Do you approve of Michael Savage's comments that immigrants should starve to death?

Question

If you find that comment hateful, what's wrong with an elected official saying so?
http://www.examiner.com/a-872440~S_F__supes_extend_helping_hand_to_immigrants.html

Answer 1

I don't approve of Savage's comment, and do find it hateful. I have no problem with Sandoval condemning it. Sandoval says, "“The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation."

He does NOT say, "That's it, Savage is no longer allowed to speak." So people who claim this is a free-speech issue are overstating the issue, just as would Savage.

Answer 2

Not that I think that Savage can't be hateful or inflammatory (he often is), but this is another example of someone taking a statement out of context. Here's the context:

"In further support given to immigrants, Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced a resolution Tuesday condemning the “defamatory language used by radio personality Michael Savage against immigrants.” Sandoval’s resolution comes after Savage’s July 5 broadcast, during which he made a number of comments involving a group of students who were fasting to advocate for immigration policy changes. Savage said, “I would say, let them fast until they starve to death, then that solves the problem.” The resolution calls the comments “symbolic of hatred and racism.”

“I really for the life of me cannot understand why there is not more media outrage to what Michael Savage said,” Sandoval said. He plans on holding a press conference on the steps of City Hall this Tuesday prior to the Board of Supervisors vote on the resolution. “The intolerant and racist comments of Michael Savage demand a strong condemnation,” Sandoval said."

So, in the first case, Savage never said that anyone "should" starve to death. Secondly, he wasn't even talking about immigrants--he was talking about a group of STUDENTS on a HUNGER STRIKE.

Third, I really can't see how, as the councilman says, that these comments are "racist." No race is mentioned here. The race of the students in question is never brought up. Keep in mind that the problem Savage is talking about is that the students are on a hunger strike--for whatever reason. So he's saying that if they starve, then the "problem" is solved. Technically he is correct. At that point, the strike is over. So how is this racist? It doesn't perpetuate a stereotype, or denigrate anyone due to their race, or advocate preferential treatment because of race--so how is it racist?

This question is dishonest--it insinuates falsely that Savage thinks immigrants "should" starve to death, when in fact he never said any such thing. I don't like Savage--I think he is hateful and he applies general theses to entire groups of people wrongly. But in this case, you are mischaracterizing just to defame, which is just as bad.

Answer 3

OK, let's look at this from a detached perspective. These immigrants are fasting to force our government to change its policy to suit them. So, even before they become citizens they're already a pain in the @ss.

Applying for citizenship is a lot like being a guest in someone's home. Imagine if a guest told you he didn't like the curtains in his room, and rudely demanded you buy something more to his liking. Wouldn't you feel like uncerimoniously kicking him out for his outrageous behavior?

These immigrants have no right to protest the policies of a government other than their own! That is the height of nerve. They should be on their best behavior in the hopes that they will be accepted for citizenship. Instead, they act as if the whole application process is just a formality. Not only that, if the process is not to their liking, they feel like they can tell our government how to run OUR country.

By the way, the San Francisco City Supervisor, Geraldo Sandoval, must be one of the stupidest people ever to obtain public office. He's the slack jawed idiot who, on Fox News, repeatedly stated we don't need a military. Repeat: we do not need a military. He didn't say we could get by with a smaller military, nor one that just stays withing the U.S. borders for national defense, he said NO military at all.

Even Democrat Alan Colmes was embarrassed by this loon, and gave him muliple opportunities to restate his position, but Sandoval kept insisting we could protect our country with police and the national guard.

So, I have no problem with ultra-intelligent Michael Savage's comment that we should let these brazen immigrants continue their fast to its logical conclusion if that is their choice. No one is depriving them of food. If they think that they have the right to tell the United States government how to run the U.S., then they clearly do not respect our laws, and in doing so prove they would not be good, responsible citizens.

We cannot permit foreigners to dictate our internal affairs. Can you imagine what would happen to you if you tried this stunt in, let's say, Mexico? The "federales" there would stick you in jail for interfering in Mexican law. And while you're there, getting beaten up by the guards would probably be the least of your worries.

Answer 4

Social Darwinism as first pronounced by Thomas Malthus (1798). The more you support those unable to support themselves (food stamps, etc) the larger the human tragedy when the economy collapaes under the weight of these scum.

better to let hunderds starve each month through "benign neglect" than to have hundreds of thousands perish in famine at once. Also known as Neo conservatism (iron fist in the velvet glove)

Answer 5

Of course not, Michael telling his listeners that students fasting for policy change ought to starve to death was just ludicrous and hateful.

Michael Weiner "Savage" has the freedom to say whatever mindless drivel he has on his mind, likewise everyone has the right to comment on it.

Answer 6

I find 98% fo the things he say offensive, including that comment

Answer 7

No, because they work hard advising Bush = David Frum = A Canadian who wrote the " Axis of Evil " speech

Answer 8

I think they should be deported but not made to starve to death. I think , if he said that, he is wrong on this one thing.

Answer 9

No, that's not something that I would ever condone doing. They're human beings just like you and me. I might not agree with illegal immigration, but starving people, not giving medical treatment and shelter, is not on my agenda.

Answer 10

He is a savage. They are people who only came to the US to live better lives.