I see Maddow didn’t cover the story of her friend Dupnik murdering an Iraq vet. Guess the libs are going to protect their friend who took 2.5 seconds to use the Giffords shooting for political gain. But now seals records and won’t speak to reporters. Couldn’t shut the guy up before… now he hides like the coward he always was. And Maddow and MSNBC are going to help him CYA by ignoring the story. Gotta love the liberal media.

But thank Gawd she covered the Santorum thing. That’s clearly more important.

LMAO! This is great – as usual. Rachel does her research. Sanitorum will never be able to live down the “man on dog” comment. At least not outside of the hillbilly community. Good luck Sanitorium!

Who is Raachel Maddow? LoL

Wow!, Maddow sure goes a long way to berate somebody.
Why was this so important to her? Why would she think it would be important to her viewers? Her mega-brain (supposedly) must be too far above our plane of existence to relate to the average audience.
She spent an inordinate amount of time to say nothing of real value. I can’t describe that as being very smart.

tatboy said:
I see Maddow didn’t cover the story of her friend Dupnik murdering an Iraq vet. Guess the libs are going to protect their friend who took 2.5 seconds to use the Giffords shooting for political gain. But now seals records and won’t speak to reporters. Couldn’t shut the guy up before… now he hides like the coward he always was. And Maddow and MSNBC are going to help him CYA by ignoring the story. Gotta love the liberal media.

But thank Gawd she covered the Santorum thing. That’s clearly more important.

So every program must cover a particular story or they’re biased? Nice logic.

Rachel got her TV Eye on Rick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8dI08779uY&feature=related

Publius219 said:
So every program must cover a particular story or they’re biased? Nice logic.

Maddow thought Dupnik was worth covering at one time. Wonder why she doesn’t want to cover him now? Clearly this Tory is more impotent to you and her. I disagree with you but you’re intitled to your opinion.

Santorum needs quit already. talk about wasting your time.

tatboy said:
But thank Gawd she covered the Santorum thing. That’s clearly more important.

This is the kind of hard hitting journalism we’ve come to expect from MSLSD…when they’re not talking about Fox News.

It’s not news, it’s MSNBC.

It doesn’t get any gayer than this……

Nice. light story for the holiday weekend.
Pick up a sense of humor with your hot dogs tomorrow, dittoheads.
Santorum can always run as “Slick Rick.” It’s a natural.

Obviously Santorum gets under her Lesbian skin! Why else is she helping him with his supposed “Google problem?” Now even Mediate is spreading the news. Free publicity for Santorum. Good for him!

Randy Madcow, why don’t you start bashing your President Obummer. Man that guy is a gaf a minute type guy. He makes President G.W. Bush look like an MIT PhD in Particle Physics and Cosmology.

BTW, how’s your fat buddy, Edith Schultz, doing these days? ROTFLMAO Have a good one, dearie…

Oh, before I forget, why don’t you check your other friend, Lawrence O’DunnoKnowNutinell into a good 12 Step Anger Management class. His 7 viewers would sure appreciate it. Bwahahahahahahahahaha

And the homophobic remarks ensue.

Am i wrong to feel like taking a shower after listening to Maddow? If she drones on and repeats the google issue she mockingly feigns helping Rick with on national TV, can you imagine how vile she must be in private?
MSNBC
Lean forward,
Change the channel,
before you VOMIT.

Hi Kids!
Here’s a fun game everyone can play!
Look at the top picture accompanying this article and see if you can figure out which one of the two dudes is Santorum!

Madcow gives new meaning to the old saying “you become what you hate”.
She has actually, physically become Santorum, and now you can’t tell the two of them apart.

WildMan said:

May 28, 2011 at 1:02 am WildMan(Quote

You highlight the dangers of inbreeding…..

Pablo said:
This is the kind of hard hitting journalism we’ve come to expect from MSLSD…when they’re not talking about Fox News.

I guess they should start manufacturing controversies like the Fake Noise Channel?

“Obama is coming to kill you!”

“Obama hates white people!”

“ACORN is a prostitution ring!”

“Van Jones in a communist, 911 truther!” (He denies both by the way)

“Anita Dunn wants a communist dictatorship!”

“Obama invites cop killing rapper to the White House!”

“George Soros is trying to collapse the US economy in order to create a socialist dictatorship!”

When your hero is a jackass president named Obamo, it’s easy to understand why dim Lib media hacks are focusing on anything and anyone BUT him. Happily, despite their attempt to ‘help’ the big-eared cigarette smoker, the election will STILL end up being a referendum on Obamo.

So, Dan Savage strated a site, as a response to something Santorum said, and Goodle highlights it because Google cheats like that and its Rick’s problem. You lefties makes me laugh. The citizenry is a lot smarter than the so-called journalists and columnists who make things appear to be different than they really are.

As for Rachel, she has no clout except among other Rachel’s and lefties who would never consider voting for Santorum in the first place.

So, no Rich doesn’t have a google problem, Rchel has a serious anti-conservative problem, and her strict idiolocigical bent on MSNBC will backfire on her and on COMCAST.

James Randal said:
“Obama invites cop killing rapper to the White House!”

Wrong . Obama’s friend Rap Thug Common is just a big FAN of cop killers .

He fits right in at the White House .

James Randal said:
“Van Jones in a communist, 911 truther!” (He denies both by the way)

Of course he does . Jones also supports vicious cop killer Mumia . As do many of Obama’s associates , including Henry Louis ( Skip) Gates .

“Of all that has come to light in just a few days about Van Jones, I believe the most damaging to President Obama would have been Jones’ association with and support of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Mumia has spent years on death row, convicted of the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

Jones is not only a Mumia supporter but produced and appeared on a music CD with Mumia. ”

http://keohane.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamas-real-van-jones-problem.html

James Randal said:
I guess they should start manufacturing controversies like the Fake Noise Channel?

“Obama is coming to kill you!”

“Obama hates white people!”

“ACORN is a prostitution ring!”

“Van Jones in a communist, 911 truther!” (He denies both by the way)

“Anita Dunn wants a communist dictatorship!”

“Obama invites cop killing rapper to the White House!”

“George Soros is trying to collapse the US economy in order to create a socialist dictatorship!”

You do realize that at least a few of the points that you noted are FACT!

When Maddow decides to be funny, she’s quite funny indeed. Not funny like “falling out of a chair because of Jon Stewart’s classic triple spit take,” but smile-and-chuckle funny.

Santorum is such a tinpot dork, he deserves all the slagging he gets.

I just don’t want him to be pushed out of the race too soon, because he really pulls his weight in the “‘Lican candidates are all dickwads” front. The sooner he gets out, the sooner the ‘Lican candidates will begin to look reasonable.

To the degree that’s possible.

BR said:
You do realize that at least a few of the points that you noted are FACT!

Except that none of them are. Don’t be a rube.

James Randal said:
I guess they should start manufacturing controversies like the Fake Noise Channel?

“Obama is coming to kill you!”

“Obama hates white people!”

“ACORN is a prostitution ring!”

“Van Jones in a communist, 911 truther!” (He denies both by the way)

“Anita Dunn wants a communist dictatorship!”

“Obama invites cop killing rapper to the White House!”

“George Soros is trying to collapse the US economy in order to create a socialist dictatorship!”

Are you available to write a bunch of lies, James? You’re pretty good at it. Practice makes perfect, I guess.

And this woman is a Rhodes Scholar talking about dog pee. She must be running out of “Fox News is bad” material.

My top three results were from Wikipedia, and then news links, and then frothy. they either fixed it, or maddow was not quite accurate?

Shouldn’t Maddow be required to to disclose that Google supports the Dem party? I seldom use Google search anymore, with all the allegations against Google, that searches, purposely, almost always place Dems in a more positive light, while placing Repubs in the most negative of light.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm

Most of America doesn’t hear or see Rachel so the true effect of her paricular bias is marginal, her followers are primarily a handfull of young white chardonnay sipping liberals and of course the golden shower/assless chaps crowd. While the google thing is wholly unfair and obviously covert and liberal biased, it too doesn’t really reach many real voters. How many “voters” actually sit down and research potential presidential candidates by typing their name into googles search engine? My guess is very few…

Welcome to— http://www.wholesalecheapclothes.com ——
The best sports shoes store, professional wholesale NFL NBA NHL MLB jerseys, free shipping, accept PAYPAL receipts
Finally (48 hours) time limit to buy.

Dave Richards said:
And this woman is a Rhodes Scholar talking about dog pee. She must be running out of “Fox News is bad” material.

Actually , she is a “Roads Scholar”- her face is like 5 miles of bad road.

to understand Maddow look to her quote about her home town… “a nasty conservative place…”
She is offended by any Republican (not a Democrat like Obama) that believes in traditional marriage as defined…
Santorum’s traditional values are evil to her…
as her carreer winds down she be outing politicians to people who just don’t care about sexual orientation… this is not 1952…

James Randal said:
I guess they should start manufacturing controversies like the Fake Noise Channel?

“Van Jones in a communist, 911 truther!” (He denies both by the way)

Really?

Let’s hear what van has to say about that:

“Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the-new-face-of-environmentalism/Content?oid=1079539&showFullText=true

Oh, and Jones was a Yale educated lawyer, so his excuse that he didn’t know what he was signing when he signed the 911 Truthers letter suggesting that the Bush admin was behind 911 doesn’t wash, son.

Ever see Maddow’s “significant other”? ewwwww…

I just Googled Rachel Maddow and I got “Nerdy guy who hosts a program on a cable channel devoted to trying to convince people that everything is wrong with America”. Well, at least Google delivers accurate results occasionally.

newzmaker said:
Shouldn’t Maddow be required to to disclose that Google supports the Dem party? I seldom use Google search anymore, with all the allegations against Google, that searches, purposely, almost always place Dems in a more positive light, while placing Repubs in the most negative of light.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm

“Allegations” of purposefully slanting their search results? The search engine runs on a mathematical algorithm. Are you saying that math has a well known liberal bias?

http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-pagerank

As for the link, I thought private citizens were free to donate to the political party of their choosing. Has that changed, too?

Oh, and I do hope the legions of Sarah Palin’s pearl clutching followers around here will be coming to the defense of Rachel Maddow. I mean, a personal attack is a personal attack, right?

im_lovin_it said:
As for the link, I thought private citizens were free to donate to the political party of their choosing. Has that changed, too?

ask Caffeinated Colbert… he went to great lengths unintentionally proving the opposite…

skoorbekim said:
to understand Maddow look to her quote about her home town… “a nasty conservative place…”
She is offended by any Republican (not a Democrat like Obama) that believes in traditional marriage as defined…
Santorum’s traditional values are evil to her…
as her carreer winds down she be outing politicians to people who just don’t care about sexual orientation… this is not 1952…

To understand Maddow you need to understand her quote, “I grew up in a very conservative, nasty little town.” Have you ever lived in such a place? I have. You know what would have been tough? Being a lesbian in such a place in the 80′s. She doesn’t care about Santorum’s values. She cares about Santorum’s completely unnecessary comments on people like herself. For lots of people it’s very much still 1952.

skoorbekim said:
ask Caffeinated Colbert… he went to great lengths unintentionally proving the opposite…

You’ll have to enlighten me on this one. What did the terrible Stephen Colbert do this time?

im_lovin_it said:
Have you ever lived in such a place? I have.

it was nasty because it was “conservative”?
conservatism means a lot of different things to different people…
as the Greek wiseman said when brought to My. Olympus: “Most men are bad.”

im_lovin_it said:
You’ll have to enlighten me on this one. What did the terrible Stephen Colbert do this time?

the Colbert Super PAC…
I used to be a big fan of Colbert… the schtick just gets stale after constant, energized repetition…

im_lovin_it said:
She cares about Santorum’s completely unnecessary comments on people like herself.

Santorum is merely defending traditional family values…

skoorbekim said:
it was nasty because it was “conservative”?
conservatism means a lot of different things to different people…
as the Greek wiseman said when brought to My. Olympus: “Most men are bad.”

Well, I don’t think tax cuts or PNAC had much to do with the definition of the word “conservative” this time. You know what conservative Muslims are like? Well, translate that to the United States. Still sucks to be gay.

skoorbekim said:
the Colbert Super PAC…
I used to be a big fan of Colbert… the schtick just gets stale after constant, energized repetition…

You were probably a fan the same way the people who arranged Bush’s 2006 Press Corespondents’ Dinner were fans. I really don’t see how a person defending Rick Santorum could have ever like Stephen Colbert. For instance…

skoorbekim said:
Santorum is merely defending traditional family values…

May I present exhibit A? He can stand up for traditional family values without making comments about man on dog. Maybe he should try to raise awareness about the divorce rate in this country rather than the possibility that people might be engaging in gay sex.

im_lovin_it said:
May I present exhibit A? He can stand up for traditional family values without making comments about man on dog. Maybe he should try to raise awareness about the divorce rate in this country rather than the possibility that people might be engaging in gay sex.

That’s like the judge in the CA gay marriage ruling saying that traditional marriage is by definition bigotry…

im_lovin_it said:
You know what conservative Muslims are like?

what are conservative gays like? Their existence probaly confuses you if you listen to the Left slander conservatives…

you might want to rethink your definition of Conservatism…

skoorbekim said:
skoorbekim says:
May 28, 2011 at 11:59 am skoorbekim(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Remember, Im_lovin_it is a racist.

Here she is talking about Barry:

im_lovin_it says:

“Because after Obama was done chugging his 40’s he rolled over to Brixton to buy some rocks. He didn’t have any cash so he won his crack by shooting some dice. He spent the rest of the night sagging his pants and picking up fat white London girls. The next morning he woke up with a can of grape soda to begin anew.”

This is a contrivied controversy if there ever was one. Literally, this whole thing is made up, and its neither funny nor important enough to get the coverage it has from Rachel Maddow.

Dan Savage uses a guy’s name maliciously to describe something beyond the pale, and Maddow not only endorses it, she perpetuates the vugarity so that as many people know about it as possible, under the guise of Santorum having a problem where people are stumbling accross this innocently.

In fact, people are googling not santorum, but “santorum google problem” and “santorum dan savage”. (Just google Santorum without clicking it and you can see it in the further suggestions.) This proves that any “problem” that Santorum has is actually with the hatred that Rachel Maddow has with his stance against gay marriage, and the lengths with which she would go to destroy someone with whom she disagrees politically.

Santorum doesnt so much have a google problem as he has a Rachel Maddow is a disgusting vile person problem. She is as complicit as Savage in what really is the low point for political speech in the history of this country. After all, most people know about it because of her, and that is exactly what she set out to accomplish.

sarainitaly said:
My top three results were from Wikipedia, and then news links, and then frothy. they either fixed it, or maddow was not quite accurate?

Alice, how are things in Wonderland?
Just Googled “santorum”.
1st entry; Wikipedia (neologism) for “that frothy mixture…”
2nd. Rick Santorum, Wikipedia
3rd. santorum: “a frothy mixture..”
So, now we know who is “not quite accurate,” to put it nicely.

BarneyFranken said:
This is a contrivied controversy if there ever was one. Literally, this whole thing is made up, and its neither funny nor important enough to get the coverage it has from Rachel Maddow.

Heaven protect us from contrived controversy!
Obama’ birth certificate?
Anti-Imperialist Kenyan upbringing?
Swift boats?
When you condemn those contrived controversies,
Your indignity will have some foundation.

Glackin said:
Heaven protect us from contrived controversy!Obama’ birth certificate?Anti-Imperialist Kenyan upbringing?Swift boats?When you condemn those contrived controversies,Your indignity will have some foundation.

I see you wholeheartedly endorse this type of repugnant behavior by defending it. Shame on you Glackin.

What if your family name was Santorum? What about all the blameless victims of this prank that Maddow is perpetuating?

It isnt the fact that its contrived though that makes this so awful, its the actual words itself: But at least you admit that it is contrived- How can you defend this?

Your “what about them?” defense of this situation is spineless and weak- It actually proves your bias, not mine.

You clearly are outraged by “contrived controversy” when it comes from your political opponents. But you say nothing against Santorum being “swiftboated” now, you hypocrite.

To comment on any other examples is beside the point. All you are doing is trying to deflect from what you know to be the awful truth: That this “spreading santorum” thing is disgusting and indefensible.

Could you imagine a lawyer trying the “they do it too” defense in court like you are trying to do? You’d lose, just like you lost here.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

I dare you to click on that link and tell me it isnt the worst thing you’ve ever read, and the worst thing ever written to try to smear someone’s name. Just the fact the the url says “spreading” tells you all you need to know about what they are trying to accomplish.

Maddow, as well as Jon Stewart are both complicit in the goal that Savage has in “spreading” this. Make no mistake: this is an organized attempt to damage a political enemy in the sickest way possible.

I think what Maddow is doing is even worse than Savage. Savage might have created it, but hes not hiding his disdain either. Maddow on the other hand is tacitly endorsing it under the guise of “reporting” Santorum’s “google problem” all the while pretending to be impartial. She never comdemns the act itself, only framing it under it being embarassing for Santorum- and the exposure Maddow gives this is probably 10x what Savage can accomplish on his own.

This is utter, reprehensible garbage and it needs to be called out. It certainly is a new low for political discourse- there isnt even a close second. Thank you Ms. Maddow for setting the bar so low.

Glackin said:
sarainitaly said:
My top three results were from Wikipedia, and then news links, and then frothy. they either fixed it, or maddow was not quite accurate?
Alice, how are things in Wonderland?
Just Googled “santorum”.
1st entry; Wikipedia (neologism) for “that frothy mixture…”
2nd. Rick Santorum, Wikipedia
3rd. santorum: “a frothy mixture..”
So, now we know who is “not quite accurate,” to put it nicely.

I shouldn’t pay too much attention to the Bologna Bubble Brain. These things change quickly. My Google produced the frothy definition, Wikipedia, then frothy Wikipedia. The pictures were interesting.

newzmaker said:
Shouldn’t Maddow be required to to disclose that Google supports the Dem party? I seldom use Google search anymore, with all the allegations against Google, that searches, purposely, almost always place Dems in a more positive light, while placing Repubs in the most negative of light.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm

Only if you’re required to disclose that the voices in your head don’t really come from Alpha Centauri.

BarneyFranken said:
I see you wholeheartedly endorse this type of repugnant behavior by defending it. Shame on you Glackin.

What if your family name was Santorum? What about all the blameless victims of this prank that Maddow is perpetuating?

It isnt the fact that its contrived though that makes this so awful, its the actual words itself: But at least you admit that it is contrived- How can you defend this?

Your “what about them?” defense of this situation is spineless and weak- It actually proves your bias, not mine.

You clearly are outraged by “contrived controversy” when it comes from your political opponents. But you say nothing against Santorum being “swiftboated” now, you hypocrite.

To comment on any other examples is beside the point. All you are doing is trying to deflect from what you know to be the awful truth: That this “spreading santorum” thing is disgusting and indefensible.

Could you imagine a lawyer trying the “they do it too” defense in court like you are trying to do? You’d lose, just like you lost here.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

I dare you to click on that link and tell me it isnt the worst thing you’ve ever read, and the worst thing ever written to try to smear someone’s name. Just the fact the the url says “spreading” tells you all you need to know about what they are trying to accomplish.

Maddow, as well as Jon Stewart are both complicit in the goal that Savage has in “spreading” this. Make no mistake: this is an organized attempt to damage a political enemy in the sickest way possible.

I think what Maddow is doing is even worse than Savage. Savage might have created it, but hes not hiding his disdain either. Maddow on the other hand is tacitly endorsing it under the guise of “reporting” Santorum’s “google problem” all the while pretending to be impartial. She never comdemns the act itself, only framing it under it being embarassing for Santorum- and the exposure Maddow gives this is probably 10x what Savage can accomplish on his own.

This is utter, reprehensible garbage and it needs to be called out. It certainly is a new low for political discourse- there isnt even a close second. Thank you Ms. Maddow for setting the bar so low.

The shame is upon you until you denounce the swift boaters and the birthers.
They, too, were utter garbage.
You claim the high road, but only toward your icons.
I think Santorum is a hateful, vile excuse for a human being who has demeaned and belittled his fellow man.
I think his scorn is well earned.

skoorbekim said:
to understand Maddow look to her quote about her home town… “a nasty conservative place…”
She is offended by any Republican (not a Democrat like Obama) that believes in traditional marriage as defined…
Santorum’s traditional values are evil to her…
as her carreer winds down she be outing politicians to people who just don’t care about sexual orientation… this is not 1952…

Santorum’s weird “traditional values” define Maddow as a non-person. I can’t imagine why she’d object to that.

BarneyFranken said:
This is a contrivied controversy if there ever was one. Literally, this whole thing is made up, and its neither funny nor important enough to get the coverage it has from Rachel Maddow.

Dan Savage uses a guy’s name maliciously to describe something beyond the pale, and Maddow not only endorses it, she perpetuates the vugarity so that as many people know about it as possible, under the guise of Santorum having a problem where people are stumbling accross this innocently.

In fact, people are googling not santorum, but “santorum google problem” and “santorum dan savage”. (Just google Santorum without clicking it and you can see it in the further suggestions.) This proves that any “problem” that Santorum has is actually with the hatred that Rachel Maddow has with his stance against gay marriage, and the lengths with which she would go to destroy someone with whom she disagrees politically.

Santorum doesnt so much have a google problem as he has a Rachel Maddow is a disgusting vile person problem. She is as complicit as Savage in what really is the low point for political speech in the history of this country. After all, most people know about it because of her, and that is exactly what she set out to accomplish.

Do you really think the link between Santorum and “santorum” is manufactured by Rachel Maddow? Her godlike power to manipulate mathematical algorithms with just her mind is truly astonishing.

Santorum’s problem is that he regularly makes repulsive statements about his fellow human beings — based on his narrow and idiosyncratic view of right and wrong — and those human beings accordingly despise him. And make fun of him. And highlight to the rest of the world what a tinpot dork he is. And hence promote “santorum” on the Web.

Just as Maddow has done.

mediadoubt said:
Do you really think the link between Santorum and “santorum” is manufactured by Rachel Maddow? Her godlike power to manipulate mathematical algorithms with just her mind is truly astonishing.

Santorum’s problem is that he regularly makes repulsive statements about his fellow human beings — based on his narrow and idiosyncratic view of right and wrong — and those human beings accordingly despise him. And make fun of him. And highlight to the rest of the world what a tinpot dork he is. And hence promote “santorum” on the Web.

Just as Maddow has done.

Amen, brother!
Put another way, “Ain’t payback a bitch?”

tatboy said:
Maddow thought Dupnik was worth covering at one time. Wonder why she doesn’t want to cover him now? Clearly this Tory is more impotent to you and her. I disagree with you but you’re intitled to your opinion.

Tat boy, I sent Rachel your suggestion for a story on Dupnik. She may coordinate it with one on Arpaio and some guy named Navarette.
Looking forward to the story. Thanks for the idea.

Here is my take on what is wrong with our economy and how to fix it. The farther the distance between the rich and poor, the worst the economy becomes the closer the distance between the rich and the poor, the better the economy becomes. Convincing the super rich to cooperate by taking a vacation and allowing the poor and middleclass to catch up is like pulling teeth from an 800 lb. Gorilla without using drugs during the operation. If Our Government and Our Super Rich don\’t get their act together soon, both will suffer an unnecessary calamity which history will tell the children of the Super Rich how intoxicated their parents were on the money they schemed to take form the New Global economy because they could, and how Our Government, the Greatest Government on the face of the earth, was too conscientious to take it back from them, causing total disorganization and disruption of the finest system of caring for humans ever established since the beginning of time

I just know I feel shame that the fact is R.Rick. Santorum is my senator. He is an intolerant Gay basher bigot.

If Palin doesn’t run I’m voting for Santorum!!

WillP said:
If Palin doesn’t run I’m voting for Santorum!!

Slick move.

Lynda Appell said:
I just know I feel shame that the fact is R.Rick. Santorum is my senator. He is an intolerant Gay basher bigot.

If my last name as a noun was a frothy mixture of sex lubricant and anal particles mixed to become somthing described as frothy, than I believe I would be a gay basher too. Just saying.

Glackin said:
Slick move.

Too slick for my tastes.

Glackin said:
WillP said:
If Palin doesn’t run I’m voting for Santorum!!
Slick move.

Indeed, one might say frothy.

mediadoubt said:
Too slick for my tastes.

Figures. Only YOU would put something like that in your mouth.

Whoa, this story greatly describes the usefulness of R Maddow. She is the human equivalent of a bad smell

WHarropson said:
Am i wrong to feel like taking a shower after listening to Maddow? If she drones on and repeats the google issue she mockingly feigns helping Rick with on national TV, can you imagine how vile she must be in private?MSNBCLean forward,Change the channel,before you VOMIT.

Ten thumbs up ten thumbs down for my comment? Really?

Maddow is basically institutionalizing (MSNBC) one of the grossest modern day slanders of and individual human being in history and you thumbs downers are OK with it?

The definition they Gay-fully have attributed to this man’s name is supposed to make him look bad!? This is the kind of retribution traditional American individuals can count on if they express a general objection to what they consider un-natural, and you and the Gay community is all on board with it? Yeah, that’s great PR for homosexuals, just great.

mediadoubt said:
Do you really think the link between Santorum and “santorum” is manufactured by Rachel Maddow? Her godlike power to manipulate mathematical algorithms with just her mind is truly astonishing. Santorum’s problem is that he regularly makes repulsive statements about his fellow human beings — based on his narrow and idiosyncratic view of right and wrong — and those human beings accordingly despise him. And make fun of him. And highlight to the rest of the world what a tinpot dork he is. And hence promote “santorum” on the Web. Just as Maddow has done.

You must think Rachel Maddow is naive- just an innocent reporter who is ignorant to the effects her show would have on this story. I happen to think she knows exactly what shes doing. We are only having this discussion because of her, not Dan Savage.

She knows that playing up the story on her show does more to cover this than just Savage alone. Its not manufactured by her so much as its endorsed and propagated.

You and that Glackin guy think you hold some sort of moral high ground on this- That “he has it coming.” But by supporting this ugly campaign, you put yourself in a far worse category. You actually garner sympathy for Santorum, not for gay rights.

I’m telling you right now that this spreadingsantorum thing out of bounds, and sets the worst possible precident. I am not a suporter of Santorum, I just see clearly was Maddow is doing. She is just as passionate about gay rights as Savage is (for obvious reasons) and this effort is calculated and orchestrated.

Whatever you dont like about Santorum, this is wrong- any decent human being would be able to acknowledge that.

Glackin said:
The shame is upon you until you denounce the swift boaters and the birthers.They, too, were utter garbage.You claim the high road, but only toward your icons.I think Santorum is a hateful, vile excuse for a human being who has demeaned and belittled his fellow man.I think his scorn is well earned.

So let me understand this: You refuse to denounce this spreadingsantorum campaign, in fact its clear as day you embrace it.

But I have to denounce the swiftboat and brither thing, things that have nothing to do with this, or else the shame is on ME?

Congratulations! You have found the most convoluted way to argue your point. I can see why you flunked out of law school now.

I am fine with you stating your opinion on Santorum- really I am. I even agree with you more than I do Santorum on gay rights.

I simply dont agree with this campaign and I feel this is a disgusting new low for this country. It takes whatever “hateful” thing Santorum said and doubles down, and honestly does nothing but hurt the gay rights cause. Therefore whatever moral justification you think Savage has is lost now because he went too far.

I also think Maddow’s motives to propagate this slander is painfully transparent- she could have reported this and denounced it at the same time- but her repudiation is conspicuous in its absence.

Rachel Maddow in ONE video proved that she could be bi partisan. Ever since she has been communist, leftist, progressive or whatever you want to say.

She in the beginning said that Obama’s destroy the Constitution speech was dictatorial, ever since she has been on his side.

Tell me folks, did Obama change or did Maddow change? Tough one huh?

Get down off your sanctimonious high horse. It’s an unseemly seat for a jackass.
Saying McCain had a “black baby” in the SC primary is acceptable’
Calling a decorated veteran a liar and coward is just politics.
Declaring an American citizen a “foreign-born Muslim” IN SPITE of all the evidence is laudable.
But ridiculing a homophobic bigot by associating his name with the target of his hatred is a “disgusting new low”?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Should we get all Freudian on your nom de blog?

You know what, I am going to SOLVE the entire PROBLEM right here.

Being a Constitutional Liberatarian and a Christian I am sick and TIRED of this issue.

Here is the deal, the government cannot issue a Marriage. The government has NO RIGHT to marriage. They created a LICENSE to create marriage, the GOVERNMENT cannot issue a license to something they have NO RIGHT to. Marriage license is a false premise. The GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to authorize a divine consummation. Pfffft, that is almost as big a joke as the GOVERNMENT authorizing breathing or eating. Who the HELL does the government think they are?

I say get rid of ALL marriage through the government, the GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to say anything in RELIGIOUS sanctimony! What is it with freaks in government and secular beliefs, why is it that they think they have ANYTHING to say ANYTHING about religious beliefs.

Oh, I FORGOT, secular asshats believe they know everything, including religious beliefs. Why do you folks rail against religion and then think you have the RIGHT of marriage? You folks are delusional.

Glackin said:
Get down off your sanctimonious high horse. It’s an unseemly seat for a jackass.Saying McCain had a “black baby” in the SC primary is acceptable’Calling a decorated veteran a liar and coward is just politics.Declaring an American citizen a “foreign-born Muslim” IN SPITE of all the evidence is laudable.But ridiculing a homophobic bigot by associating his name with the target of his hatred is a “disgusting new low”?Methinks thou doth protest too much.Should we get all Freudian on your nom de blog?

Keep deflecting pal. Is this the only argument you’ve got? The fact remains that your support of the spreadingsantorum campaign is unconscionable. You know you can’t actually defend your position because there isnt a good defense for it, so you are desperate to attack me instead. Im not taking your bait, sorry.

Yes, trying to attach the moniker of “The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” to someone’s name is a disgusting new low to me. All your other examples combined don’t even come close the vileness of the language here. Perhaps I am not as jaded as you though.

Jon Stewart is a big propogator of this smutty slander. For additional comic effect he asked people to google it, and paused his show so people would take the time. It was disappointing to see him do it, but you learn to expect this degradation on the Profanity Channel.
For MSNBC to do it puts them on that same level, I guess they’re comfortable there. I hope they keep it up, and I’m glad for Mediaite, because how else would I ever know how bad they are over there.

DavidKramer said:
Rachel Maddow in ONE video proved that she could be bi partisan. Ever since she has been communist, leftist, progressive or whatever you want to say. She in the beginning said that Obama’s destroy the Constitution speech was dictatorial, ever since she has been on his side. Tell me folks, did Obama change or did Maddow change? Tough one huh?

Since Obama was a professor teaching the US Constitiution, I doubt he made any speech relating to “destroy the constitution”. Perhaps you are speaking of another of Andrew Breitbarts’s famous editing video jobs. It is time for FOX to put on tapes that tell the truth, but then their hateful commentators would be out of a job.

BarneyFranken said:
Keep deflecting pal. Is this the only argument you’ve got? The fact remains that your support of the spreadingsantorum campaign is unconscionable. You know you can’t actually defend your position because there isnt a good defense for it, so you are desperate to attack me instead. Im not taking your bait, sorry.

Yes, trying to attach the moniker of “The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex” to someone’s name is a disgusting new low to me. All your other examples combined don’t even come close the vileness of the language here. Perhaps I am not as jaded as you though.

Jaded you are not. Snide, definitely. Odd that you deem it better to besmirch a man’s courage, his honor, his religion or his family, that to associate his name with sexual activity.
Impugning a man’s honor or family would, in our Founding Father’s time, have demanded a duel. Look up A. Jackson.
So, take your revulsion back to your room and wallow in it. It impresses no one.
Read the bio of Thos. Crapper. He didn’t invent it either, but his name became associated with it.

Glackin said:
Jaded you are not. Snide, definitely. Odd that you deem it better to besmirch a man’s courage, his honor, his religion or his family, that to associate his name with sexual activity.Impugning a man’s honor or family would, in our Founding Father’s time, have demanded a duel. Look up A. Jackson.So, take your revulsion back to your room and wallow in it. It impresses no one.Read the bio of Thos. Crapper. He didn’t invent it either, but his name became associated with it.

What are you babbling about now? By your circular logic, in order to prove my disdain for ‘spreadingsantorum” I have to also list and find repulsive every other political hit job in the history of this country?

This is a great example of how you can’t prove a negative- you are trying to make an inference that by not commenting on your other cherry picked examples then I must endorse them. Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous, amateurish argument. I am simply commenting on the Santorum case, and you are so desperate to change the subject that you are practically in tears.

Again if you would like a good laugh, think about someone trying to make Glackin’s argument in court.

“Your honor, the defendant is guilty of slander because he DIDNT say something.”

I’m pretty sure we wont be seeing “Glackin & Associates” as the name of a law firm any time soon.

BarneyFranken said:
What are you babbling about now? By your circular logic, in order to prove my disdain for ’spreadingsantorum” I have to also list and find repulsive every other political hit job in the history of this country?

This is a great example of how you can’t prove a negative- you are trying to make an inference that by not commenting on your other cherry picked examples then I must endorse them. Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous, amateurish argument. I am simply commenting on the Santorum case, and you are so desperate to change the subject that you are practically in tears.

The subject is not whether or not Santorum does or does not like the term. He has no say. He holds no copyright on “santorum”.
YOU find this usage offensive. I do not.
I find demeaning an adopted child offensive, as it attacks an innocent third party.
I find insulting a man’s courage under fire disgusting, as it questions the actions of all who served.
I find the entire “birther” hypocrisy beyond contempt.
Your obsession with the legal profession amuses me. Low LSAT’s?
My only tears are from laughter, watching you squirm.
Perhaps some santorum would ease your movement.

Glackin said:
The subject is not whether or not Santorum does or does not like the term. He has no say. He holds no copyright on “santorum”.YOU find this usage offensive. I do not.I find demeaning an adopted child offensive, as it attacks an innocent third party.I find insulting a man’s courage under fire disgusting, as it questions the actions of all who served.I find the entire “birther” hypocrisy beyond contempt.Your obsession with the legal profession amuses me. Low LSAT’s?My only tears are from laughter, watching you squirm.Perhaps some santorum would ease your movement.

Squirm? You are delusional pal. I’ve thoroughly destroyed you many times over. Your fragile mind must need to adopt a alternate reality to cope with that.

I am glad though that you admit to liking the spreadingsantorum campaign. It proves what a scumbag you are, that no tactic is beneath you.

To endorse the santorum case but rail against the others shows that your outrage is only one sided. You arent anti-birther out of principle, you are anti-birther out of party affiliation. You aren’t anti-swiftboat because you dont endorse dirty tricks- you already have proven that you DO endorse them. You are anti-swiftboat because it hurt your candidate. You are a partisan hack of the lowest kind.

BarneyFranken said:
Squirm? You are delusional pal. I’ve thoroughly destroyed you many times over. Your fragile mind must need to adopt a alternate reality to cope with that..

You’ve “Thoroughly destroyed me”, eh? Happy?
Run tell your homophobic hero what a good boy you’ve been.

DavidKramer said:
You know what, I am going to SOLVE the entire PROBLEM right here. Being a Constitutional Liberatarian and a Christian I am sick and TIRED of this issue. Here is the deal, the government cannot issue a Marriage. The government has NO RIGHT to marriage. They created a LICENSE to create marriage, the GOVERNMENT cannot issue a license to something they have NO RIGHT to. Marriage license is a false premise. The GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to authorize a divine consummation. Pfffft, that is almost as big a joke as the GOVERNMENT authorizing breathing or eating. Who the HELL does the government think they are? I say get rid of ALL marriage through the government, the GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to say anything in RELIGIOUS sanctimony! What is it with freaks in government and secular beliefs, why is it that they think they have ANYTHING to say ANYTHING about religious beliefs. Oh, I FORGOT, secular asshats believe they know everything, including religious beliefs. Why do you folks rail against religion and then think you have the RIGHT of marriage? You folks are delusional.

An unusually thickheaded post, even by Mediaite standards.

Here’s the deal. Many people don’t give a rat’s ass about religion. Religion’s involvement in marriage is entirely traditional and those traditions vary hugely from faith to faith — and those traditions are supremely unimportant to those who don’t share them. The problem is that marriage is a legal contract — and should be — and a few especially repressive religions are opposed to extending that contract to consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender.

That is the issue in a nutshell. Rather than worrying about the government getting in the religion business, sensible people (including the Founding Fathers) have been and continue to be deeply concerned about religions getting into the government business.

So here’s the plan: religions do whatever they want with regard to their sacraments, while government treats its citizens fairly in extending the benefit of marriage contracts to all consenting adults. Those citizens who find value in religious confirmation of their commitment to a partner arrange appropriate ceremonies with the religion of their choice.

Problem solved.

BarneyFranken said:
Squirm? You are delusional pal. I’ve thoroughly destroyed you many times over. Your fragile mind must need to adopt a alternate reality to cope with that. I am glad though that you admit to liking the spreadingsantorum campaign. It proves what a scumbag you are, that no tactic is beneath you. To endorse the santorum case but rail against the others shows that your outrage is only one sided. You arent anti-birther out of principle, you are anti-birther out of party affiliation. You aren’t anti-swiftboat because you dont endorse dirty tricks- you already have proven that you DO endorse them. You are anti-swiftboat because it hurt your candidate. You are a partisan hack of the lowest kind.

Except for the little question of “truth” which seems to have escaped your notice. Swiftboating was based on bald-faced lies; the whole birther nonsense was based on bald-faced lies. The vast majority of right-wing smear campaigns are based on bald-faced lies. It’s what the right-wing does, and it’s why tinpot fabulists like Breitbart and O’Keefe are their heroes.

The “santorum” issue that Santorum is struggling with arises from repulsive statements out of Mr. Santorum’s own mouth. Understandably, the community has come to despise him and has responded with scorn. This is very grassroots. No conspiracy was needed to spread the alternative meaning of Santorum’s name. That’s the beauty of the Internet: the people vote by talking about what matters to them (it’s also the ugliness of the Internet, but that’s a topic for an entirely different conversation).

Santorum has earned his obloquy. Neither Kerry nor Obama earned the fantastical lies told about them. And that’s the difference. Distinctions matter.

Hah! And what are YOU doing here?

Oh, whining and trying to misdirect. Right. I forgot that’s how you folks solve your problems!