to run away from it.

So when he responds to a gay caller with "Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how's that?", he's not really expressing his homophobia (oh, that's not hate, is it?), he is simply projecting a self loathing that he can not seem to get over.

Poor, troubled Michael Weiner.

Poor, troubled, dangerous Michael Weiner. I challenge everyone to listen to this guy for one hour and see just who and what is being defended.
 
  • #181
Ivan Seeking said:
Poor, troubled, dangerous Michael Weiner. I challenge everyone to listen to this guy for one hour and see just who and what is being defended.
Well I would but I've been told listening to him puts me in the shame box, so I can not.
 
  • #182
He's just looking to get a rise out of people and thus ratings.

Don't know why anyone gives it much attention.
 
  • #183
I read a portion of one of Svage's book's 2 or 3 years ago. In it he launched into a diatrabe against public schools, an easy "liberal" target. His "facts" all contained footnotes, seemingly to suggest that he had sources to back them up. In one section he was excoriating the latest curriculum to indoctrinate school children, grade by grade in alternative sex lifestyles. He had about 12 "suggestions for lesson plans" (or words to that effect) that he copied from a national education study.

The actual study that he was quoting was not a curriculum guide, or lesson plan, but a guide for teachers who are confronted with questions about sex from students. (e.g. as a response to a 2nd grader's question : "why does Timmy not have a father?") As one progressed from 1st to 9th grades, various questions could be answered with less and less vagueness. The report/study was quite benign, and I found the level of answers to rather appropriate; conservative actually.

Savage deliberately twisted the purpose of this report, and reinterpreted the meanings of what was written. To top it off, he added another quote, one that was off the wall, suggesting something like "take your girlfriend into the drugstore with you to choose the condoms you want to use together." He made it appear that this was also from the report, since he treated this suggestion with the same level of disdainful mockery as the others. But this last quote was itself an ironic, mocking statement from another right wing pundit, who was making fun of the same document.
 
  • #184
Michael Weiner AKA Michael Savage:

He obtained a Ph.D. in 1978 from the University of California, Berkeley, in nutritional ethnomedicine. His thesis was titled Nutritional Ethnomedicine in Fiji. Savage spent many years researching botany in the South Pacific and has a background in alternative medicine. As a result of being outside of the US Savage was not subject to the Vietnam draft. While in the South Pacific, he became fascinated with the 19th-century sailor Charles Savage, who was believed to be the first man to bring firearms to Fiji.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator )

What this bonehead said about autistic children was despicable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #185
edward said:
Michael Weiner AKA Michael Savage:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_(commentator )

What this bonehead said about autistic children was despicable.
Wiki is fine for a quick reference on many subjects if taken w/ a grain of salt. But with regards to inflammatory figures, it is almost guaranteed to be garbage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #186
This is all silly IMO. Yes Weiner is an inflammatory bozo. So are writers/speakers on thousands of other blogs, FM radio, and TV shows. In the last couple of weeks Bill Maher on HBO broadly swiped American troops overseas as rapists, and made a cornrows joke about Michelle Obama's WH garden. Let the UK descend into banning Savage, Maher and thousands of others, but first they might work on letting their own commonwealth Gurkha soldiers, who have fought for the UK for years, in to the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/25/gurkha-soldiers-retire-uk-settlement
 
Last edited:
  • #187
mheslep said:
This is all silly IMO. Yes Weiner is an inflammatory bozo. So are writers/speakers on thousands of other blogs, FM radio, and TV shows. In the last couple of weeks Bill Maher on HBO broadly swiped American troops overseas as rapists, and made a cornrows joke about Michelle Obama's WH garden. Let the UK descend into banning Savage, Maher and thousands of others, but first they might work on letting their own commonwealth Gurkha soldiers, who have fought for the UK for years, in to the country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/25/gurkha-soldiers-retire-uk-settlement

But they didn't ban Maher, did they. They banned Weiner; there is a huge difference between the two. You really can't tell the difference? And to cite the fact that Weiner-styled hate mongers are growing out of this counter-culture, counter-decency, counter-truth movement that is so popular with the Republican base - what I believe is driving the base - is hardly a defense of Weiner.

I agree that Maher goes too far at times - "at times" being the operative.

Here is the clip that you mentioned.
http://storminsmorningjava.blogspot.com/2009/03/bill-maher-calls-us-soldiers-rapists.html

It was a bad joke that apparently even took him back. He actually stops, looks at someone sitting next to him, and says "I'll ignore that". A punchline gone too far, not a daily ritual of attacking half the country .

Do you really mean to say that you can't tell the difference between Maher and Weiner? Have you actually listened to one of Weiner's shows?

While I realize that you would rather put the UK on trial, instead of Weiner, I applaud the UK for recognizing what is already obvious to most reasonable people.

Wiener is now officially listed as "dangerous" - a danger to public safety - by our strongest ally.
 
Last edited:
  • #188
Ivan Seeking said:
But they didn't ban Maher, did they.
Hence their silliness.

They banned Weiner; there is a huge difference between the two. You really can't tell the difference? And to cite the fact that Weiner-styled hate mongers are growing out of this counter-culture, counter-decency, counter-truth movement that is so popular with the Republican base - what I believe is driving the base - is hardly a defense of Weiner.
The difference appears to be vile remarks that you somehow find not that offensive and vile remarks that you do. And you've seen no defense of Weiner, in particular, here.

I agree that Maher goes too far at times - "at times" being the operative.

Here is the clip that you mentioned.
http://storminsmorningjava.blogspot.com/2009/03/bill-maher-calls-us-soldiers-rapists.html

It was a bad joke that apparently even took him back. He actually stops, looks at someone sitting next to him, and says "I'll ignore that". A punchline gone too far, not a daily ritual of attacking half the country . ..
Saw it, I don't think he took himself back. I believe that was Hitchen's castigating Maher for the remark, as Hitchens has done exactly that on the Maher's show before.

Do you really mean to say that you can't tell the difference between Maher and Weiner? Have you actually listened to one of Weiner's shows?

While I realize that you would rather put the UK on trial, instead of Weiner, I applaud the UK for recognizing what is already obvious to most reasonable people.
No, being quick to call for hauling people to the dock is your game, not mine. I am criticizing the UK's decision in this case. The UK allows those that blatantly avow violence in Mosques / globalism conferences to roam the streets, and all the while restricting their own soldiers from entering the country. Now that is their business - they are a great ally - and have very large immigration issues. But given the above, when the Brown government finds the time to ban a US citizen who never calls for violence (so far as I know - don't really listen), because he's an obnoxious loud mouth, I'm going to call it silly and self important.

Wiener is now officially listed as "dangerous" - a danger to public safety - by our strongest ally.
The quoted word "dangerous" is your word, I do not find it used by the UK's Home Secretary Smith making the announcement.
 
  • #189
mheslep said:
Wiki is fine for a quick reference on many subjects if taken w/ a grain of salt. But with regards to inflammatory figures, it is almost guaranteed to be garbage.

So what part was garbage?? Savage's educational background is on his own web site. The wiki quote is correct.

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5809

Or was it my comment about Savage's disgusting remarks about autistic children??

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #190
edward said:
So what part was garbage?? Savage's educational background is on his own web site. The wiki quote is correct.

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5809

Or was it my comment about Savage's disgusting remarks about autistic children??


That's just my general experience with Wiki on controversial figures there, I meant no specific contradiction on Weiner/Savage. I link to Wiki too - sparingly. And even if it the quote is correct today, there's the risk that it will be wrong tomorrow when someone follows your link. That's always the case of course, but it is just much more likely in my experience w/ these kind of subjects.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #191
mheslep said:
That's just my general experience with Wiki on controversial figures there, I meant no specific contradiction on Weiner/Savage. I link to Wiki too - sparingly. And even if it the quote is correct today, there's the risk that it will be wrong tomorrow when someone follows your link. That's always the case of course, but it is just much more likely in my experience w/ these kind of subjects.

Okay...what does this have to do with this thread? Send wiki an email of concern.
 
  • #194
http://quakeragitator.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/weiner26.jpg

"EARTH MEDICINE" as opposed to "MARS MEDICINE" or..."BS MEDICINE". Hey, wait a minute. You don't have any pyramids or healing crystals. This is a scam!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #195
Minor point of clarification: I didn't mean to imply that Gokul was defending this nut. I was merely adding to his comments.
 
  • #196
So is Savage banned in the UK now?
 
  • #197
drankin said:
So is Savage banned in the UK now?
He is barred from entering the UK.
 
  • #198
You can listen to AM talk radio online, so the next step the Brits need to take is to install the Great Chinese Firewall in order to block access to these sites.

And then they need to put the people in Britain who have similar extremist opinions in jail.
 
  • #199
When I see opinions censored in other countries it just makes me all the more grateful to be born in the US.
 
  • #200
drankin said:
When I see opinions censored in other countries it just makes me all the more grateful to be born in the US.

Im actually really happy the slapped him right back in his loud mouth. He's an embarassment as a fellow countryman.
 

Similar threads

News The Dangerous Influence of Far-Right Talk Radio on American Politics
3
Replies
142
Views
21K
Am I Moving On or Just Stuck in My EX's Shadow?
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Can Evolved State: Dichotomy Capture Your Imagination?
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top