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 24, 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 » Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Chris Matthews Trashes 'Morning Joe' for Being 'Open to All People's Points of View'
  • Thursday Morning: Fox Gives 15 Minutes to Latest IRS Scandal Details; NBC and ABC Ignore
  • On Taxpayer-subsidized PBS, Liberal Reporters Lament Benghazi Won't Go Away
  • No Mention of IRS Scandal on NBC's 'Today,' But Plenty of Time for Obama Prom Photo
  • MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Hypes ‘LGBT Injustice’ During Interview With 18-year Old Woman Charged With Sex With Minor
  • Lisa Myers: 'For a Year the IRS Essentially Knowingly Lied to Congress and No One Came Forward'
  • Network Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack
  • MSNBC’s Finney On IRS Scandal: ‘Why Didn't Romney Make More Of A Big Deal Of It?’

Rick Santorum Responds to Dan Savage Wanting to Perform Violent Hate Sex on Him

By Noel Sheppard | July 18, 2011 | 19:35

A  A
Noel Sheppard's picture

As NewsBusters previously reported, sex advice columnist Dan Savage on HBO's "Real Time" Friday said he wanted to perform violent hate sex on Rick Santorum.

On Monday, the former Pennsylvania Senator responded on WOR radio's Steve Malzberg show (video follows with transcript and commentary):

STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: What’s your reaction to this filth?

RICK SANTORUM: It’s just that. It’s filth. It’s, you know, this man has, has gone out there and tried to destroy my integrity. I mean, you’ve heard the whole issue of the Google issue. That’s Dan Savage. You know, it’s, it’s the lowest, you know, debasement of public discourse. It’s, it’s offensive beyond, you know, anything that any public figure or anybody in America should tolerate, and the mainstream media laughs about it. They, they, they kid about it. They write about it. They say, “Oh, Santorum’s got a Google problem.”

For those unfamiliar, Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's name with a sexual act. As the gay activist alluded to on "Real Time" Friday, a santorum in perverted parlance now despicably refers to "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

That's the kind of animal Savage is. Let's continue:

SANTORUM: And then when you see this kind of even over the top, you know, not even, beyond that, the Google is worse than, than what he said there. They, they laugh about that, too. Why? Because it’s a liberal beating up on a conservative. And that’s okay. Whether it’s Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, it’s the Left making fun of someone who believes in the values that built America. It believes in traditional marriage. How outrageous. How bigoted. How hateful that you actually believe that, that, you know, raising children and, and, and families with mothers and fathers is something to be encouraged. That you’re, that, that, just because you hold those opinions, you are subject to the worst form of, of, of, of vulgarity on the internet, on television, and everywhere else, and they get away with, not only do they get away with the mainstream media, but they are applauded by the mainstream media. They are made, they are celebrated by, as you mentioned, in New York, by taking on these, these people who believe in these outmoded virtues, and, the bottom line is I stand and I wear it as a badge of honor that someone as vulgar and as, and as disgusting and as hate-filled as Dan Savage sees me as public enemy number one. To me, that tells me I must be doing something right.

MALZBERG: Well, listen, God bless you, and you know you have friends here, and this man, again, I, I, I would like to see the organizers of the Gay Pride Parade to denounce him.

Readers are advised that the man saying this vile stuff on national television - who also said he wished Republicans "were all f--king dead" - was the Grand Marshall of last month's Gay Pride Parade in New York City.

They should be so proud. But I again digress:

SANTORUM: They won’t denounce. They will applaud him for taking on, you know, someone who stands in their way. And this is all, this isn’t about power, Steve. This is about using, this is about (?), this is about intimidation. To ultimately see this is about intimidating anybody who stands up against them. You stand up against them, they will intimidate you, they will, they will use vile things, and the media will applaud them, and you will be ostracized in society. That’s their objective. It is, it is, it is nothing short of that. And so I would just encourage those who don’t want to see that trend to continue, if you can help us out, I would appreciate it, because I tell you what, they will keep it up, they will keep trying to marginalize and ostracize anybody who stands up against them and the media will applaud them. I would appreciate your help. You can go to ricksantorum.com if you want to help us.

After saying goodbye to his guest, Malzberg gave his own opinion on this issue (audio available here, relevant section at 10:00):

MALZBERG: I mean, when I saw that, and I saw that on, on, on NewsBusters.org. I mean, I don’t watch - I don’t even have HBO. I wouldn’t give these people a dime. I stopped subscribing to HBO when they ran that series. It was after the Sopranos. It was after Curb Your Enthusiasm. It was, and it was, well, I think, I guess Curb is still on, but, it was when they made that military series about us fighting in the War, and it turned my stomach. I said, “That’s it – no more HBO.” So I dumped HBO, and boy oh boy, am I glad I did. To pay Bill Maher’s salary? How does he get away with this? How does the media allow this? How? I mean, to say that they, to have a show. To me, this is worse than what he got canned on ABC for saying when he reportedly got canned for saying that, as we played the other day, that our, it’s cowardly for us to lob rockets out of planes, but it’s not cowardly, and I’m paraphrasing, for the terrorists to stay on the plane. In other words, our troops are cowards but the terrorists were brave. That’s how I interpreted it. And he got canned.

This, making jokes about having someone, I don’t know. It’s, and then the attack on Santorum. Can you imagine a conservative attacking a liberal presidential candidate in that manner? I’d like to blank the blank out of him. Are you kidding me? But, Santorum has it read properly. He’s right on target. This is, this is what they do, and the people who run the Gay Pride Parade, and anybody who participated in the Gay Pride Parade in New York City, if they don’t come out and denounce this in my view animal, Dan Savage, then they approve of him, and there’s no difference between them.

As KSFO's Brian Sussman told me Monday morning, if he or any conservative radio host made this kind of a comment about any liberal, he not only would be immediately fired, it would be the end of his career.

But so-called comedian Marc Maron and Savage can make such vile comments about conservative presidential candidates on national television, and neither them nor anyone associated with the show got admonished in any way.

Exactly how did we get here as a nation where such invective is accepted and applauded by one side of the media while meeting with the harshest consequences on the other?

As I wrote in my reports about Friday's "Real Time," it may have contained the most vile political discussions ever aired on national television.

Given the absence of announcements by HBO addressing what occurred on their program, it appears the powers that be at the cable network are just fine with this kind of discourse being aired by them.

Makes you wonder how much worse it's going to get before they step in and stop it - or is there no such point?

About the Author

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Click here to follow Noel Sheppard on Twitter.
  • 2012 Presidential
  • Marc Maron
  • Michele Bachmann
  • Rick Santorum
  • Steve Malzberg
  • Noel Sheppard's blog
  • Login to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version
Stop Censoring The Gosnell Trial!

Comments

Blessed are you when men hate

Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:42pm.

Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man  -Luke 6:22

That'w what you get for standing up for Christian principles.

Yes, Mr. Santorum, you must indeed be doing something right.

  • Login to post comments

Dan Savage is a perfect

Submitted by tcm14 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:56pm.

Dan Savage is a perfect example of how EVERYBODY behaved right before the flood and right before Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. When God looked and saw that the Earth was so full of wickedness that there was nothing worth saving. And that was thousands of years ago.

There is nothing new under the sun.

  • Login to post comments

He saved Lot and his family

Submitted by lrgon on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:43am.

An observation was made by one of America's conservative writers: " Lot's wife would be turned into a pillar of salt in every direction she looked. in today's world." He said that over 25 years ago, long before the perverts hit prime time and before "family shows" like Frazier, Friends and Golden Girls began to paint the queers as being "just like one of us" which God says they are NoT! Otherwise the ash heap of S & G would not be as it is today!

Location of the twin cities of Sodom and Gomarrah?http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/sodomfound.htm

  • Login to post comments

Rick Santorum actually responded like a true man.

Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:50pm.

Even while Dan Savage did apologize (we ALL KNOW he didn't mean it) for his comments, verbally threatening aggravated rape and battery against a person running for president should be treated as a crime, period.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).
  • Login to post comments

No!

Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:53pm.

No, that's not what Savage apologized for. He apologized for saying he wanted all Republicans f--king dead. He hasn't apologized for what he said about Santorum. ns

  • Login to post comments

. . to continue - Did Bill Maher apologize?

Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:13pm.

Of course not. It is a national show, as you say, but some would say it's under the guise of an ex-comedy heading on HBO - and that is somehow different.

When it's not Maher's guests spewing the hatred, the bigotry, and/or the vile vulgar remarks usually directed towards conservative women, it's Maher himself doing it.

Then Maher waltzes over to CNN where he is a regular "political analyst,"

The LA Times ( I expect the Tribune) offers him frequent enough op-ed space to further vent his extreme bias and hatred for the other side of the isle.

Since Howard Kurtz won't do his job - perhaps it is time for a national boycott - or march on HBO and CNN's headquarters - from the other 2/3rds of America.

(;~> gary

  • Login to post comments

Hannity showed a clip tonight

Submitted by SFCDeano on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:05pm.

Hannity showed a clip tonight where Maher (talking about Michele Bachmann) said on the Piers Morgan show something like, "If Palin gets in the race it will split the MILF vote", and it didnt raise an eybrow. I guess Piers doesnt know what a MILF is.

  • Login to post comments

So many libs hate me these days

Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:13pm.

I might sue for pain n suffer'n. How these chumps aint getting their noses flatten, I dont understand

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Thanks Noel

Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:46pm.

You are correct about that. Also, remember Dan Savage joined Gary Bauer's campaign to purposely infect him with the flu back in 2000. This man is one of the most vile, disgusting, sadistic and sick perverted individuals to walk the face of the earth.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).
  • Login to post comments

Individual?

Submitted by Brad90956 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:17pm.

I wouldn't characterized Savage as a individual because that implies he is a person. In my book he is a sub-human...somewhere just below Olbermann and Maher and just above pond scum.

  • Login to post comments

Savage's father

Submitted by adamsmith on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:15pm.

is a Republican. Can you imagine having that dirtbag for a son? This jerk has the same daddy issues Bill Maher and the rest of the Liberals have. They ALL hate their fathers. That has to say something. What.....I don't know..

  • Login to post comments

These perverts get away with this stuff because society feels

Submitted by VanPastorMan on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 7:50pm.

they deserve a break or better understanding. There is no doubt in my mind that this homosexual probably has many sexual partners. He wants Obama Care so he can get treatment free after he messes his life up due to his perversion. Yes, I think that if a person says things like this publicly then we can conclude him to be very perverted in private. It stands to reason.

Liberals are funny when they aren't in power.  But when they have power they become dangerous. Rush Limbaugh
  • Login to post comments

Isn't this new age of civility in public discourse wonderful?

Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:06pm.

So nice we don't have to hear violent rhetoric anymore from the media.

"Liberalism is hideous.  It is the antithesis of being pro-human.  It looks at life as a burden in and of itself to be managed, rather than as a blessing to be explored and lived to the fullest." --Rush Limbaugh
  • Login to post comments

They'll leave out 'wish' next....

Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:16pm.

The liberal wastrels on that show did the usual two-step and issues phony, insincere 'apologies' for their remarks (smirking and sneering even as they did so).

In my opinion, they're only going to be emboldened and think they got away with it. And before long, they won't even apologize anymore. Soon they'll be directly calling on their viewers to kill anyone who they don't like. Next time, they won't say 'I WISH republicans were dead'. They'll say, 'I want to kill republicans.' This is how crazed and insane the liberals have become.

THEY are the violent, intolerant hate-mongers.

If a Liberal/Democrat politician/media figure wants to put their arms around you, or pat you on the back, all they're doing is looking for a good place to stick a knife.
  • Login to post comments

Gay Pride???

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:19pm.

"the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Yeah. That's really something to be proud of.

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

Perhaps a new nickname for Dan Savage?

Submitted by Mike Bratton on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:00pm.

"Frothy" Dan Savage.

Or, Dan the Frothy Savage?

Ideas?  I mean, we should help people remember that Dan's attempts at character assassination mixed up that by-product, so to speak.

--Mike

  • Login to post comments

Gag me with a spoon!

Submitted by gailannr on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:37pm.

That's all that comes to my mind right now. "GAG ME WITH A SPOON."

  • Login to post comments

Cold Civil War

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:31pm.

How did we get to this low point (that seems to have no bottom)? In my mind, It has been through the (at first) snarky comments in the nineties from liberals, especially in the Clinton campaign - I had never heard such smart aleck immature comments from a political campaign before that. Then it began to devolve more quickly as so-called 'comedians" began doing more and more liberal political commentary - directing bad taste jokes against conservatives. In the past several years, especially after George W bush was elected, there seems to be a contest among the uber liberal "comedian" slash "commentators" as to who can say the most vile (and unfunny) things against conservatives - both politicians and non-politicians - and not only get away with it but be applauded for it. Their bile has spread to (and negatively influenced) the discourse among the liberal cable news media and into the politics itself (Keith Olbermann and his MSNBC ilk and (fortunately) ex-Rep Alan Grayson). Now, we're at the point where nastiness seems to be the norm rather than the exception - hatefulness and bile has been mainstreamed. There's plenty of nastiness on conservative blogs, but it doesn't have seems to have spread so much into conservative media (Ann Coulter being perhaps the most edgy but paling next to the likes of Bill Maher)) and certainly not into the discourse from conservative and Republican politicians (heck, I'd like to see a few Republicans get just a little more snarky and pointed). I don't think it's going to stop - although, I don't no how anyone can out-do the "I wish Republicans were all dead" from Dan Savage - but I'm sure some liberal, somewhere, is working on it. I see all this, as I have said before as an out and out cold civil war - for the time being - of words.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Chris---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:07pm.

I state this as opinion only, as I respect, but disagree with, those who feel we must, as conservatives, be polite in our discourse with liberals when "debating" them, otherwise we are lowering ourselves when utilizing the methods that make them so repulsive.

I feel that if you fail to face up to a bully, you will have to kow-tow to him forever.

Politely calling liberals out for being malicious certainly appears to be not only a waste of time, but a losing proposition, as well.

Maybe liberal 'hatefulness and bile has been mainstreamed' because they never got a taste of their own medicine face-to-face, and figure they never will.

MD

 

 

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

MD,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:44pm.

While I agree that we must answer attacks on us with intelligence, wit, and, yes, equal snarkiness, we should never, ever, sink to the level of the Dan Savages, Janane Garafalos, Bill Mahers of the world. We lose all the moral high ground and only further sink the public discourse into the cesspool it has become. For example, answering Dan Savage's expressed wish that Republicans would all die with the response that we wish he would die, makes us as repugnant as he is. I can be nasty on occasion, but I refuse to be that low and repugnant. I would rather that we answer his nasty crap in a way that will marginalize and ostracize him, but that won't come by sinking to his bilious level.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Moral victories mean little in a total war,

Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:59pm.

and believe me, that is what the lefty nuts are engaged in. I'm in favor of the most effective legal method to publicly marginalize the Dan Savage's of the world. I don't think wishing death on him is the best way to achieve that, but the ends often justify the means.

When that bully has 8 inches and 100 lbs on you, sometimes a hard kick to the groin is your only option.

"Liberalism is hideous.  It is the antithesis of being pro-human.  It looks at life as a burden in and of itself to be managed, rather than as a blessing to be explored and lived to the fullest." --Rush Limbaugh
  • Login to post comments

MD,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:10pm.

Ouch. The groin? I think I'd rather see the devastating observations by a Krauthammer as an answer to liberals than some equivalent attack by a conservative on par with the sick desire of Dan Savage to have violent sex with Rick Santorum.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Chris, the groin kick was suggested by---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:22pm.

lsu, though I concur.

If you ain't in it to win, what's the point?

MD

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

MD,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:28pm.

I think there are far more effective ways of winning than employing the Savage/Garafalo/Maher method. Besides, once we've won, we won't be ashamed of ourselves.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Ok, Chris,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:43pm.

we shall amicably disagree with one another.

I personally haven't seen any evidence in the political world, especially as the game is played by liberal Democrats, that music hath charms to soothe the savage breast; or that honey draws better responses from the opposition than vinegar.

Every time the Republicans reach across the aisle, they either pull back nubs where their fingers used to be, or they get pulled bodily into the grasp of the Lib-Dims and get hell beat out of 'em.

Continuing with the same tactics will likely engender the same results.

MD

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

MD,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:44pm.

Always amicable. I don't think that we'll influence the whack jobs by setting a good example either. What we will do is show the sane voters that the vast majority of bile and venom is spewed by those sociopaths on the Left. In a perfect world, there should be no evidence for anyone to cite for the purposes of "equivalence". That said, please don't mistake for one second that I think we should turn the other cheek when sucker punched by the Left.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

delete

Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 6:56am.

delete

  • Login to post comments

That was metaphorical,

Submitted by lsudolemite on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:38pm.

and only when it's your one remaining option.

Bush made the same mistake almost every elected Republican makes. They think if the truth is on their side, then it will be self-evident to voters with little-to-no explanation or need to sell it to the public. 8 years of relentless "Bush is stupid" from the media and no counterattack and now we have Obama. Packaging and spin matter. A well-reasoned Krauthammer article isn't enough. Liberals are masters of emotional manipulation, and facts alone are not enough to fight that. When your opponent tells people grandma will starve to death and won't get her meds. or poor sick children will die in the streets because of your policies, people aren't going to pay attention to Heritage Foundation reports. Demagoguery works, unfortunately, but only if you let it.

We regard people like Savage and Garofalo as fringe kooks, but plenty of people listen to them. We think of guys like Maher and Stewart as mere comedians with a political schtick, but plenty of people watch them. And the MSM lends them mainstream credibility every time they appear on FNC, CNN or the nets, and they get to reach out to people beyond their core audiences. They're not harmless, and if we refuse to fight back, we do so at our own peril. It's not enough to ignore them. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about people's ability to see through the BS, but if they voted for Obama once, it can happen again. The fact that we can't get the guy's approval rating to dip below 40% in the midst of the worst economy of my lifetime fills me with a deep sense of dread.

"Liberalism is hideous.  It is the antithesis of being pro-human.  It looks at life as a burden in and of itself to be managed, rather than as a blessing to be explored and lived to the fullest." --Rush Limbaugh
  • Login to post comments

Don't have to be low and---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:16pm.

repugnant with replies, Chris; but you must be willing to get right in a liberal face and let he-she-it know:

  • You will not be pushed around; physically, emotionally, or semantically
  • You will not accept volume or number of opponents as a substitute for truth
  • You have the ability, and will use it, to insult them back, if insulted, using morphemes

When they vacate the immediate area in search of a dictionary to look up morphemes, get the fire axe off the wall, chop up their chair, ignite it as you would a campfire, and then politely invite them, upon their return, to a marshmallow roast, as a weenie was already roasted and someone's goose already cooked.  :o)

MD

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

Matthew

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:55pm.

I've begun caring less and less what liberals think of me. As far as I'm concerned, if they aren't publicly condemning behavior like this then they are as no different than these bottom feeders. It's also nice that I'm getting old enough that I'm expected to be loud in public...and I'm still big and agile enough to back up most of it.

Chris, I can tell you what unhinged the left, far beyond what Clinton subjected us to. My wife made this observation around 2004. They had still not gotten over the "stolen Florida election" when we were attacked on 9/11. The lefties were so scared, they hid behind "father" Bush and "Grandpa" Rumsfeld to protect them from those bad people. When they came out of their initial shock, they were so ashamed of themselves for being glad that Algore wasn't in office, they had to lash out. That's why Bush Derangement Syndrome is so long lasting.

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

Phil,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:14pm.

I'm not sure if they were ashamed of themselves, in fact, I think their anger over the result of the election (how could the "wonderful" Al Gore have lost?) just grew and grew into impotent rage that they could only express in the nastiest attacks against Bush and Republicans they could muster at the time. As they saw, there were no negative consequences to their lies and poisonous discourse, they kept on pushing the envelope (and keep on pushing it). As a point of where it all started, I was observing that the Clinton '92 campaign marked the first time I heard such smart aleck language as used by supposed professionals like Begala and Carville.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

All good points, Chris, ---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:32pm.

but I still think it possible that the liberal actions have increased exponentially because there has been no pushback.

How awestruck have we found ourselves lately when some conservative politicians actually do not let lib commentators walk all over them?

I am not a proponent of being mean and nasty as a weapon of offense; I just believe that when those tactics are encountered and not met with similar tactics that the opposition is then unduly encouraged to continue on in the same vein.

And they certainly do just that.

MD

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

MD,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:02am.

But, then, we give the liberals in the media the examples to cite for the purposes of "equivalence". Let the Savages, Garafalos, and Mahers spew their hate. Relatively speaking, not many people hear them or even know they exist. Let's be honest, the only reason we know they're saying these ugly things is because we read about it here. I really doubt that they influence many reasonable people - except negatively. They're just playing to the creeps who already are on board with them anyway.

While I think it's reasonable for NewsBusters to recognize the liberal hate speech that goes on, sometimes I think (with all due respect) it's emphasized here a little too much on some days. It should be secondary to the more insidious liberal bias found in their news "reporting" that does reach reasonable viewers and readers who can be influenced by the one sided stories and analysis. I think Brian Williams, Scott Pelley, and Diane Sawyer damage the country, on the whole, far more than Maher and Savage do. Their liberal bias influences elections and the way the country is governed. Their deliberate omissions, obfuscation, and non-coverage of Obama and the Democrats recklessness allow them to get away with their ruination of the country. The sick antics and vile rants of the "comedians" are a side show - infuriating - but still a side show.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Chris---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:19am.

I'm pretty sure the lib media and Democratic politicians have never had a  problem making up "equivalence" stories out of whole cloth and attributing actions to Republicans and conservatives that in actuality only they deal in.

At least if we give them something to work with, they will be telling the truth for a change.  :o)

MD

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

Then they will be out and out

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:33am.

Then they will be out and out lying and many people will recognize that. Aside from that amicable disagreement, would you agree that as of late NB may be over emphasizing the crap from Maher and ilk? I'm not even sure that it lands in the territory of liberal media bias - liberal hate speech - but not bias. I don't like disagreeing with the powers-that-be at NewsBusters - I respect them all, and it's their site - but sometimes I think they're straying from their main mission a little too much on occasion.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

Chris---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:56am.

I have yet to see a post from you that did not evince intelligent thinking as a path leading up to it.

I will agree, indeed, that liberal hate speech is a more accurate term than liberal bias when referencing the HBO maniac and his output; though I'm positive a strong case could be made, outside of ratings considerations, that liberal hate speech is indicative of liberal bias.

Maher madness is a bit overwhelming at times, as are the Chris Matthews 'spitticles'.

That said, I am very glad that there are those who will observe the insanity and apprise me of it through a written article so I don't have to subject my blood pressure to dangerous levels by actually listening to these fools.

MD

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

MD

Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:09am.

I guess the difference I see between bias and whatever one wants to call what Maher engages in - or even what Matthews practices (I call it "way-beyond-bias") is the difference between two crooks - one who points a gun or knife at you and takes your money and one who embezzles it from you over time. Both are criminals, but the former is easier to catch (because of the unsophisticated and violent nature of his crime) than the more subtle, cunning embezzler who may get away with it for much longer.
Although I can't stand the sociopath haters like Maher and Co., I worry more about the sanctimonious, supposedly neutral, "journalists" who attempt to con the voters day after day. They create a virtual reality on television news (mostly) for those who believe them - creating an artificial world where liberals are the good guys, whose policies actually work and conservatives are the bad guys, intent on destroying the poor, women, minorities, and children. It's their bias that must be exposed to the people who don't yet see it. Once the liberal bias is recognized and either destroyed or marginalized, the sociopaths can wail away all they want from the fringes where they belong and should remain.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"
  • Login to post comments

A good analogy---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:48am.

in that it is easier to deal with, or at least recognize, a direct threat confrontation than a threat presented by a snake oil salesman.

MD

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

Phil---

Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:50am.

Like you, I am in a position to be beholden to no one, and feel free to tweak liberals whenever and however I choose.

I am most happy tending to my own affairs, but have absolutely no problem telling a lib how the cow ate the cabbage if they start in with their liberal bullsh*t.

Kind of like when a liberal ventures onto a conservative site like this one.

MD

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

What has the woman on the panel...

Submitted by USMC8411 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:49pm.

Said about the vile words that she should, as a woman, be offended by? Will the homosexual Savage be lauded in the California school system as a famous homosexual crusader?

Will the course teach the young, defenseless children exactly what his words mean?

Keep talking lefties. Keep talking.

  • Login to post comments

apparently she is ok with it because

Submitted by djwolf12 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 8:53pm.

she kept nodding her head with no denouncement. She is perfectly fine with one man saying that HE IS GOING TO RAPE another man thats running for congress.

"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets". - Robert DeNiro, Taxi Driver (1976).
  • Login to post comments

Well, hell, wishing violent

Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:48pm.

Well, hell, wishing violent sex/rape on conservative WOMEN like Bachmann and Palin doesn't seem to bother lib chicks, why should man-rape? Was it Sandra Bernhardt that hoped Palin got raped by her 'black' bretheren and a list at Playboy magazine of "Women we'd most like to have angry-hate sex with."? Leftists are vile, lying hypocrites. period. I've reached the point where I KNOW the left has no redeeming qualities.

  • Login to post comments

ant

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:59pm.

Bernhardt not only wished rape upon Gov Palin, but she threatened that she "would be 'gang-raped by my big black brothers' if she enters Manhattan,..."

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

Gotta love the faux "..why

Submitted by ant on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:52pm.

Gotta love the faux "..why can't the right be civil?" lecture we got from these libtards, huh?

  • Login to post comments

I say this without supporting

Submitted by balboa on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 9:26pm.

I say this without supporting what was said on the show. That, to me, was taking things too far. If I may offer possible explanation for Savage's rationale, I believe he would say that he believes Santorum has acted / spoken out against the gay community with just as much hate and malice as Savage's statements contained. NOT saying that's right. Not supporting it. I don't even know what specifically Santorum has or hasn't said, just know he doesn't support them.

  • Login to post comments

No.

Submitted by Saint Zero on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:18pm.

You don't respond to hate with hate. Never. I don't know what you're trying, but you can't excuse savage's comments.

  • Login to post comments

I'm not trying to excuse

Submitted by balboa on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:04pm.

I'm not trying to excuse them.

  • Login to post comments

Oh, I see - no foundation for

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:43pm.

Oh, I see - no foundation for your claim - no quotes, no data, nothing but a vapid tit for tat claim. Then, you conclude with "I don't even know" - on that we all agree. You don't know, in fact clearly haven't a clue, but you felt it important to offer baseless unsupported drivel to soft-pedal a hate-filled invective which cannot be defended

Call the Real Time producers - you're just the kind of guest they're looking for.

  • Login to post comments

Oh I will, I will call the

Submitted by balboa on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:04pm.

Oh I will, I will call the producers. Just you wait and see. I'll call 'em right now. I'm not kidding. Dialing now.

  • Login to post comments

Hi Balboa

Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:39pm.

I know you to be a level headed sincere person, so let me inject what I feel to be the truth in this matter. Rick Santorum has NEVER EVER even come close to saying anything vile or inappropriate on the issue of Homosexuality. He is a pro-life, conservative, family values men. He wouldn't, in his wildest dreams, ever even consider saying anything as vile as what these creeps said about him. He has his opinions and states them eloquently and passionately, but never offensively.

There is no comparison.

Have a good day!

  • Login to post comments

I appreciate the reply. I'd

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:49pm.

I appreciate the reply. I'd imagine that gay people see it differently, especially when Santorum believes gay sex leads to bestiality. I bet gay people thought that was pretty offensive.

  • Login to post comments

With all due respect, that is not what he said.

Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:09pm.

This is what he said:

"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."

That's hardly saying that gay sex leads to bestiality.

  • Login to post comments

He was actually lumping

Submitted by balboa on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:43pm.

He was actually lumping homosexuality in with bestiality and pedophilia.

  • Login to post comments

And the lumping is appropriate.

Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 4:37am.

You know, putting all those sexual deviancies in the category of  "sexual deviancies."

It's a novel approach, granted, but one needs to call a spade a gardening implement.

--Mike

  • Login to post comments

And it's that thinking that

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 9:08am.

And it's that thinking that gay people are just as offended by as Santorum is by what Savage said.

  • Login to post comments

Offended?

Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 11:05am.

Are alcoholics offended that alcoholism is frowned upon?

Are kleptomaniacs offended that shoplifting's not universally embraced?

I notice no one's concerned about offending pedophiles and zoophiles by having disdain for their behaviors, probably because they're not as well-organized--yet.

--Mike

  • Login to post comments

Again, gay people would

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 11:09am.

Again, gay people would probably be offended that you're equating them with alcoholics, pedophiles, zoophiles, and kleptomaniacs.

  • Login to post comments

Well, isn't that just a remarkable misdirection?

Submitted by Mike Bratton on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 11:37am.

I'm not equating them with anyone else.

I'm referencing a given group of problematic behaviors.

Were you attempting to suggest that homosexuals can only be viewed one-dimensionally, through the lens of their shared sexual predilection?  Surely not.

--Mike

  • Login to post comments

No, I'm telling you that gay

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 1:18pm.

No, I'm telling you that gay people would not care for the characterization of having "problematic behaviors."

  • Login to post comments

Good evening bal

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 1:33pm.

This thread indicates to me that you still will go to any length to defend all perverted lifestyles.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

Good evening bal

Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 1:33pm.

This thread indicates to me that you still will go to any length to defend all perverted lifestyles.

 

Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

  • Login to post comments

You're welcome.

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 2:43pm.

You're welcome.

  • Login to post comments

Bal,

Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 3:23pm.

Most people who have "problematic behaviors" would also not care to be characterized as such. Including hoarders, serial killers, kleptomaniacs, etc. It doesn't mean the behavior is not problematic.

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

WHEN YOU CATCH THIS MUCH FLAK....

Submitted by notinstl on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:19pm.

>...YOU MUST BE OVER THE TARGET.

  • Login to post comments

Rainbow thuggery

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:34pm.

Why, pray tell, is this guy relevant? One reason – he’s a gay militant. Without his rainbow cloak and bitter venomous blather he’d have trouble holding a job writing obituaries at a local rag. He’s managed to elevate himself into the national dialogue not “in spite” being an obnoxious gay thug, but because of it. When did sticking your dick into another man’s ass become a defining and important character trait? When did being a loudmouthed obnoxious rainbow thug (who wishes to rape another man, and wishes death to 100 million Americans) make the thug worthy of more than scorn and ridicule? Being gay isn’t enough – being an obnoxious prick is the target and, apparently at least on HBO, it’s the height of entertainment and cutting edge commentary. Being a loudmouthed militant gay jackass, is now the short path to celebrity.

  • Login to post comments

Excellent rant!

Submitted by theprofessor on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 10:55pm.

May I quote you?

  • Login to post comments

You have my leave...

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:10pm.

You have my leave...

  • Login to post comments

This is a vile, dispicable HATE CRIME!!!

Submitted by gailannr on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:26pm.

Enough is enough people! HBO should be sued to over the limits of their liability on this. They should be taken off the airwaves. Bill Maher should be sued for every filthy dollar he has and, I do mean FILTHY! The gay parasite probably doesn't have a pot to p in. He's just trying to hit on Bill, the ugly one so he can enhance his CA-REAR!

I say it again. THESE ARE HATE CRIMES PERPETRATED AGAINST PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES BEFORE IT IS BROADCAST INTERNATIONALLY. There should be laws against this horrible behavior!

  • Login to post comments

What's Santorum complaining about?

Submitted by Independent1 on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:58pm.

It's the most publicity he's had since entering the race.

  • Login to post comments

Do I hear snickering?

Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:37am.

Rick Santorum is 100% right, of course. And he's got my vote.
But is there any doubt that Savage and that other moron get their kicks out of tying conservatives up in knots over this?

I don't pretend to know what to do about it, but isn't it possible that in a case like this, we should just ignore them?

The things they said really tell us all more about themselves than about Mr. Santorum and conservatives.
What if President Obama talked like this? What if Joe Biden talked like this? What if Debra Wasserman-Schultz talked like this?

Wouldn't the continual airing of this kind of hateful and gleeful vile imaginings translate into conservative victories on Election Day?

They are children who are misbehaving stupidly. I think it's possible we should get over our shock and indignation and enjoy their shooting themselves in their own collective foot.

  • Login to post comments

This place is always great for a laugh

Submitted by chronic on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:29am.

Why this stuttering fool using his airtime to get some campaign donations is newsworthy is beyond me, great article Noel.

I mean of all the stories worldwide and this already has over 50 comments in such a short time. Most of them overcompensating for their own homophobia, some that are puzzling with talking about the santorum in such detail, and Chris and MD better never meet in person or there will be some serious mixture of santorum made.

  • Login to post comments

Hey Chronic, were you answering your own comment

Submitted by gailannr on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:53am.

or did you think we couldn't understand a troll the first time?

  • Login to post comments

This place is always great for a laugh

Submitted by chronic on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:30am.

Why this stuttering fool using his airtime to get some campaign donations is newsworthy is beyond me, great article Noel.

I mean of all the stories worldwide and this already has over 50 comments in such a short time. Most of them overcompensating for their own homophobia, some that are puzzling with talking about the santorum in such detail, and Chris and MD better never meet in person or there will be some serious mixture of santorum made.

  • Login to post comments

Mark Cuban

Submitted by WonderingAloud on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:09am.

Mark Cuban sits there and giggles, showing what a light-weight he is.

  • Login to post comments

Rick Santorum should suggest mental health counseling

Submitted by TheHistorian on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 5:36am.

Dan Savage has a fixation on homosexual and violent sex. The man should be treated for at least the latter. Unfortunately, the liberals tout this as normal behavior, so someone with his attitude does not get help to fit into normal society.

Maybe Michele Bachmann could help him?

“Liberals tend to put the onus of your success on society and conservatives on you and your family.”

Dennis Prager

  • Login to post comments

Question

Submitted by studiotodd on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:17am.

Does anyone here really believe that Dan Savage literally wants to have sex with Rick Santorum?

No, of course not.

Does Rick Santorum give it a second thought when he claims that granting gay rights leads to man-on-dog sex and pedophilia (among other things)?

No, of course not.

One of them meant what he said. The other one didn't. I'm not troubled by jokes, but I am by ignorance.

P.S. Savage writes a sex advice column. It's not a "gay" column.

  • Login to post comments

If you truly believe

Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:54am.

that having "same sex" marriage will be the end of the debate, you're either unwilling to look at history, or naive. Once marriage is not legally defined at one man and one woman, then all limits must be given equal footing.

If you can change the definition of "marriage" then you can do the same with "Consenting" and "adult." Multiple Adult, Adult-child and human-animal will then become the next objective as we toss any sense of a moral code out the window.

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

Yep,

Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 8:59am.

Give a libtard an inch, and they will take a mile and keep on pushing

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

Prove it.

Submitted by David in Houston on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:06pm.

Slippery slope arguments are just that... slippery, and have no basis in fact. I can say that same-sex marriage will brainwash children into the so-called "gay lifestyle". I can say that. But it doesn't make it true.

The definition of marriage has changed a number of times in U.S. history. 150 years ago, a woman was the property of the man she married. 50 years ago marriage was defined as one man and one woman of the same race. So why didn't interracial marriage bring polygamy and incestuous marriage? Since same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for the past 7 years, why aren't people demanding the right to marry their hamster? You seem to assume that the reasons for discriminating against polygamy, incest, bestiality and same-sex marriage are all the same. Obviously, they're not. The only difference between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage is the gender of the people involved. Both include two consenting, non-related adults. The others do not. The reasons for banning polygamy rest at the feet of heterosexuals. Since historically, polygamy involved one man and multiple women. Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with that. So linking the two is disingenuous.

  • Login to post comments

Bullcrap. Wives were never considered "property" in US history.

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:17pm.

Ever.

  • Login to post comments

Really?

Submitted by David in Houston on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 1:55pm.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_US_women_no_longer_the_property_of_t...

For all intents and purposes they WERE the property of their husbands. It may have not been spelled out in a specific law, but women clearly had very limited civil rights once they married a man.

  • Login to post comments

Hey Dummy, wiki.answers.com is your "proof"?

Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:26pm.

I wonder who answered that question? The Dell dude?

Epic failorama on your first post here, Davey... you better up your game because you WILL get called on BS like this.

Wives were never the property of their husbands in US history. 

  • Login to post comments

Bull

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:35pm.

Assuming you're referring the United States, your claim that women were considered marital property is false. Depending on the state, women in the 19th Century USA had limited to no real and personal property rights, but that had changed dramatically by mid-century (your 150 years ago demarkation). Women were then afforded property rights in the event of divorce or death of the husband - but were never considered chattel of the husband. Your claim is feckless.

  • Login to post comments

Apparently your sense of "humor"

Submitted by katiejane on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:03am.

is in the gutter with Savage's. Why would anyone other than another gay person seek sex advice from such vile guy?

  • Login to post comments

Land of Myopia

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 2:21pm.

Savage didn’t envision sex with Santorum he conjured a rape. Sex and rape are not synonyms. And, to address your rhetoric, in fact no one including Savage believes he wants to have sex with Santorum, but most people with the ability to read, rightly read his comments as a rape scenario.

Are you troubled by jokes that evoke a rape scene? Are you troubled by “jokes” that aren’t...funny? Are you troubled by “jokes” about murder and rape which evoke laughter from sycophants and approving head bobs from the indoctrinated?

Postscript : Savage is a militant gay. Yes, he writes a “sex” column, but his life isn’t just centered around his sex preference, his gayness consumes his very existence, His gayness isn't part of him -- it's all of him. Would you read a cooking column written by a cook who only grills hotdogs? He doesn’t write a relationship column, and has no training in psychology or psychotherapy, he’s a gay thug and that is the life experience he draws upon. His column is about, and concerns sex and the sex he knows, is his johnson in another guy’s crack. No straight guy would be caught dead reading his “advise”. And, in any event, only gays and women read “sex” columns or watch TV crap like Sex and the City. Your observation that Savage doesn’t write a “gay” column is only facially correct, because that is how he titles it but the subject is “gay” – I can call my dog a ham sandwich, it doesn’t make him one. Your view and opinion are both myopic and factually inaccurate.

  • Login to post comments

OK well, you're wrong about...just about everything

Submitted by studiotodd on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 5:00am.

When I consider what Rick Santorum has said about gay people and the fate to which they would be condemned if he called the shots, I can easily and with a clear conscience laugh off a joke made at his expense.

As far as your diatribe about Dan Savage's column is concerned, you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. You've made it quite apparent that it's not Dan Savage who is "consumed" by his gayness--it's you who is consumed by it. You can't seem to see anything beyond that--I mean, seriously, you used the word "gay" 7 times in a single paragraph (calling Dr. Freud)!

Most of the letters he receives are from STRAIGHT women and (hold on to your asshat) STRAIGHT men. But, of course, why let a silly thing like "the facts" get in the way of a perfectly good character assassination?

And no, he doesn't write a "relationship column"--I never said he did. He writes a sex advice column. You know...advice...as in, you can take it or leave it. He has never claimed to be a psychologist or a psychotherapist, nor has he ever claimed to have any degree or specialized training for what he does. He gives advice to people who write to him specifically asking for his advice.

How that qualifies him as a militant "gay thug" who is "consumed" by his gayness is unclear to me.

  • Login to post comments

Actually, studiotodd---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 6:24am.

JPTSO3 is correct, and it is you who went off on a diatribe.

You sound like a typical Gay male who is just dying to point out a straight male's inability to recognize the fact that he has 'unresolved"  internal Gay issues because he says something less than complimentary about a Gay person.

It is apparently your belief that a straight male using the word "Gay" several times when talking about a Gay man is himself a homosexual.   What word, or term, exactly, should be used to disavow you of that notion?  How about Rump Ranger?

Militant Gays go on and on and on about how they want to be perceived as "regular" people, but when a nasty piece of work like Dan Savage acts like a jerk he is somehow suddenly relegated to a higher status by you as though he were incapable of acting out like a regular person.

 When you make a statement like "Most of the letters he receives are from STRAIGHT women and (hold on to your asshat) STRAIGHT men.", I call bullshit.

Prove it, or you are a no more than a prevaricating poseur making excuses for a militant gay mouthpiece.

Militant gays like Savage are indeed consumed by their "gayness"; if they weren't, they would quietly get on with their lives instead of continually pushing their gayness in the country's face.

MD

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

...and you are...?

Submitted by studiotodd on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 5:45pm.

First of all, I'm not going to do your work for you. Dan's columns are easy to find: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?archives=all . All the evidence you need is right there. And, no, JPTSO3 is not correct. You simply stating that he is does not make it so.

Secondly, it's not the fact that a person says something "less than complimentary" about gay people that raises suspicion. It's when a person appears to be rabidly anti-gay and obsesses on the lives and activities of gay people.

And it's not just gay people who have noticed the remarkable incidence of people who are stridently anti-gay ultimately being found out to be closet cases (Larry Craig, George Rekers, Ed Schrock, Ken Mehlmen..need I go on?). It's become so common that it could almost be considered a truism at this point.

I'd say that a person who looks at an individual and all he sees is "gayness"--to the exclusion of all else--and feels the need to repeat the term 7 times in a single paragraph comes off looking more than a little..."narrowly focused," shall we say?

Also, please explain to me what constitutes a "militant gay" as opposed to an un-militant gay. It's always seemed like an odd moniker to me.

Finally, as far as "pushing [his] gayness" in your face is concerned, I highly doubt that Dan Savage has shown up at your doorstep and forced you to watch as he and Terry tear each other's clothes off and go at each other. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem likely. So how is he "pushing [his] gayness" in your face?

  • Login to post comments

Grow up...

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 8:13pm.

You counted the number of uses of “gay”? Are you that pedantic? What’s the limit? If gay is used more than 6 times in a paragraph, does your rainbow warrior gayradar( apologies to Hawaiians) go… binggggg! ( gaydar doesn’t count, ‘cuase it’s part of a made up word. Isn’t gay the politically correct non-pejorative term? Would you prefer homosexual? That’s scientific – are you opposed to science? I’ll mix and match the next time Savage expresses a desire to rape a man. How’s that for a compromise? Savage in fact invented a term bastardizing Santorum's name for which he uses as his ass spooy's pet name. Now that's creative, and very classy... and clearly sexually neutral, right champ? Yeah dude, that Savage - no one would ever guess he’s “not straight”( I don’t want to use up my g_ _ limit before my close).

Pulling out the time honored, cardboard cutout “when did you stop beating your wife” projection, now that’s original. Am I expected to respond to your gauntlet with evidence of my… non-gayness? Right? You have the freedom to pin a scarlet G on anyone you choose, junior. Oh, I've got a suggestion, how about you write Savage for advise? He'll no doubt come up with something completely benign, completely unrelated to his ah... gaaaaa gaaaaa... his sexual proclivities. And all those straight guys who read a sex column written by a gay guy will squeal with delight. BTW - If you want to engage in some more amateur freudian analysis, if you think the guys following Savage's sex column are straight, you're gay - not that there's anything wrong with that...

Perhaps you missed the memo, champ but Savage voiced a death wish on 100 million people with whom he doesn’t share a political affiliation – and apologized. He also expressed a desire to rape another man, and remained silent. Class act, that Savage. His chemistry, his very being is based around and on his sexual orientation. He has but one focus, that being ( to quote Cher, in her pejorative )… gaygaygaygaygaygay. Did I hit my limit, champ?

Grow up and find another insult angle – ogay?

  • Login to post comments

Hay no worries Hawaii ditched "Rainbow Warriors" lickey split.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 8:43pm.

On the same team

Other than some minor fine print issues, partners in Evil.

Oh crap side tracked..

Rainbow Warriors update.

You Didn't Build That.

  • Login to post comments

The way it is done, studiotodd---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 8:33pm.

is that if you make the statement, you provide the proof.  Even with the link provided, how, exactly, would someone prove a letter writer was Gay or straight?  You base your belief on their say so?  Savage could have written the letters himself, pretending to be straight in order to bolster his "bona fides".

I referred to pushing their Gayness in 'the country's' face', and though I am a member of the country,  that you would purposely change the wording as a way of ignoring the blatancy of the "Gay Pride" agenda is proof that you are either Gay, NTTAWWT, or an enabling apologist.

If  JPTSO3 is, as you say, not correct just because I say he is, then what makes your argument and/or statements correct?

The fact that you say so?

Are you the arbiter of what makes someone "appear to be rabidly anti-gay"?

I notice that only Gays and apologists for Gays are obsessed with thinking about and commenting on what their impression of straight people's impressions of Gays are.

That is where the 'pushing it' comes into play.

The fact you deny it takes place is a measure of either dishonesty,  disingenuousness, or your own homosexuality.

Whichever the case, the fact that you speak in strident defense of a piece of shit like Savage pretty much affirms what I have stated about a pushy agenda. 

QED

MD

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

You're dooooomed

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 9:10pm.

Oh... you used gay 8 times. You're doomed.

I’ll have to watch myself in the future. When I write about liberals and Muslims, I’ll have to keep my references to a half dozen or less, lest I be branded by amateur psychoanalysts: a gay-liberal-Muslim. By Christmas you can all call me the hyphenman. So much to keep track of… but thanks for the heads-up to little Siggie.

  • Login to post comments

JPT---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 10:46pm.

I'm safe, cuz I capitalized "Gay".    :o)

I refuse to use a lower case 'g' when referencing  homosexuals because the militant ones are without a doubt the most unhappy, upset, querulous, and absolutely nasty individuals on the planet; "gay" they are not.

All I can say in the militants favor is, that if, if, mind you, they were to lighten up a tad, they would be immediately dropped from first place on the most sour-assed disposition list, into second place, because the Muslim jihadists  would leap into the lead spot.

MD

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

Nice job of missing the point

Submitted by studiotodd on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 4:25pm.

It seems that you're not just unable to recognize when humor and/or sarcasm are used by Dan Savage...you can't understand it when ANYONE uses it. I'll try to keep that in mind about you.

You should understand, however, that you weaken your case by ignoring the substance of my comments and instead freaking out over an insignificant bit of ribbing.

Exactly the same way the right did over Dan Savage's joke--an insignificant throw-away bon mot that no one took seriously. The faux-outrage and overly-dramatic declarations of offense taken over a comment that everyone understood to be a joke means conservatives will be taken less seriously the next time they freak out over something. Which should be--I'm sure--any minute now.

I have to laugh, however, at this comment:

"Even with the link provided, how, exactly, would someone prove a letter writer was Gay or straight? You base your belief on their say so? Savage could have written the letters himself, pretending to be straight in order to bolster his "bona fides"."

That is hilarious. Really. Subtle, earnest, nuanced and yet just paranoid enough to make you sound completely batshit crazy. That shows some serious comedic talent.

I'm just sorry I didn't think of something like that first--I could have accused you of being an undercover lib, presenting ridiculous and hackneyed arguments in order to make the right seem even more bigoted and out-of-touch than they already do.

But, I bow to your superior comedic timing. Well done.

  • Login to post comments

Yeah, laugh it off, studiotodd---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 6:11pm.

and lay your defense of a nasty piece of work off on me being "batshit crazy" and conservatives failing to "understand" a joke.

Whatever works for you in order to avoid admitting the truth - Savage said it, and you aren't even honest enough to anything other than to try and play it off as a "joke". 

In your dreams.

Or more likely, hallucinations.

MD

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

If it's not a joke then what is it?

Submitted by studiotodd on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 6:10pm.

Wait a second--are you trying to say that you really believe that Dan Savage wants to have sex with Rick Santorum?

  • Login to post comments

What happened there, studiotodd,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:39pm.

did you fall off your avenging steed?

What happened to all your definitive, righteous statements about Savage?

Savage said it, and now you imply you have insider knowledge indicating that he meant something other than what he said?

What, is that a Gay thing?

MD

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

It's like when someone says

Submitted by balboa on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 7:52pm.

It's like when someone says "I'd like to punch that guy in the face." doesn't mean they'd actually do it, just expressing anger in a derogatory fashion.

  • Login to post comments

Well, then, bal---

Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/27/2011 - 11:34pm.

all is forgiven, since he only said something nasty; he would never actually do something nasty.

MD

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

All doesn't have to be

Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 3:09pm.

All doesn't have to be forgiven. It was still a mean, snide thing to say. I just don't think he ACTUALLY wants to carry out the act.

  • Login to post comments

You're getting confused

Submitted by ant on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:36pm.

You're getting confused because of the liberal thing. You see when libtard 'intellectual' leftists call for violence they mean for their 'soldiers' or 'others', they, themselves, intend to avoid it all together, that is, if it weren't anything but empty promises. Libtardism is full of hopes and wishes, like, "..if I wasn't such a libtard puss that can only pick on the weaker, I'd like to punch that guy in the face... So instead, I will use threats or, even better, legislation, in an attempt to be... victorious." Yea! Liberals! (choke..cough!)

  • Login to post comments

How are things at the SAE

Submitted by balboa on Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:02pm.

How are things at the SAE house?

  • Login to post comments

bye-bye

Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:24am.

you're toast.

  • Login to post comments

Good response, mandrake---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:53am.

but as of right now, the hate-filled Savage lover studiotodd still has access.

Too bad.

Dude is upside down with his nastiness.

MD

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

Way off, there, studiotodd,---

Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 1:58am.

but then most male homosexuals or advocates for same seem to be obsessed with demonstrating their "manliness"; even if the best they can come up with is labeling straight men as "pussies".

You funny guy.

Pitiful, but funny.

MD

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

OBSESSION

Submitted by JPTSO3 on Tue, 08/02/2011 - 1:59am.

You felt it necessary to use... the *uck word, in each paragraph, save for one. I think you need a boy-talk session on Savage's couch of psycho-sex-analysis and work out your anger and obsessive preoccupation with using that word. Good 'ol Danny - that guy is such a jokester... he'll have you rolling with gags about raping men and death wishes to millions. I'm splitin' a seam just thinking about it. That Danny-boy ... Oh, the fun you two will have.

  • Login to post comments

Have fun

Submitted by studiotodd on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 3:41pm.

Obviously, you people are far too invested in hanging onto the belief that Dan Savage actually wants to have sex with Rick Santorum. The fact that it wasn't meant literally doesn't really matter.

That you obstinately and obsessively refuse to let go of the fantasy you've created and accept the comment for what it was is simply further evidence of how sexually twisted you are.

I can assure you no one on the left ever thought he was serious. The thought of Santorum doing anything sexual is just far too repulsive for me to even contemplate, so my mind never went there. But, hey, if that's the sort of fantasy it takes to get you off in your "alone-time," who am I to judge?

  • Login to post comments

Heterosexual sex---

Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 12:01am.

is repulsive to you, eh?

Some of you  "gays" are the most unhappy people I have ever ran across.

Live your life; I won't "judge" you.

Neither, though, will I allow you to tell me how I should feel about anything related to sexual matters.

MD

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

Ah. Wasn't meant literally, so it's perfectly fine.

Submitted by Mike Bratton on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 11:49am.

I didn't realize that rape jokes had become so hilarious.

Wonder which network will be first to "go there," using that for a show premise.

Will we see "Whose Rape Is It Anyway"?

"Modern Rapist"?

"Two And A Half Rapes"?

The dysfunction, Todd, lies in the hearts and minds of those who attempt to excuse violent, hate-saturated speech--for whatever reason.

--Mike

  • Login to post comments

So, this doesn't mean what it

Submitted by ant on Sun, 08/07/2011 - 11:16am.

So, this doesn't mean what it is, but 'registration marks' on a map of the US means, "Kill Gabby Giffords.". Libtarded logic...check.

  • Login to post comments

Hey, maybe you can help Obama with unemployment

Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 07/20/2011 - 9:14pm.

First of all, I'm not going to do your work for you.

Lots of folks looking for work.

So dont presume to hand it out here. This aint no employment agency

Seek Truth, Defend Liberty
  • Login to post comments

1)

Submitted by ant on Thu, 07/21/2011 - 1:27am.

1) gay
2)gay
3)gay
4)gay
5)gay
6)gay
7)gay
8)gay
9)gay
I've used it over 8 times!! Now I'm a victim!! (but an empowered victim, remember) Can I get some money now?...hello?

  • Login to post comments

make the left denounce them

Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 9:00am.

when they go on any show from fox to msnbc, make them denounce the left's vileness.

because if they are not denouncing it, they are endorsing it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time to update someone's saying: Apparently my talent is no longer on loan from God, it is given to me by the government...the rel
  • Login to post comments

Santorum's Reply to Bill Maher's Program

Submitted by mykelb on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 11:26am.

Mr. Santorum.

Whiney tittie babies don't get anywhere in politics. Man up or get out.

  • Login to post comments

So you approve of the

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:48pm.

So you approve of the malicious gutter politics of Dan Savage?

  • Login to post comments

Rush Limbaugh has a term,

Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 12:47pm.

Rush Limbaugh has a term, "walking human debris" which applies quite well to Savage.

  • Login to post comments

Organizers of "Gay" Pride Parade...

Submitted by m4ster chief on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 3:43pm.

...condemning them??? HAHAHAHAHA! In your dreams, maybe.

Aren't there enough Conservative millionaires out there like Ross Perot who could found and finance an organization made up of retired Navy SEALS, etc., who could practice their trade craft on filth like Savage? Star Chamber was a good movie.

In case the feds are watching...I'M JUST KIDDING!

  • Login to post comments

Santorum should have replied

Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 6:00pm.

Instead of everything he said Santorum should have just invited Savage to "say it to my face, Miss Priss."

  • 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

  • Deputy kills PBS NewsHour staffer (Washington Examiner)
  • Oklahoma disaster was tragic, but larger ones have occurred (USA Today)
  • Mainstream Media Scream: Today’s Savannah Guthrie questions GOP ‘overreach’ (Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner)
  • Desperate Carney complains asking about scandals like asking about birth certificate (RCP)
  • Look at NYT's partisan-hack rewrite of the IRS hearing (Draw and STRIKE!)
  • Study: Christians who tithe have better finances than those who don't (TGC)
  • The media are willing accomplices to Obama (PolitiChicks)
  • FBI has suspects in mind in Benghazi; Obama prefers to try them in court (AP)
Ann Coulter's picture
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter Column: When Did We Vote to Become Mexico?
Chuck Norris's picture
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris Column: Why Tim Tebow Is an Ultimate Clutch Player
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
More >

RSS FeedAmazon KindleFacebookTwitter

Stop Censoring The News!

Gosnell's Just the Tip of the Iceberg
more cartoons
  • Dennis Miller: 'Nixonian' Obama Will Need Teleprompter to Say 'I Am Not a Crook'
  • Leno: Obama Knows Nothing Because They Moved ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to the White House
  • IRS Charged With Unfair Scrutiny of Pro-Life Groups' Prayer Events, Protest Signs
  • Ex-AccuWeather's Bastardi Slams 'Ambulance Chasing' by Global Warming Theory Activists
  • Goldberg: Scandal Reporting Needs to Focus on Hard News, Not Political Spin
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