Skip to main content
  • CNSNews.com
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • TimesWatch
  • Take Action!

Join Us @:
Facebook
Twitter
Amazon Kindle

Free email alerts!

NewsBusters logo
May 21, 2013
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Take Action
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • RSS

Hot Topics

  • Obama Targets Fox News
  • IRS Targets Tea Party
  • Censoring the News
Home » Blogs » Matt Hadro's blog
  • NBC's Gregory Scolds GOP for Comparing Obama to Nixon
  • CBS Highlights Ex-IRS Staffer Who Declares There Were No Politics at Cincinnati Office
  • Monday's Amnesia: CNN Covers Powerball Jackpot Winner as Much as IRS, AP, Benghazi Scandals
  • The Obama Scandal the Big Three Networks Aren't Telling You About
  • WashPost 'Express' Tabloid Cover Laments: How Can Obama 'Break from the Storm' of Scandals?
  • It Gets Worse: WashPost Reports Obama DOJ Also Spied on James Rosen of Fox News
  • Crowley to Obama Advisor: 'Why Didn't the President Just Say, Yeah, Benghazi Was a Terrorist Attack?'
  • CBS's Sharyl Attkisson Says Team Obama 'Perfected' Delaying Info Release And Has 'Quit Talking to Me Altogether'

CNN's 'Objective' Don Lemon Uses Joy Behar to Smear Rick Santorum

By Matt Hadro | June 13, 2011 | 13:30

A  A

Openly-gay CNN anchor Don Lemon dug back to a May 16 interview with liberal Joy Behar to smear GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum just before Monday night's Republican primary debate. Behar then said of the socially-conservative Santorum that he "seems like a big homophobe," and Lemon made sure Friday to reference that smear and put Santorum on the defensive.

As NewsBusters reported Friday, Lemon badgered Santorum in an airport over his positions on gay marriage. The CNN segment featured an abbreviated portion of the interview, and Lemon aired the extended version Sunday evening on the 7 p.m. EDT hour of Newsroom.

[Video below the break.]

Lemon labeled Santorum as "very decisive and very divisive on social issues" to introduce the interview. Then he tried to frame Santorum's support for amending the Constitution to protect traditional marriage as contradictory to his small-government conservatism.

After that he brought out the smear. "I was recently on Joy Behar and she said that, she called you I think it was – I'm paraphrasing – bigoted or homophobic or what have you," Lemon said to Santorum. Apparently, what Joy Behar says represents the highest in opinion journalism.

In the May 16 interview with Behar, Lemon claimed he could still be objective in covering the gay rights debate. "I don't think just because I'm gay that it makes, it takes my brain away...or it makes me not be objective," he told Behar. However, Lemon has a history of pro-gay bias, as NewsBusters has documented.

After the Santorum interview, when Lemon was hosting a Sunday panel to discuss the interview, he hit Santorum from another angle. He declared that "many people find" that Santorum "has said some pretty disturbing things about gay people" and has "ostracized them and moved them into a corner."

A transcript of the segment, which aired on June 12 at 7:24 p.m. EDT, is as follows:

DON LEMON: And we are back. Coming to you live from New Hampshire on the campus of St. Anselm College where CNN is getting ready for tomorrow night's GOP presidential debate. Hold on. All right. That's better.

CNN released a fascinating poll ahead of the debate. We asked whether the government should be promoting traditional values. Now here's the response: 46 percent said yes but 50 percent said no. Why is that important? Because it's the first time the percentage in the "yes" column has fallen below 50 percent since CNN first started asking the question in 1993. That number should be very interesting to candidates like Rick Santorum, someone who is very decisive and very divisive on social issues. Here is what he had to say when I caught up with them. I want you to take a listen.

(Video Clip)

RICK SANTORUM, GOP presidential candidate: You know go to my announcement speech, I didn't talk about social issues. I talked about the impact of Obama care on jobs and the economy. I talked about the huge debt that we have and the obligation it deal with that. I talked about entitlement reform. I talked about the Ryan plan. You know, in all due respect, I think the media is fixated on trying to – this is how the media works, they try to pigeon-hole candidates. They're this kind of here – they fit this niche. They fit that niche.

Well the interesting thing I think in my candidacy is that I fit all of the niches. I am someone who's strong on social issues but I'm strong on national security issues. There's nobody who has the experience or the levels of accomplishment that I have on national security; no one has – and  the federal entitlement. I did. I was the author of welfare reform. So we've got a lot to talk about and we will.

LEMON: Some people say it's contradiction, because you are for small, government, right? For smaller government, but yet you want to change the Constitution when it comes to same-sex marriage. And that – some people see that as government intervening on people's lives.

SANTORUM: That's affirming what laws of the states have been for over 200 years. It is simply, putting in law what has been in place in society for thousands of years. That this is what marriage is. There is an intrinsic value that having men and women come together in marriage and having children and raising those children in a stable family, that's good for society. That's something society wants to encourage. And there are some, who I understand have a different view of that, don't think it is important, think that society will be just fine if that institution is no longer held to be different or privileged and rewarded. I just disagree with that. And, you know, I think the appropriate thing is to get in the public square and let's debate it. Let's argue it and let's point out the pluses and minuses and I'm doing that.

LEMON: I was recently on Joy Behar and she said that, she called I think it was – I'm paraphrasing – bigoted or homophobic or what have you.

SANTORUM: I have a difference of agreement on a public policy issue. That doesn't mean, you know, I hate anybody. I don't hate anybody. I'm called by my faith to love everybody. I do. I pray for people whether they are for me or against me because that's what I'm supposed to do. And just because I disagree with a, you know, a legal definition of what marriage is doesn't mean I dislike anybody or hate anybody or am spiteful of anybody. Because I think that's what is best for society and we should be able to disagree without calling people bigots. I think that's really sad that you have people on the other side, because you stand up for something that has been in the institution in this world for 2,000 years that all of a sudden now, you're a hater. You're a mean person. I'm not. I've never been.

LEMON: Do you have any gay friends?

SANTORUM: Yes. In fact, I've had gay people work for me.

LEMON: Yes. And friends?

SANTORUM: Yes.

LEMON: You know when people say I have black friends.

SANTORUM: Yeah, in fact – well, yes. In fact I was with a gay friend of mine just two days guy. So yes, I do. They respect that I have differences of opinion on that. I talk about these things in front of them and we have conversations about it. They differ from me. But they know that I love them because they're my friend and they know that I respect – and we have respectful differences.

LEMON: You know that's a headline. Rick Santorum has gay friends.

SANTORUM: It shouldn't be. It was well known that Rick Santorum had a leading – a gay Republican working for him for ten years. I don't know what – I don't know what the – you know, what the shock value is here. I mean the fact of the matter is, when for example, when there was a man who was working as the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who was outed by one of the gay papers, the first person who came to his aid was me, because he was doing a great job. So I understand the narrative. It's always easy to sort of paint a narrative. Oh, this is guy is for standing up for traditional marriage. He must hate gay people. No, I don't. I just disagree with what the issue of marriage should be.

(End Video Clip)

LEMON: All right. I want to talk more about this poll. Because it really is a good indicator of where voters' heads are as we look forward to 2012. Let's show it again. We asked whether the government should be promoting traditional values. Here's the response: 46 percent said yes but 50 percent said no. So I want to bring in Will Cain, he's a CNN contributor and the host of "Off the Page on NationalReview.com and then Heather McGhee is Washington director for Demos, a public policy research and advocacy group in Washington. So let me pose this question to both of you. We just heard from Rick Santorum at length. So does this poll, that we just showed, does it help people like him or hurt him? I'll go with you first, Will.

WILL CAIN, CNN contributor: I don't know, Don, because you know what? Because if I had been responding in that poll, if I had been called, I don't know how I would have answered. I'm a pro-life, pro-gay marriage supporter. How does someone like me answer that poll? And by the way, Don, I don't think I'm unique. In May a Gallup poll showed for the first time Americans, the majority of Americans, support gay marriage. At the same time, polls show young people increasingly call themselves pro-life.

So how does that play for Rick Santorum? I don't know. I'll tell you this. Democrats will be doing everything they can to make this election about social issues. The one thing they don't want to talk about is the economy. What does that mean for Rick Santorum? Depends on how much he emphasizes these things.

LEMON: Ok. All right. Heather, I'll pose that to you, and you do have to say that many people find, think that Rick Santorum has said some pretty disturbing things about gay people and that he has sort of – he has not sort of, he's ostracized them and moved them into a corner. And it will be odd for people to hear that Rick Santorum has gay people, and in that interview to kind of set himself up as a supporter of gay people. So how does this play for people like him?

HEATHER MCGHEE, Washington director, Demos: Yes, I think that the other big poll result that we have to recognize here that's playing out is that for the first time in America, in polling history, the majority of Americans are actually worried that their children are not going to do better than them. That's the sort of failure of the American dream in this country. So the fact that you know, most young people are making less than their parents did a generation ago, that's not because of the advent of gay rights. That's not because of the progress on the women's right to choose.

And so Rick Santorum is going to have to have a really honest conversation with people about what's keeping them up at night. And at this point in time with this economy, it's not the social issues. It's really how they are going to put food on the table and get their next paycheck.

# # #

About the Author

Matt Hadro is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Matt Hadro on Twitter.
  • Homosexuality
  • Same-sex marriage
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Sexuality
  • Don Lemon
  • Rick Santorum
  • CNN
  • CNN Newsroom
  • Video
  • Matt Hadro's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Joy the cow and her mooing

Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 1:11pm.

heard yet again. What a beast.

hbnolikeee
  • Login to post comments

Hey, don't knock Joy-Joy

Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:55pm.

She's probably the most credible source MSLSD can hope for...

  • Login to post comments

Using Joy Behar to "smear" someone ...

Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 1:50pm.

... is like using E. coli to sell veggies!

Comrade Bubba
  • Login to post comments

Haha

Submitted by tcm14 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:41pm.

Yeah I wasn't really buying Don Lemon's argument, but once he brought in a heavyweight like JOY BEHAR, I figured I better take him seriously. HAhahahaha!

  • Login to post comments

Christ is he lefthanded as well?

Submitted by Tomorama on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:32pm.

He would meet all the liberal trifecta's, gay, black and a leftie.

Up next "Donnie" is going to confront Obama on his being against gay marriage as well.

Ummm, maybe not.

YOU KNOW WHY AS DO I KNOW WHY HE WON'T.

If you make poverty easy, you will have more of it. Benjamin Franklin
  • Login to post comments

Regardless of his being gay

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:35pm.

Don Lemon is a sissy.

President Obama is a Muslim (from his own lips), Kenyan (read it from his publicist) a homosexual (read it on a news magazine cover) and a Socialist (I'm alive and can see it for myself)
  • Login to post comments

Yeah, he's a sissy.

Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:56pm.

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to, "Sucking lemons."

Comrade Bubba
  • Login to post comments

Chicago's Out? Chicago's OOOOOOUT!!!!!!????!!!!

Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:15pm.

.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Lemon is no more

Submitted by johnsonl on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:44pm.

objective that he is straight.

  • Login to post comments

Great quote from Will Cain, CNN Contributor

Submitted by paragrouper on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:45pm.

"I'll tell you this. Democrats will be doing everything they can to make this election about social issues. The one thing they don't want to talk about is the economy."

They may also wish to avoid talk of 'our little deficit problem" or confused foreign policy as well.

  • Login to post comments

To be fair, the Demos have

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:14pm.

To be fair, the Demos have been given plenty of ammo by the Repubs to do that. House Repubs were elected, last year, by hammering on jobs and the economy, then, after coming to power, focused their attention on things like attacking abortion rights, or pretending to do so, between lots of vacation time they've given themselves (the only significant "jobs and economy" measures they've offered have been those that enact job-destroying spending cuts, at a time when unemployment is already insanely high).

  • Login to post comments

"--job destroying spending cuts,--"

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:46pm.

While your continual lies are expected by now, they are nonetheless irritating.

The fact that you continue to indulge your fantasies shows, at least, that you are indeed a classic liberal; you press on, unaffected by either the truth or shame.

Anthony Wiener is definitely a perfect fit with, and excellent example of, your ilk. 

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

What a load of fertilizer!

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:53pm.

"have been those that enact job-destroying spending cuts,"

How do spending cuts destroy jobs? It has been shown  the "stimulus" bill delayed or destroyed about 1 million private sector jobs in order to save about 450k state and local government jobs.  The stimulus spending was not temporary.   The lying Democrats added these expenditures to the budget baseline, in effect making them permanent.

The Republicans were elected to bring the deficits under control and repeal Obamacare,  Cutting spending is at the heart of this agenda.  The economy and jobs will recover on their own if the ham fisted government can be contained and diminished.

  • Login to post comments

"How do spending cuts destroy

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:31pm.

"How do spending cuts destroy jobs?"

Are you serious? When you cut the funding for someone's job, you eliminate their job, leaving them unemployed. As a guideline, you lose about 10,000 jobs per $1 billion in cuts. That's generalized, of course, because some sectors of the economy are more efficient than others, and cutting spending can hurt them more or less, depending on how efficient. The Republican plan from earlier this year, which was passed by the House but never enacted, called for $61 billion in cuts--Moody's Analytics reported that, as passed, it would cost 700,000 jobs.

"It has been shown the 'stimulus' bill delayed or destroyed about 1 million private sector jobs in order to save about 450k state and local government jobs."

That hasn't been "shown"; it has been asserted, by a single study that offered conclusions that contradict everyone else who has looked at the matter.

"The Republicans were elected to bring the deficits under control and repeal Obamacare"

That has never been the public's priority, in spite of incredible efforts to make it the priority. A CBS poll from only a few days ago, for example, asked the priorities question: the top answer, by far, was the economy/jobs, at 48%. The budget deficit/debt was at 10%, and health care was at 4%. Debt concerns have usually scored a little better than that (they're generally 20-something percent), but they're always tiny compared to jobs (which usually score higher, too), and that's been the case for a few years, now. The matter of health care is a little trickier, because, while a plurality-to-majority now usually tell pollsters they support repealing Obamacare, or parts of it, that doesn't mean that's the agenda of those who name health care as a priority (health care always finishes miles behind jobs in the priority polls, in any case).

  • Login to post comments

Reality: 3 Troll: 0

Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:36pm.

Reality: 3

Troll: 0

 

   /// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 ///    خال

  • Login to post comments

You can try

Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 6:21pm.

to spin this any way you may want, but the R's ran on repealing O'care and getting the nation out of debt, and to stop incurring any more debt.  So, just one question for you, who won in 2010? 

You acknowledge that a study did, in fact, find that Stimulus destroyed a million private sector jobs, to save 450K public jobs.  Yet, you cite nothing to back up your contention that "you lose about 10,000 jobs per $1 billion in cuts. That's generalized, of course, because some sectors of the economy are more efficient than others, and cutting spending can hurt them more or less, depending on how efficient".  Then go on to cite "everyone else".  And, if cutting the budget closes the DoEd's office of Internal Affairs, or the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities Staff, so what?  And that's just two offices out of 26 or so in  one department!!! 

The governments, Federal, State and local, are bloated, and need to be reduced.  Could you explain why the Department of Education needs an Office of Internal Affairs?  Or why the WH gives a rat's behind about an Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and their staffs?

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Canada’s Budget Triumph

Submitted by Par for the Course on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:16pm.

Canada’s Budget Triumph

A federal government runs a large deficit. Deficits are so large that the ratio of federal debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) approaches 70 percent. A constituency of voters have gotten used to large federal spending programs. Does that sound like the United States? Well, yes. But it also describes Canada in 1993. Yet, just 16 years later, Canada’s federal debt had fallen from 67 percent to only 29 percent of GDP. Moreover, in every year between 1997 and 2008, Canada’s federal government had a budget surplus. In one fiscal year, 2000–2001, its surplus was a whopping 1.8 percent of GDP. If the U.S. government had such a surplus today, that would amount to a cool $263 billion rather than the current deficit of more than $1.5 trillion.

[...]

The main policy actions that the Canadian government took to shrink its budget deficit and turn deficits into surpluses were cuts in government spending. Moreover, the Canadian government didn’t just cut the growth rate of spending, a favorite trick of U.S. politicians who want to claim the mantle of fiscal conservatism.

[...]

The second moral of the story is that the Canadian experience does not support the Keynesian view that policymakers should not cut government spending during an economic slowdown.

[...]

There are two morals of this story. First, the Canadian experience shows us that a large budget deficit can be turned into a budget surplus with ten years of fiscal discipline, mainly with spending cuts.

[...]

Canada's unemployment rate is well below the U.S. unemployment rate. Any guesses why Classic?

  • Login to post comments

So I'm guessing

Submitted by mandrake on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:18pm.

You like the Canucks in tonights game?

  • Login to post comments

Not really

Submitted by Par for the Course on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 7:44am.

I'm a Red Wings fan from the Steve Yzerman era. Since then, I haven't followed Hockey that much.

  • Login to post comments

"contradict everyone else who

Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 6:34pm.

"contradict everyone else who has looked at the matter"

Really? It doesn't contradict here, here and here.  Who are these 'experts' you speak of and where are their studies? 

" $61 billion in cuts--Moody's Analytics reported that, as passed, it would cost 700,000 jobs."    

This is the work of  Mark Zandi : " Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package" We see how accurate he was with the Stimulus package, a two year, $862 Billion spending splurge that "saved" 450,000 public sector jobs and promised to keep unemployment under 8.5%.  Unemployment peaked at 10.1% and "Administration officials had predicted that the stimulus program would save or create 600,000 jobs by summer. But by July, the economy had lost more than two million jobs since Mr. Obama took office, while officials were estimating that the program has saved only about 150,000 jobs".   Even YOU should be able to see there is something wrong here : how could a paltry $61B cut kill 700K jobs if 14 times that could only SAVE 450k?.  The current deficit is $1.65 Trillion.  $61B is a comparative beer can in a bathtub.  So according to you, we cannot ever balance the federal budget by cutting government spending because it will kill 700k+ jobs, right?  And raising taxes?  Good idea?  How many jobs will that kill? 

Since the Republicans RAN on repeal of Obamacare and CRUSHED the Democrats last fall, we must conclude that issue was a winner. "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, while 35% are at least somewhat opposed. This includes 41% who Strongly Favor repeal and 28% who Strongly Oppose it."

Are you serious? When you steal enough money from hardworking Americans to fund a public sector job that produces nothing anyone was willing to pay for voluntarily, you destroy the private sector employment these funds would otherwise produce.  Every single one of these government jobs you are promoting kills 2 or more private sector jobs.

Private industry is not investing here, largely because of the uncertainty and turmoil the Democrats have engendered.  There is what's called a capital strike underway.  Squash all these government threats and provide a stable, low cost business environment and there will be a significant private sector expansion.  

  • Login to post comments

Just saw this--I'm afraid the

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:59pm.

Just saw this--I'm afraid the number of side issues that are cropping up is overwhelming my ability to offer proper responses, and if I get too nerdy on economic matters, people's eyes tend to glaze over anyway, but I'll throw a little something together.

The stimulus was an effort at compromise, by a president who tends to elevate "bipartisanship" above doing what makes sense; it was too small, and a lot of it was misdirected (about 40% of it was tax cuts, which are far less stimulative than spending), and poorly planned. I'm not even sure I would have voted for it in that form, if I'd been in congress. Still, there's little doubt that it had a positive impact. Yes, the fellow representing the black helicopter crowd at Heritage is going to argue the stimulus failed; in all the decades since it was founded, those at Heritage have never let hard data get in the way of their ideology, and like the fellow at Cato, they can't back up what they say. Regardless of these individuals, what's the (overwhelmingly) prevailing view among actual economists?

"President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-surv...

"Eighteen months later, the consensus among economists is that the stimulus worked in staving off a rerun of the 1930s."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

"Thirty-eight of the 54 surveyed economists, not all of whom answered every question, said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870362530457511567405726066...

The CBO, last November, estimated that unemployment was 0.8%-to-2% lower as a consequence of the stimulus:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11975/11-24-ARRA.pdf
(Yeah, it's a pdf file, and I'm sorry about that, but it was the only place I could find it)

Even John Makin, over at the extremely conservative American Enterprise Institute, decided: "The real economy also responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009."
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

And so on.

  • Login to post comments

These are all what-if scenarios

Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 06/19/2011 - 1:20pm.

That is to say, every last one of these opinions is unsustainable prognostication, a speculation, about what would have happened without this "stimulus". The actual events have now passed and we can never know with any certainty what would have happened without this spending. We can know with certainty three things : what the unemployment was, what this stimulus money was actually spent on, and a huge debt was created in the name of the people.


These same "experts" you are referencing also predicted that the stimulus, if enacted, would keep unemployment from rising above 8 or 8.5%, depending on which one of them you want to listen to. They were wildly wrong, meaning their opinions have no more weight than the weather forecaster who predicts sun and gets rain. Officially, unemployment peaked at 10.1 % and still has not fallen to 8.5%. The real unemployment rate was and is much higher than that, perhaps as high as 22.5%.  We cannot even compare this with the official numbers reported before 1994 because the Clinton Administration defined long-term discouraged workers out of official existence in 1994. In any case, the stimulus failed to do anything near what its proponents claimed it would do and is therefore a failure.


The Stimulus money produced virtually no private sector employment. The lion's share of this money was given to state and local governments who invariably spent them preserving state and local public employment or did not spend it at all.   Money was spent overseas, contributing nothing to domestic employment or simply wasted.
 

Stimulus is the failure that keeps on giving. The real cost of the stimulus is not the value spent on it but that value PLUS the value of all interest payments that will be paid into the future on that wasteful borrowing. Our children and grandchildren will suffer this burden and derive no benefit from it. The Stimulus was a truly ruinous blunder, one only catastrophic fools would support.
 

  • Login to post comments

CL2

Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:24pm.

Government does not create wealth. When they fund jobs they are using up wealth, and costing us money. However, if the government cuts spending and taxes go down, people can spend money. If people spend money business's sell more, and need to hire more.

Very simple.

Proud member of the 53%!
  • Login to post comments

The only

Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:09pm.

comment you've made that comes close to anything resembling a fact: "unemployment is already insanely high". Thanks for that, but the rest of your screed is just DNC talking points, yet again. And, if you hang around for a while, I'm sure that you'll see the unemployment rate, the real rate, as in everyone who's unemployed, not just the ones still getting benefits, is going to go higher again.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

I take comfort in the fact

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:47pm.

I take comfort in the fact that, where you actually able to identify anything I'd gotten wrong, you would have.

"the real rate, as in everyone who's unemployed, not just the ones still getting benefits"

The federal unemployment rates have nothing to do with the number of people receiving benefits. It is a measure of those who are out of work, but are actively searching for it. Those who are out of work A real unemployment rate--one that included them--is, indeed, much worse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks this version of the unemployment rate. I haven't seen any numbers recently, but last year, it was over 16%. If you include those underemployed (who don't make enough to live on, but aren't included as unemployed, by either measure), it's even worse.

  • Login to post comments

So,

Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 6:44pm.

unemployment rates have nothing to do with those who are unemployed? "A measure of those who are out of work" would seem to cover the unemployed. But, I doubt that the feds have any way of measuring those who have quit seeking a job.  As for those actively seeking a job, that's part of collecting unemployment, you have to be seeking a job to get the money.  Or at least give the illusion that you're out there seeking a job. 

We can agree that the real number of people unemployed is far worse than what the government is saying it is. 

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

Look before self congratulation

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:45pm.

You should be more careful when you strut around here, spouting half truths and phony baloney.

  • Login to post comments

amen, brother...

Submitted by Rackie on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:46pm.

I'm not a rascist or a homophobe but Don Lemon could convert me.

  • Login to post comments

One would really have to work

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:53pm.

One would really have to work to smear Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum. He pretty much smears himself, and all his critics have to do is point it out. Lemon was correct about Santorum and the anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution--there's simply no way to square that with small-government conservatism--but he was way off in the ozone to quote the airhead Behar. Whether or not Santorum is a bigot doesn't matter at all. That he blatantly plays to the worst sort of bigotry for votes, however, does.

  • Login to post comments

Another post from a classic, liberal,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:54pm.

bigot.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Tell me o wise one ...

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:05pm.

what is the worst sort of bigotry?

I am interested to know what a race-baiter like you considers to be bigotry.

 

While you are answering questions, explain how an Amendment to the Constitution defining what the word 'marriage'  means as the same as it has meant for the last 5,000 years of human history is contrary to conservative principles?

  • Login to post comments

Lots of luck with that, NL

Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:40pm.

All this troll has is talking points. Not even very good ones.

The answers (if he's brave enough to take you on) ought to be amusing.

K. I'm off to pop some popcorn now.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Umm, Hate to break it to you

Submitted by red-sox-rudy on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 10:05am.

Actually what marriage means today in modern western civilization is a fairly new phenomenon, not "the same as it has meant for last 5,000 of human history." For most of those 5,000 marriage has entailed: polygamy, polyandry, dowries, forced arrangements and the idea of brides as property. So marriage has always evolved with changing cultures. I know this makes your head hurt from cognitive dissonance, but that does not make it any less true.

  • Login to post comments

~Funny thing

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 06/15/2011 - 10:08am.

All of those marriages happened to be between males and females. Coincidence, I'm sure.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Oh look at that.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:23pm.

The anonymous moniker that won't use his real name smears someone in meatspace that has a real name by inserting a slur as a quoted nickname.

Tell us your real name milksop. Then we can start inserting slurs and slander on your name with our every single post.

  • Login to post comments

"inserting a slur as a quoted

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:34pm.

"inserting a slur as a quoted nickname"

That isn't a slur. Santorum actually said that, and compared gay relationships to it. And you, of course, know this.

  • Login to post comments

Whatever classic "smears himself with chicken scat" liberal2

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:43pm.

Look. I took an out of context quote from you and I am using it to smear, slur, and slander you whenever and wherever I can. Isn't that fun?

  • Login to post comments

"whatever classic "smears himself with chicken scat" liberal2"

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:45pm.

"whatever classic "smears himself with chicken scat" liberal2"

Try it - it's fun.

  • Login to post comments

"Try it - it's fun."

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:46pm.

"Try it - it's fun."

See what I mean?

  • Login to post comments

"See what I mean?"

Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:45pm.

"See what I mean?"

  • Login to post comments

"Santorum actually said that,

Submitted by redfish on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:11pm.

"Santorum actually said that, and compared gay relationships to it."

No, he didn't. You're using a common tactic used to bully social conservatives, though.

If I said "some people are square and straight, while some people are into fetishes like bestiality and incest, but both are the realities of human sexuality", I'm comparing heterosexuality to bestiality and incest. That's about the extent to which Santorum did a comparison.

Anyone that doesn't understand that, I feel is either being dense or purposely dishonest.

  • Login to post comments

Why throw away your own

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 6:30pm.

Why throw away your own reputation on such a despicable creature? Santorum, in that interview, was arguing in favor of upholding sodomy laws aimed at homosexuals, based on his assertion that we have no right to privacy (!!!), and that the state has the "right" to regulate aberrant behavior, with pedophiles and "man-on-dog" sex thrown in alongside homosexuals as examples. The breed of "social conservatives" whose politics, like Santorum's, are largely fascist in nature have done exactly the same thing for a few decades, now, and it doesn't get any less ugly by repetition.

  • Login to post comments

He was talking about what was

Submitted by redfish on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 6:55pm.

He was talking about what was in or not in Constitution. Justice Scalia has made the same argument, at the same time that he's called sodomy laws wrong and said they should be overturned. You really believe Santorum wants to put all gay people in jail? You really believe any politician in America today wants to put gay people in jail? That this isn't covered in the Constitution is a valid legal opinion.

This is just about honesty for me, I don't support Santorum.

"Why throw away your own reputation..."

That's exactly the type of bullying I'm talking about, classicliberal.

If we live in a country where people "throw away their reputation" for simply supporting honesty, that's as ugly as any loss of privacy rights.

Don't vote for Santorum, its as simple as that. If he's as wrong as you say he is, you don't have to misrepresent or exaggerate his views. Frankly, you sound obsessed with him.

  • Login to post comments

redfish...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:22pm.

It is clear Santorum believes homosexual behavior is not only sexually deviant but also that it is unprotected by any judicially manufactured constitutional right of privacy and he would support the authority of states to re-enact laws criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

That doesn't mean he thinks

Submitted by redfish on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:21pm.

That doesn't mean he thinks they should be re-enacted.

  • Login to post comments

I'm sure he realizes it is high unlikely...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:02pm.

but I believe if he had his 'druthers' that is precisely what he would like to see happen--not the mass incarceration of homosexuals, but the codification of public moral disapprobation by state legislatures proscribing homosexual conduct.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

I don't think he's interested

Submitted by redfish on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 9:20pm.

I don't think he's interested in that end at all. He hasn't said anything that would suggest it to me. So he thinks living a gay lifestyle is a choice -- a lot of people do -- and he believes the Constitution doesn't have a right to privacy -- a lot of people don't. But despite the fact that a lot of people share those beliefs, I don't think there's any mass interest in going after gay people. I don't think Santorum is interested in agitating for that either.

Anyway, frankly, I'm more worried that the complete opposite is happening that I wouldn't waste my time worrying over Santorum's druthers. Namely that any group that personally doesn't believe in gay rights politics will be treated as discriminatory and second class under the law, and that anyone who doesn't tow the line on every single talking point will be called a bigot.

  • Login to post comments

redfish...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 10:18pm.

Well, then, we have a difference of opinion.  I have posted below some additional exchanges from an interview which shawn linked a couple of days ago on another thread where he and the Vet were tangling over a different but related issue to the one you and I are currently addressing.

I've italicized the portions which I believe support my contention that Santorum would indeed prefer the matter be returned to the states and that his sentiments clearly favor a reinstatement and enforcement of anti-sodomy laws.  [It is important to remember that a  violation of such statutes has typically carried the potential for criminal penalties.]  

 

SANTORUM:  ....We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

source

Jer

  • Login to post comments

"I don't think he's

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 11:04pm.

"I don't think he's interested in that end at all. He hasn't said anything that would suggest it to me."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and just assume, here, that you've paid no attention at all to what he has said (and I'll even set aside any judgment about why you would comment no this in light of that). Santorum said, in that infamous "man-on-dog" interview, "I have a problem with homosexual acts," because "they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family." His political orientation is fascist in nature (the real thing, not the multi-purpose curse people with no knowledge of the real thing tend to throw around in our political discourse), and he has harsh words for freedom: "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold [a reference to Griswold v. Connecticut, that recognized a right to privacy]... And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you--this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families."

Does that suggest something to you?

  • Login to post comments

Shut up chickenscatboy..

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 6:23am.

I am getting tired of seeing your 14 page screeds here. I wish for the love of Gawd someone could tell me why people even bother to wase precious minutes out of their day reading the long winded mamabear crap you two spew on these pages.

Idiots can't even lie in a timely fasion. It takes a 14 page screed.

The quicker everyone stops responding to this troll, the quicker he will go away.

  • Login to post comments

The interview was pasted here

Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 12:58pm.

The interview was pasted here twice, I know what he said.

He said two things:

1. He thinks we should have a culture where sex is reserved for traditional marital relationships. He didn't pick on gay people and say "homosexual acts undermine the tenets of society and family", you excluded a rather long ellipses there. He'd include heterosexual relationships outside of marriage also, though he didn't talk about it in the interview as far as I know. His point of view is we shouldn't be libertine about sex as a society, sex has its place, etc.

2. He has a strict constructionist interpretation of the law, where judges have limited powers to construct new rights. He added that a right to privacy, broadly construed, wouldn't allow us to pass laws against incest and bigamy, which he thinks most people don't have a problem with. A broad interpretation could possibly disallow us from passing laws against cruelty to animals also -- which, since animals don't have legal rights, would be purely a law about enforcing morality, btw.

Did he leave it open enough for pro-gay rights people to interpret he'd be okay with bans against sodomy? Yes. But he didn't argue for such a thing and don't think he would.

So, I'm just saying, stick to the facts.

  • Login to post comments

You're not doing so yourself.

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 1:42pm.

You're not doing so yourself. On your first point, you're misrepresenting what he said. I didn't. He was arguing in favor of anti-sodomy laws on the grounds that homosexual acts somehow undermine society. He's not offering some theoretical analysis about how people shouldn't be "libertine about sex"--he's talking about using criminal law against these things. There's not even any wiggle-room for you on that.

In those remarks, he's contemptuous of the entire notion of a right to privacy, and, as I said, the contempt he offers is for the idea itself, not for the narrower version that comes to us via constitutional doctrine--if ANY right to privacy gets in the way of criminalizing homosexuality (among other things), he's against it. On that narrower constitutional question, "strict constructionism" is the same crock it has always been, and this is one of the best examples. The 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments all deal with privacy; the premise of all of them is that there is a zone of privacy into which the state should not enter. Santorum's "reasoning" is anti-constitutional--it does exactly what the 9th Amendment says the government is not to do.

  • Login to post comments

He's not arguing for

Submitted by redfish on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 2:44pm.

He's not arguing for anti-sodomy laws, he's arguing why they're not Unconstitutional, no where does he say he wants anti-sodomy laws. In the same interview he also makes an argument about sexuality, but he's making two different comments.

The 9th amendment has to do with the federal government, not the state governments, and was put in because Anti-Federalists wanted to make sure that the Congress didn't construe the government to have any powers that were not directly enumerated to it. In order to make the argument you are you need to start with the 14th amendment, and make the case that the correct interpretation of that amendment enables the court to make up rights as it pleases in order to make everything consistent in the eyes of the justices. That's a controversial interpretation of the 14th, simply because it gives the court enormous powers over subjective matters that were never explicitly given to it.

  • Login to post comments

"He's not arguing for

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 7:46pm.

"He's not arguing for anti-sodomy laws"

Yes, he is. To support that contention, the one you've just repeated, you have to make the case that, in contravention of his plain words on this matter, he would intentionally support allowing the legalization of behavior he is absolutely insistent in saying destroys society itself. You're not even being remotely honest in continuing to press this line.

Your remarks on the 14th Amendment and the idea of incorporation is an effort to turn to jello, and nothing more. He doesn't mention the 14th Amendment. For the purposes of his position, it is a non-issue. Santorum said no right of privacy exists in the constitution, which requires ignoring the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments, all of which are premised on the idea of a right of privacy, and the 9th Amendment renders anti-constitutional the idea that people can be denied rights--like a right of privacy--because they aren't explicitly outlined in the document (which is Santorum's argument). Beyond that narrow constitutional question, though, he throws the entire idea of a right of privacy on the rubbish heap. His argument is that having privacy from government intrusion results in the destruction of society. That is monstrous.

  • Login to post comments

Then you are also opposed to ....

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:01pm.

legal prohibitions against prostitution, polygamy, bestiality, sadomasochism and other perversions with the potential to harm one or more of the parties consenting thereto?

  • Login to post comments

I lean toward the legalization

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:23pm.

of prostitution--but only if very strictly regulated.  I am against polygamy for reasons such as the immense legal complications the practice engenders.  Bestiality is unacceptable because of the profound  moral coarsening effects and the inability of animals to consciously consent to the act.  As far as sadomasochism, you'll need to define the parameters.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Let me get this right ....

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:50pm.

You want me to define the the parameters of BDSM !?! These are folks who get their jollies from pain, one way or another, are they not? Do such people have any rules?

  • Login to post comments

I'm not talking about their rules...

Submitted by Jer on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 9:02pm.

I'm talking about yours.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

Mine? Easy.

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 10:24pm.

Outlaw all of it. Mostly, this will make no difference as these laws are never enforced in any meaningful way.  to. wit.  Prostitution is available and often readily available in every city of any size in this country, regardless of what local ordinances say.  If you don't believe me you can always consult a lawyer about this.  I'd suggest Eliot Spitzer.  He has a wealth of experience in these matters.

What criminalizing these behaviors does is discourage otherwise respectable folks from doing them and permits serious sanctions to be taken when one of the fools who does these things anyway injures someone else, consenting or otherwise, as a result of these activities.   e.g.,  Infecting an unsuspecting party with an STD you know you have.  This should be treated as an assault.  If the infection claims a life, then murder it shall be.

  • Login to post comments

Jer, just wondering about

Submitted by redfish on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 9:25pm.

Jer, just wondering about your opinion, do you think the court is supposed to make these decisions (including on gay marriage) or the legislature?

  • Login to post comments

redfish...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:13pm.

Ideally, I think it would be preferable for the legislatures to propose and pass laws reflecting the will of the majority in any given state on any given topic, but statutes enacted [or already existing] regarding this particular subject matter almost always trigger constitutional issues which the aggrieved parties will inevitably contest in court requiring a judicial resolution.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

So I"m a fascist, huh?

Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 7:46pm.

Nice job, there, classic.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

I'm surprised he can spell the word.

Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 8:02pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

I don't know you from Adam's

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 11:16pm.

I don't know you from Adam's house cat, but Santorum's politics are certainly fascist, and representative of a significant fascist strain in the U.S. He flat-out says we have no right of privacy in the constitution (a view that is, in itself, blatantly anti-constitutional, to say nothing of logically unsupportable), and says recognizing any such right (regardless of the constitutional question) leads to the destruction of society. No one with any concern for freedom at all could support such a view.

  • Login to post comments

That is strictly your liberal opinion---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 11:30pm.

about Santorum, nothing more.

For someone who is apparently desirous of being taken seriously on political issues, you ain't making it.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" liberal2 LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 6:51am.

Hey, little lying coward of a troll, who do you think you are winning over with lie after lie?

So Santorum’s legal analysis was not as outlandish as many have suggested. Indeed, he would have been on the mark had he phrased it like this: If the Supreme Court said you have the right to consensual sex within your home, it would be a giant step toward a right to commit incest with your adult brother or sister and (at least if you are unmarried) to have group orgies.

Real men and women can argue this without resorting to lies and smears. Cowards like you can't, won't, and resort to lies.

  • Login to post comments

It is clear you do not even know what ...

Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:26am.

a Fascist is or believes.   The first definition :

"often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Santorum believes in none of this.  He stands for the rights of the individual to liberty and private property ahead of the demands of the State as does the US Constitution.  

There ARE, however, political leaders in this country who believe in the policies above, among them are Barack Obama, the SEIU, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most of of the leadership of the Democrat Party.  The Left embraces Fascism, as it does Fascism's big brother, Communism and its cousin, Socialism, collectively, Statism, the idea that the State or the Collective is preeminent over the rights and private property of the individual.   You do not believe this truth?  Then perhaps you should review Kelo v. New London.

  • Login to post comments

I suppose I could just leave

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 3:16pm.

I suppose I could just leave your last paragraph as my own rebuttal--it exposes you, to anyone genuinely schooled in the subject, as embarrassingly uninformed; howlingly so--but what you're repeating is a well-circulated meme to which far too many people have been exposed without ever having anyone set them straight, so I'll offer a few comments, in the hopes of inspiring further examination of the subject.

Simplistic dictionary definitions of complex ideologies are frequently less than helpful in gaining a good understanding of those ideologies. The one you cite is pretty good, but, again, simple. Fascism, as an ideology, is authoritarian and nationalistic, with a very particular and, more importantly, particularly narrow notion of what a nation or a culture or a people or a race should be. The pluralistic, liberal, humanistic, open, participatory, non-homogeneous society and its values are its enemies, and its targets, and it works at first villainizing them, then breaking them down and destroying them.

Functionally, fascist movements are empowered by the conservative moneyed elements of society, with which they align themselves. They pony up big bucks to ply the general public with propaganda, which sometimes includes some version of populist or socialist rhetoric, extolling notions that, in reality, are anathema to fascism, but are used--initially, at least--to rally the public around this very different project. Fascism also presents itself as transformative, and there's the notion of an era of greatness some time in the past, when there weren't all of these people with strange ideas, strange accents, strange behaviors, and if we could just arrest the social decay represented by all of those things, that great era could come again.

  • Login to post comments

classic O'bama drivel-2.... Typical lib, hose em with spewage.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 3:41pm.

Fascism also presents itself as transformative, and there's the notion of an era of greatness some time in the past, when there weren't all of these people with strange ideas, strange accents, strange behaviors, and if we could just arrest the social decay represented by all of those things, that great era could come again.

Hope and change,  pal

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

I can see you are going to have an Interesting experience here.

Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 3:43pm.

So you are erecting yourself as an authority on the definition of Fascism?  What a hoot!!  You have no demonstrated credentials.  Why would anyone here accept your redefinition of this term?  I will continue to accept the commonly understood meaning of the term, fascism as defined in dictionaries and encyclopedias excepting wikipedia.  It is not possible to have a debate of any kind when the participants do not share the same understanding of the words used to express the ideas in question.

A commonly accepted aspect of fascism is state control of the means of production.  

"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners."

The Democrat law known as Obamacare is a study in Fascist economic policy.  It establishes total state control at the Federal level over all medical insurance services produced in the United States.  The content, price and availability of such insurances will be dictated by federal bureaucrats.  All persons in the US are required under penalty of law to purchase such approved insurance.  The government has established a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board to regulate the price and availability of medical services.  Its members will be appointed by the President and are answerable to no one.   Their pronouncements are law unless a super majority of Congress should override them.  The term 'Advisory' conceals the autocratic nature of this body.  This is pure fascism. It is who Obama and the Democrats in the Congress, virtually all of whom  voted for this abomination, are : implementers of Fascist industrial policy.  

Would you like to discuss cap-and-trade?  This is more fascist control of industry.  Or perhaps we should visit Obama's "regulation" of oil drilling leases and permits.  These measures are nothing more than state control of the nominally private energy production industry.  We can examine the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings or some of Obama's crony capitalist deals.  These are all examples of Fascist economics.

  • Login to post comments

nationalism to fascism

Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 4:01pm.

nationalism as an emotional attachment to ones country is not necessarily the narrow notion of what a nation, culture or people should be but the belief that your nation, culture or people are exceptional. That belief is held by almost every nations citizens as an item of pride and is not a bad thing but an uplifting and often emotionally healing event during hard times (US during the great depression).

What you are speaking of is the tool of nationalist superiority which is used as a societal lever to promote actions within a society defined around an idealistic view of that nation.

The only thing conservative about fascism is the use of traditional values in social issues to promote economic and political maneuvering.  Hardly a banner of conservative support for fascism. 

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

There is a definite line

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 7:02pm.

There is a definite line between plain old patriotism (which can be good) and the kind of nationalism one finds in fascism (which can't), but if one isn't mindful, it often becomes a thin one, because the emotional sense that one's nation/people/culture/race etc. is exceptional is very close to the sense that it is superior, and tends to get people to adopt a narrow version of what makes it special, to blind themselves to the flaws in their idealized notion, and to want to proactively demonstrate that superiority.

Those simple souls who start throwing around notions like indirect government control of industry as a defining element of fascism rather brutally confound ends and means. Fascism clips little bits from all along the spectrum. It isn't conservative. It is reactionary. So is a lot of what is mislabeled "conservative" today (If, for example, you see a "conservative" talking about a "culture war," you're actually seeing a reactionary who has been mislabeled).

  • Login to post comments

economics in fascism

Submitted by Agnostic on Sat, 06/18/2011 - 10:20am.

When people speak of liberalism in fascism I believe they are relating the ideas of central economic and social control that is a cornerstone of fascism. The end result of fascism is much the same as socialist ideologies in that economic, social and military resources are all going to be centrally controlled but there are a couple of very important differences. Fascism recognizes the inability of a government to produce its own wealth and takes a couple of steps to solve that problem. Most important it maintains expansionist notions with its long term planning knowing that greater and greater resources will be needed.  Second, it doesn't indiscriminately destroy the successful thinkers, planners and builders unless they completely refuse to participate.  Fascism is more likely to use resources than to destroy them in fear/paranoia (see China's treatment of professors).

. . Socialist = Modern Liberal = Parasitoid
  • Login to post comments

Well, I'm not "Adam's House Cat".....but I am

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 2:03pm.

....a social conservative.

And you said this:

The breed of "social conservatives" whose politics, like Santorum's, are largely fascist in nature have done exactly the same thing for a few decades, now, and it doesn't get any less ugly by repetition.

So you, in essence, called me and all of the other social conservatives fascists.

Now, cite where Santorum said there's no right to privacy in the Constitution.  You know, with an orange link and all that.  In fact, you need to back up that entire statement of yours.  Just so you know which one I am objecting to, let me copy it for you.  The parts which I've bolded are the ones you must support.

He flat-out says we have no right of privacy in the constitution (a view that is, in itself, blatantly anti-constitutional, to say nothing of logically unsupportable), and says recognizing any such right (regardless of the constitutional question) leads to the destruction of society. No one with any concern for freedom at all could support such a view.

Time for you to link or slink.

 

 

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

"So you, in essence, called

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 3:30pm.

"So you, in essence, called me and all of the other social conservatives fascists."

No, that's a reading comprehension problem, but I'm going to resist correcting you, and let you re-read it yourself, confident you will get it the second time around.

The AP interview with Santorum is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

"I have a problem with homosexual acts." What problem? "...they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family." Where does this start? "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold... And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you--this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families." The right to privacy? "The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that."

  • Login to post comments

Sorry, you FAIL,

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 4:11pm.

The reading deficiency is on your part (go figure, you're a liberal).

You stated Santorum held fascist political views (and by by extension, the rest of us social conservatives, LIAR). But I've yet to see you prove it. You were SUPPOSED to have proven that he was determined to make everyone fall into line with his view(s) of homosexuality, including legislating it out of existence (see NL's definition of fascism).

But that's not what he said. Not even remotely close. From your link:

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Good Lord, you liberal idiots are too freakin' easy.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Do you honestly believe

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:06pm.

Do you honestly believe you're fooling anyone who is reading this with any understanding?

Your demand--as anyone reading this can scroll up and see--was that I produce proof that Santorum 1) doesn't believe there is a right to privacy in the constitution, and 2) that he has arguing that recognizing any such right leads to the destruction of society.

I've shown both. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, he flat-out said these things.

Now, without addressing that fact with a single word, you've moved the goalposts. You're also called me a liar--or, as you put it "LIAR"--because I spoke of a breed of "social conservatism" that has embraced fascism, and your mind translated that into meaning "all social conservatives are fascists." To state the obvious, the fact that you can't read plain English with any better degree of comprehension doesn't say anything about my honesty.

As for your newly-moved goalposts, Santorum's view is that the fundamental rights of a hated minority should be subjected to a popular vote (a contravention of the most basic premise of our doctrines regarding fundamental rights), and makes clear that he, himself, is totally opposed to their having these rights, and that their having them is socially destructive. That supports my case, not the one you just adopted.

  • Login to post comments

Seriously....give it up

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:13pm.

You bet your ass I'm calling you a liar. Because you are one. As is plain here for all to see.

Too bad for you, this isn't the mainstream media where liberals can lie with impunity.

Don't like it? Tough.

Congrats, though. You can spell "fascist". Although you clearly have no clue what it means.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Get some, Blonde---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:29pm.

Dude lies his buns off, then denies.

Lies, denies.  Lies, denies.  Lies, denies.

Then has the gall to talk about moving goalposts, as if his posts weren't right there to be seen, read, and picked apart.

It was funny for awhile, watching classicliberal run the entire lib gamut of talking points.

Now he drones on and on, buzzing around like an irritating mosquito.

Nice swat job.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Gracias, md

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:09pm.

WE are the reading impaired persons here, according to the reading deficient liberal. 

Ignore those posts up yonder (*waves hand*). Those are a figment of you fascist breed of social conservatives' imagination. They do not say what you think they say.  They say what I mean they say.  Never mind the facts....pay attention to my opinion!!!!

Okay, that's all I can do.  It makes my head hurt to pretend to be a liberal moonbat. 

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

~Anal sex is not a right, much less a fundamental one

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 8:51pm.

And the Constitution wasn't written to tell the people what they could or could not do, it was written to tell the federal government what it could not do.

If individual states want to have laws against sodomy, that's their business. Anyone who doesn't like it can move.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Ahh, classicliberal's ONLY play is---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:07pm.

stating over and over and over and over, that any who challenge him are impaired as regards the field of "reading comprehension'.

It is absolutely ALL he has, and he drones it incessantly.

The mook apparently believes doing so negates every single lethal shot, placed squarely between his running lights, that show his strongest argument to be insipid at best; or more likely, an out and out lie.  

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

~It's all they ALL have

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:38pm.

We don't like Obama's policies because we don't understand them. Likewise, we just don't understand classicmoron2000, or else we'd see his genius.

 

Here, let's give the little dude this to make him feel better.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

No offense, Bru...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:36pm.

But that horse has already left the barn. Anti-sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional in the US since 2003.

If individual states want to have laws against sodomy they can dream about it, and if anyone yearns for the return of such laws--which also criminalized certain consensual sexual acts routinely engaged in by married adults--he or she can move to Sudan where sentences range from five years imprisonment to the death penalty.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

No offense, Jer---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:39pm.

but you talking as a lawyer, or a player? 

Haw.

MD

"The credibility of the story is undermined by the selection of sources." - (h/t Jer)
  • Login to post comments

Matthew...

Submitted by Jer on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:58pm.

I keep a copy of Texas v. Lawrence beside the bed just in case there's any confusion over the do's and don'ts.

Jer

  • Login to post comments

~Take it up with the guy who brought it up

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:40pm.

.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Yeah, I won't wait for you to tell us your real name.

Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:41pm.

So we will just have to smear you with an out of context quote. You said "smears himself". Le't start with that. Then we will allow ourselves to lie just like you do every day here. We will add "with chicken scat".

Right, classic "smears himself with chicken scat" liberal2?

  • Login to post comments

"Silly Savage"

Submitted by Xpat48 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 2:57pm.

Oh, Dawn. There you go again you silly savage.

PS: Barney wants to get together???

  • Login to post comments

gay crusade

Submitted by right of way on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 3:44pm.

so lemon comes out of the closet and now he's on a gay crusade to attack everyone who disagrees with him and label them homophobic? what a jerk.

  • Login to post comments

Santorum is still continuing to

Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:08pm.

Santorum is still continuing to spew the same non-sense that cost him his Senate seat. Earth to Rick, your hardcore social views are the reason why you were absolutely creamed when you ran for reelection. Enough with the anti-gay stuff already.

  • Login to post comments

same nonsense...?

Submitted by Rackie on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:48pm.

as opposed to liberals pols who will say anything and do anything to stay in power. It seems to work for their constitutents who, top to bottom, are stupid, lazy or corrupt...no pride, no integrity, no ambition...just gimme, gimme, gimme. Look at the dem/lib controlled cities and states. Dead and/or dying. Is that what you want?

  • Login to post comments

What "anti-gay stuff"

Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 6:41pm.

are you referring too.

All I heard was that he was against the redefinition of marriage.

And Don Lemon is no longer a "journalist" (if he ever was); he's now just another gay advocate with a microphone. Boring.

That's just my opinion; I could be wrong. -- Dennis Miller
  • Login to post comments

Don & Joy

Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 4:10pm.

Dumb & Dumber

  • Login to post comments

Don should return to the ....

Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Mon, 06/13/2011 - 5:35pm.

....closet. That way he wouldn't pretend to be a journalista, just a pile of twigs. Let's look through his emails.

JMigyanka
  • Login to post comments

~Classicmoron2000 taking things out of context

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:05pm.

Upon perusal of his 8 year old link, I discovered that the "right to privacy" phrase excerpted by our resident moron was the euphemism Santorum and the reporter were using for deviant behavior. So when Santorum said there was no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, he was saying that it did not implicitly or explicitly endorse sexual deviance.

And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home. --Santorum

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion.

The reporter just didn't put the air quotes in for that passage, which was quite convenient for our little troll. Poor little thing, he tries hard.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

Damn, Bru!

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:16pm.

I'm impressed.

I wish I could find that "poor little guy's photo" on the ICHC site. You know which one, the GP in the towel, talking to his pshrink! RIP, wms411 thread. Oh well, still fun to recall.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

~Thank the LOL Search gods

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:29pm.

Blast from the past.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

That's the one!

Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 06/14/2011 - 9:37pm.

I'm going to pirate it, and save it for later.

Thanks!

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

None of that changes anything

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 1:07pm.

None of that changes anything about his comments (or mine) at all. He has said, many times, that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy (an anti-constitutional view that is logically unsupportable), and his comments are aimed at trashing the entire concept of a fundamental right to privacy, however it may be derived.

  • Login to post comments

classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" liberal2 LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 1:27pm.

And he is right LIAR. You lie again. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution.

  • Login to post comments

~Perhaps classicmoron2000

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 2:15pm.

can give this a quick look and find it.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

The entire premise of the

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 3:09pm.

The entire premise of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments is that there is the presumption of a zone of privacy around us into which government should not enter. On the other hand, any effort to deny a right to privacy on the premise that it isn't explicitly stated is anti-constitutional, running directly afoul of the 9th Amendment.

  • Login to post comments

~Classicmoron2000

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 4:08pm.

In the time period in which those amendments were written people were publicly whipped for adultery and fornication, you history challenged nitwit. If a loose woman had tried to demand that the government keep out of her "zone of privacy" she'd have been laughed out of court.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

...and all mean were created

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:26pm.

...and all mean were created equal, except for those who could be owned by others, mostly by the white male holders of big estates who monopolized the franchise.

The point?

That you completely lack one.

(And you're wrong on your history, as well; while colonial-era laws against such things remained on the books and do, in many places, to this day, they were, at that time, already over a century old, and had become all-but-dead letters from 30-50 years before the revolution to the era itself. They've risen from the dead a few times since, which is a good reason to simply do away with them for good, which is what has happened.)

  • Login to post comments

~Ooh, EVIL WHITE MAN!!!

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:28pm.

Get the pitchforks and torches, boys!! C'mon classicmoron, give us some of that good race and class hate!
Sure buddy, I'm wrong cuz you say so.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

double

Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 7:52pm.

.

  • Login to post comments

All mean was NOT created equal.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 7:53pm.

Liberal mean is a lot worse.

  • Login to post comments

~Yes,

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 8:16pm.

while conservative mean is urbanely witty.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 9:29pm.

    Hey boys and girls, did you get caught in a lie?

Don't worry, any lie can be covered. Just say it is presumed to be so. classicLyingliberal2 don't lie or suck. Monkeypipplie just presume he lies and sucks.

  • Login to post comments

~Next time classicmoron2000

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 10:11pm.

is enjoying his fundamental rights in his bedroom he'll have the privilege of removing my boot from his zone of privacy. Perhaps it's time to bring back an old tagline.

 

That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

~That thumping sound

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 2:20pm.

is classicmoron2000 moving the goalposts. First anal sex is a fundamental right, now it's privacy.

You've been thoroughly discredited on this subject as well as others, but by all means continue to flail, mewl, and puke. It's highly entertaining.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

It's disappointing that so

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 3:16pm.

It's disappointing that so many here choose to deploy the Big Lie technique in that way (as a personal libel), rather than address anything of substance.

  • Login to post comments

Fascist =Social Conservative?

Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 5:09pm.

And you bemoan people choosing to deploy the "Big Lie Technique"? Bwahahahahahaha. Stop, you're killing us. Seriously.

You sashay in here and use a personal libel, then cry because no one takes you serious?  Surely you can't be serious, and don't call me Shirley.

To re-elect Obama would be like the Titanic backing up and hitting the iceberg again.
  • Login to post comments

~Sashay in

Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 6:01pm.

Flail, mewl, and puke, and flounce out. That's some wicked strategy he's got going on.

Take notes everyone, this is how it's done.

Obama's WTF 2012 campaign slogan: "A dog in every pot"
  • Login to post comments

classic "smearing myself with chicken scat" LIES again.

Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 9:41pm.

classicLyingliberal2: ...so many here choose to deploy the Big Lie technique...

No little lying trollie. we just presume to deploy the Big Lizzles techniques. Get it right.

  • Login to post comments

You say....that's not proof

Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 06/16/2011 - 2:29pm.

Your "proof" just evaporated.

So, now you can either back up your further slander of "he has said, many times, that Americans have no constitutional right to privacy".

Link or slink, liberal.

Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)

  • Login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Editors' Picks

  • DOJ targeted more Fox News reporters than Rosen (Twitchy)
  • WashPost vs. WashPost on IRS probe (Ed Morrissey)
  • Media too prone to fall sway to Obama's referrent power (Salena Zito)
  • Five reasons to keep government out of Internet governance (Eli Dourado)
  • Is asking about what you pray for inappropriate for IRS? IRS commish not sure (Say Anything)
  • Another fed court invalidates Obama's NRLB recess appointments (Politico)
  • Former SecState Hillary Clinton's record leaves much to be desired (Kondracke)
  • Sen. Boxer is lying about impact of budget cuts on Benghazi security (WashPost)
  • Left-wing actor Cusack attacks Obama, Holder over AP scandal (Twitchy)
  • Dopey Chicago gun laws prevent museum from displaying unloaded WW2 relic (Fox News)
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: Hating America
Michelle Malkin's picture
Michelle Malkin
Malkin Column: Obama's Emptiest Benghazi Talking Point
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Coulter Column: Sorry, Sen. Rubio, But Your Immigration Plan Is Still Problematic
David Limbaugh's picture
David Limbaugh
David Limbaugh Column: Partisan Obama Culture Spawned a More Abusive IRS
Walter E. Williams's picture
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams Column: An Honest Examination of Race
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

ObamaCare's a Real Pain in the Neck
more cartoons
  • Sen. Whitehouse Blames GOP For Okla. Tornado, Storms, Rising Seas, Etc.
  • On Leno: Kids Ask Obama the Darndest Questions
  • Morning Joe Meteorologist: Tornado Averted 'By The Grace of Whatever'
  • Bowling for Dollars....to Pay for Baby Deaths
  • Leno: It’s Gotten So Bad for Obama Fox News Changed Its Slogan to ‘See, I Told You So!’
More >
NewsBusters

Executive Editor
Matthew Sheffield

Editor at Large
Brent Baker

Senior Editors
Tim Graham
Rich Noyes

Managing Editor
Ken Shepherd

Associate Editor
Noel Sheppard

Contributing Editors
Tom Blumer
Geoffrey Dickens
Dan Gainor
David Limbaugh
Mithridate Ombud
Clay Waters
Scott Whitlock

Senior Contributor
Mark Finkelstein

Contributing Writers
Matthew Balan
Michael M. Bates
Erin R. Brown
Jack Coleman
Kyle Drennen
Douglas Ernst
P. J. Gladnick
Stephen Gutowski
Matt Hadro
D. S. Hube
Kathleen McKinley
Dave Pierre
Amy Ridenour
Julia A. Seymour
Terry Trippany
Rusty Weiss
Brad Wilmouth

Publisher
Brent Bozell

Site Design
Dialog New Media

 

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • About
  • Forum
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Account
  • rss
  • CNSNews
  • MRC TV
  • Biz & Media
  • Culture & Media
  • Take Action!
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Amazon Kindle
  • Advertise
  • Jobs

Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use