Savage fired for the 2nd time
 

I'm not sure if anyone is still a fan of this guy, but he's been fired from his home station and now MSNBC. I used to see him as just another Limbaugh clone, but he seemed to go off the deep end a few months ago. I say good riddance.

Good riddance. It's a shame that retards like that try to pass as conservative commentators. Rush may be a bit harsh sometimes, but I don't think I've ever heard him be that much of an ignorant ass.

i'm glad.

its disgusting that there are still people like him alive and proud of it :(

never heard of the guy, but if he made comments like that, he shouldnt be workin in national tv

What an asshole. Good fucking riddance.

Why did MSNBC think they were going to get anything less from Savage? Did they ever listen to his show in San Francisco? I'm not defending his comments, but MSNBC shares some responsibility for giving him the forum.

I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh's opinions, but I've never heard him cross the line into bigotry and hatred. Rush's blindly partisan politics (just as bad as narrow-minded liberals) is dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as people who spout off such hateful rhetoric as Savage.

A closed mind is a dangerous weapon.

First off, if I was a conspiracy theorist I would say that they hired Savage only to portray the image that conservative = bigoted asshole and that firing him was inevitible, and even planned.

Secondly, Rush is a Republican and he doesn't pretend otherwise. When you listen to Rush you know what you are getting, whereas major media networks pretend to be unbiased when they are everything but. I would think that presenting a facade of unbiased, objective, information when you in fact are not, would be more "dangerous" than stating your intentions and being up-front about your political beliefs.

I'm not asking Rush, or anyone else to be someone or something they're not. I agree with you, someone claiming to be one thing, yet actually believing another is also dangerous.

I'm just a bit confused as to why most political discussions turn into angry, partisan rhetoric. Why do people confuse closed-minds and vitriolic comments with passion and commitment???

Believe what you like--why feel the need to disparage others in the process?

because conservative muckrakers like Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Matt Drudge lowered the bar to that level.

:) :)

/me runs for the door

I don't know how seriously Savage could have ever been taken- his radio show was certainly amusing though, hearing him go off. Telling anyone that they should get AIDS and die is inexcusable though. He has a right to his opinions, if he is against gay marriage or whatnot, but regardless of one's opinion of homosexuals or homosexuality is, all people in this country are citizens, and all people are human beings. Sorry to hear such hateful statemens coming from him- like I said, I found him amusing the random times I was flipping through the stations and came across his show. Certainly spirited.

Calling Savage and O'Reilly "serious conservative commentators" is like calling Howard Stern a distinguished radio personality.

I have to disagree with you. Stern is a distinguished radio personality wether people like it or not. People know who he is and he's extrememly popular. Let's not forget that every single radio station has a Stern impersonator. How many other people can you say that about? I'll answer that for you...... None. :D

I agree with sixate. Stern changed the face of radio. He's a great entertainer, knows his audience, and made a lot of money along the way.

Really, you can say the same about Rush. I may not agree with the man's politics, but as an entertainer and radio personality, he really delivers the listeners for his stations and his advertisers, and that's what it's all about.

Hey O' Reilly kicks ass. Sure he may be an ass, but he knows his shit and he will bring it to people.

Rush can be fun to listen to in short periods, which is more then i can say for some other extreamist, on both sides.

Next up,

Ann Coulter Bitch.

He may be a little pompous, but how many people in the public eye aren't?

If only he had some rhyming talent he could at least keep making money off of music.

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RgDVAswVfhJnZhMxT7oeAA9oJZRTdKhp!8vSa4pfmy*FIh7WvotYFjmcetFbpY0ueyXIBAEUVgg3DMHtZkW!pw6zoV2VC!*ybWUNWE3GcaE/eminem.jpg?dc=4675429470884078510[/img]

I enjoy watching O'Reilly, but he completely loses me when he refuses to listen to his guests when they happen to make a good point. I understand that it's his show, but just because your name is on the credits doesn't mean that you're the only who is allowed to appear intelligent!

Being that I have a dark sense of humor, Savage is sounding more and more entertaining.

I think that they are all assholes with their own agendas. All talk radio is is a forum for singleminded , pompous assholes to spout their opinion as truth, they are as bad as jerry falwell and pat robertson. Howard Stern hit his high point years ago and has been drifting down into the abyss of boring ever since...

I like Savage. So I'm sure that you would too. ;)

O'Reilly has gotten more and more stuck on himself in the past year and a half. It has gotten so bad that when MSNBC brought back Keith Olberman, I switched over and now watch Countdown.

As for Michael Savage, I enjoy listening to his radio show. It's only on for an hour here, and that is just right. I don't think I could listen to any more of that in a day.

His MSNBC show was destined for failure anyway. Saturday afternoon? Please! If they were serious about getting his message out, he would be on in place of Dan Abrams going up against Hannity and Colmes.

s/distinguished/respectable/

He's popular among 12 year old boys who think the word "penis" is hilarious. I think it is wrong to suggest that he is a "pioneer" simply because he managed to lower comedic standards for DJs.

Well, his real name is Michael Weiner :)

Whatever you think of Michael Savage, one thing is clear, he has a right to say whatever he wants (just like the Natalie Maines does). The people at MSNBC also have the right to fire him, too. Ain't freedom grand?

I know you're just making a brief statement, but I can't let that slide. Savage couldn't, for example, encourage his listeners to riot in the street and kill people.

Freedom of speech has important limits.

No, but he did something comparable, and was justly fired for it, like geep said.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can encourage people to break the law. Mr. Savage was an "employee at will" and, essentially, gave up his individual right to free speech when he chose to represent MSNBC.

Just because you don't think that what he does is distinguished/respectable doesn't mean that it isn't. The funny thing is that all over TV I see shows doing things that he's been doing for twenty years, but somehow that's OK. It makes no sense. He changed the way radio is broadcast and has influenced many things that are on TV. I'm sure that some of those things you like. I consider him distinguished because he has changed so many things, does what he wants, and has a shitload of imitators all over the place. His show is top rated and it doesn't even reach as many markets as the other top shows in the country. All that is ignored for some reason.

The great thing about Stern is that people of all ages, genders and, races like him. The downside is that because he may be controversial to some, many people also hate him.

Please list TV shows that Stern influenced, which are better than others.

Stern is an idiot. The fact that an idiot who says "boobs" and "penis" a lot can get high ratings is not a positive observation about Stern himself, it's a sign of how low comedic standards have gotten. If anything, he's helped bring comedy down to its lowest form -- is that something to be proud of?

That's just crude. The whole modern conservative MO is to say, for example... "Well I'm a pretty tolerant guy but when you people have those nude gay parades, why do I have to explain to my six year old what those two men are doing, etc."...or something like that.

I though that was one of the first things they learnt in right wing pundit school? This Savage fella is probably some kind of parody a la seretogis' conspiracy theory.

Tolerance is not a one way street.

You gotta come up with a better example, Macheath...

"nude gay parades"

lol

Well, I agree with Macheath in a way. The "gay community" / "gay groups" claim to want tolerance, and then sponsor events which are so racey that it shoves it in the face of those nearby who are straight. If you want people to accept gays, you don't shove nude men and penises in their face 24/7 to convince them. The only way that the "gay community" can win is to show that they, too, can be as responsible as straight people when it comes to marriage, raising children, and contributing to society -- not by parading around in thongs. Contrary to popular belief (thanks to said gay groups), every gay man is not a bathroom-lurking slut interior decorator. They're so desperate for any sort of recognition, that they're going about it in a very wrong way.

Pardon the off-topic-edness.

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood Macheath. That's a Bill O'Reilly quote, not a condemnation of "nude gay parades".

Or, maybe you did understand Macheath. After all, you confirmed his point about the conservative MO.

Full points smooth, amazing you got the O'Reilly connection - I didn't even quote him verbatim.

ahem...

"There are straight parades with nude folks and lurid costumes.."

/in case I ever have to argue with O'Reilly.

I suspect that the group you describe is a small, but very visible, minority of the overall gay population. I also suspect that this minority's motivation has less to do with a need for "recognition" and more to do with a desire to rebel in a very open way (with other like-minded individuals) against a society where many who consider them worthy of catching some disease and dying (as evidenced by Mr. Savage) are idolized, emulated, and put on pedestals.

While I personally question the effectiveness of wearing a thong as a political statement, I can't begin to understand the frustration of having society try to teach you to hate yourself.

You say that as-if the "gay community" is some big membership group that has a big convention every year to plan the "gay agenda". It's the uptight sexual morals of middle-america the produce many of the problems in the USA today. In Europe, if you turn on Canal+ after 10pm you get hardcore porn on public TV, and I don't see european kids turning into sexual deviants. People who act like "gay" is a sickness that will rub off on their kids if they see too much of it are funny. :)

With the USA divorce rate around 50%, I'm wholly unconvinced that the "straight" population has any skill whatsoever at raising kids or having a good marriage. Our of my entire circle of friends, I can think of ONE person whose parents are still married, on their first marriage, and still like each other. In fact, how about we outlaw straight marriage for a few years and give the gay population a chance? They certainly can't do any worse. :)

There is a reason that I used quotes, and also referred to "gay groups". The whole of gays (aka community), myself included, are being vocally represented by a minority (aka groups) who are shameless elitests. So in the end, being gay has been turned from merely a sexual preference to a complete lifestyle which has its own strict set philosophical and political beliefs. That, in my opinion, is wrong and something that I do not want to be a part of.

Tell me again how hardcore porn on public TV will solve our problems. ;) I think you are really off-base here.

I agree with you here. However, good luck on gay parenting skills being seen as anything but laughable while the community itself is seen as sex-crazed cross-dressing fruits that will suck anything for a dollar. The public image of gays in the US is not a positive one, and will remain negative as long as such ridiculous stereotypes are reinforced by the politically inactive public.