Barack Obama

Newsweek Trolls the Right

|

This week's cover of Newsweek was apparently designed to induce apoplexy. 

Via Newsweek's Twitter feed

NEXT: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Targeted by Colorado's U.S. Attorney May Be Complying With State Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hmm, I would have loved to have seen “why are Obama’s supporters so smart?” -it has more of the funny to it

    1. yes, that’s unbiased, right?

    2. so “smartass” you mean.

      1. I could write a fun SNL skit on mine, the other is just brain jussulence

        1. They’re both equally idiotic. Every President has a full range of critics. Only partisan blinders make it seem otherwise.

    3. No worries. It’s one of those irrelevant dead-tree-media publications. Right?

      1. How do you think talking points are communicated?

        Look for this one to pop up on TV, and the net; it sounds suspiciously POTUS campaign 2012

      2. Probably the only way they can get people to read them anymore.

        1. I’m sure all 32 readers will run out and buy an issue immediately.

      3. Newsweek bought The Daily Beast. TDB used to be half-decent, now, it totally sucks ass.

    4. Dey see me trollin’,
      Dey hatin’,
      Patrollin’,
      and tryin’ ta catch me trollin’ dirty,

      tryin’ ta catch me trollin’ dirty,
      tryin’ ta catch me trollin’ dirty,
      tryin’ ta catch me trollin’ dirty

    5. Feck Obama and his supporters. Drink!

    6. Hello Photoshop!

    7. And I forgot to mention – when I got done commenting here, I hit Taco Bell and recharged and then farted in 3 jars. What a gas!

    8. Mr. Obama, your presidency has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

  2. “The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one.”

    1. I approve of this message.

    2. I smiled at that comment. Thanks for the humor.

  3. He must have gotten tired about trolling them about Sarah Palin’s uterus.

    1. Shouldn’t that have disqualified him from being taken seriously about anything ever again? And wasn’t he having difficulty choosing between Ron Paul and Obama a couple weeks back?

      1. Al Sharpton has a TV show, so that should tell you what lefty windbags can get away with.

        1. After being called out on being the whitest cable TV network they needed to find some diversity to add to their network. Al was controversial enough, and now they can say they are no longer the network with only white hosts.

          1. For some reason, I will repeat the above post two more times. Just pretend you are reading each repeat post for the first time.

        2. After being called out on being the whitest cable TV network they needed to find some diversity to add to their network. Al was controversial enough, and now they can say they are no longer the network with only white hosts.

        3. After being called out on being the whitest cable TV network they needed to find some diversity to add to their network. Al was controversial enough, and now they can say they are no longer the network with only white hosts.

  4. I’m sure if Newsweak’s readership, all 15 of them, tells them about it, they’ll be furious.

  5. Shouldn’t that be Why Are Obama’s Critics So RACIST?

    1. To some people that’s the same question

    2. Because he’s black and they can’t help themselves.

      1. He’s hAlfrican-American, Tony. What true racism Obama gets, he only gets half of it.

        Well, unless one counts anti-white racism, but liberals don’t count that.

        1. I get the feeling you think this actually makes sense.

          1. Of course it does, dumbfuck.

      2. so Tony, was the left’s hatred of Bush based on race, a dislike of Texas, or a broader dislike of the South? And why is that Obama believes himself exempt from the criticism his 43 predecessors all accepted as part of the job?

      3. Just like you can’t help yourself when it comes to hating republicans? Or is hating those “kind” of people ok in your mind’s eye?

        1. But I don’t hate them because they happen to be almost 100% white. Race has nothing to do with it. It’s their neverending quest to destroy my country that’s the problem.

          1. Bute don’t hate Obama because he happens to be half black. Race has nothing to do with it. It’s his neverending quest to destroy my country that’s the problem.

    3. That’s “Why are Obama’s Critics such Stupid Ignorant Racist Sexist Speciest Homophobes?”

      The way the left pats itself on the back for it’s intelligence, while peddling the most transparently idiotic ideas is a wonder to behold.

      Dictatorship of the Proletariat – what could possibly go wrong?

      1. The way the left pats itself on the back for it’s intelligence

        that should read “its intelligence”.

        Joe’z Law strikes again.

      2. Don’t forget “cissexist”!

  6. I wonder if there’s a hard-hitting interivew with Obama that asks the question “Mr. Obama: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?”

  7. So…did they just call the Washington Post dumb?

    1. the ensuing Periodicals-Sissy-Slapfight will be awesome.

  8. Newsweek’s increasingly desperate campaign to get attention.

  9. Why do people still subscribe to Newsweek? Has there ever been a more transparently partisan “news” publication? They’re basically the left’s version of The Weekly Standard, but they would never admit it.

    1. Gotta read something on the shitter. it makes good tp.

      1. No it doesn’t. The paper’s too glossy to be absorbant.

        1. and great at giving papercuts.

          but i guess when you shit rainbows and puppy-dog-dreams, those TP qualities are not as vital to its function.

    2. The “charm” of the Left is that they are so lacking in intelligence and imagination that they cannot even conceive that a primate could in good faith disagree with their nonsense.

      1. This is exactly right. The left is, in general, so full of itself that they can’t even imagine that someone would have a view counter to theirs, and anyone who does is obviously dumb.

      2. The article was written by Andrew Sullivan, who has a history of being on the statist side of every issue (Iraq, Obamacare), not unlike David Frum, David Brooks, or Thomas Friedman.

    3. …Has there ever been a more transparently partisan “news” publication?

      Chris you’re exaggerating; I can’t find any new in it.

      Newsweek has been one big ad for years

  10. That is a very tight collar he has on, and I didn’t know African Americans tanned so well. Other than that they did a good job boosting his image with PS.

    1. But couldn’t they have at least started with a photo which made him look like LESS of an arrogant prick?

      1. With the Bamster, there is no “less”. Only more.

    2. That collar does look hideously uncomfortable.

      Or maybe that’s just what your neck skin gets like at 40. I have no idea.

  11. I assume its because he’s just a Republican anyway…

    1. Depending on the particular Repub, you could make that point.

  12. More to the point, Newsweek is an idea whose time has come and gone. The general interest, mass market news magazine probably made sense in the glory days of the legacy media. It was a common denominator that everyone could buy into being news. And the world moved at a pace where a once-a-week recap was probably still current. But, we’re no longer in that world. I can find vastly more insightful analysis in five minutes using my computer and Google. The Andrew Sullivans of the world have, at best, marginal qualifications to discuss any of the myriad of topics they opine on and it shows. Painfully. The consensus that the magazines were premised on have long been shown to be nothing more than a sham maintained only by the ability of a relatively small segment of the population to dominate the public discourse through their role as gatekeepers to mass communications. And, let’s face it, a week ago the “big news” was the rise of Rick Santorum as a force in Republican politics.

    1. I’d like to see anyone top this. jeez.

    2. Newsweek is an idea whose time has come and gone.

      That much is obvious from their name. Who waits a WEEK for news anymore?

      -jcr

      1. “Newspeak” would be more accurate, but pointing out their Orwellianism might cause some drop in circulation.

    3. A good summation, though it probably applies better to Time. Even back in the ’80s I recall Newsweek as having staked out the turf to the political left of Time. Though of course all the major media maintained that “serious consensus view journalism” gravitas.

      1. “serious consensus view”: yep. They all drank the Hofstader Kool-aid back in the 50s & congratulated themselves for being the wise centrist consensus that kept the republic stable.

        They then demonstrated the value of that stable consensus with Vietnam, counseling patience to MLK, promoting moderate “Keynesianism,” etc., etc.

      2. Oh, I won’t deny for a second that Time is just as much a dying brand as Newsweek. It’s the entire format that is dated. Whether you’re Time occupying the center, Newsweek occupying the left, or U.S. News & World Report occupying the right, you’ve long ago lost any real claim of relevance. You’re giving third rate analyses from people whose only qualification, if you can call it that, is their status as journalistic insiders. And your one sole means of maintaining that status is positioning yourself somewhere within the range of “serious consensus view journalism”. But, that really makes you a commodity. None of them is offering much that you can’t get from any of the others and what you’ve probably already gotten to the point of exhaustion (and probably in a lot better quality) by the time any of them get around to getting it to you. I can see maybe the Economist surviving in the intermediate term. But, they’re pretty much a different category (prestige publications) and even they’re trying to move their business into consulting and event marketing. I’m not saying this out of schadenfreude, but their business model is about as robust as that of a mass production buggy whip manufacturer.

      3. As a follow up, from Time Warner’s 2011Q3 earnings report:

        Revenues (in $ millions) for the last 9 months:
        Networks 10,155
        Filmed Entertainment 8,748
        Publishing 2,633
        They make a little over a quarter on their entire publishing business that they pull in on just their cable business. The business just doesn’t work.

      4. And in the 1960s, Newsweek was thought to be slightly to the right of Time. And to those paying att’n long enough, Time was anti-semitic.

        1. “Why is George W. Bush such a JEW?”

    4. Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Why did you catch AIDS, bareback rider? ’cause you are fucking retard.

    5. Has anyone else noticed that 95% of what Andrew Sullivan writes on his blog is just a copy-and-paste of what other people write? Maybe he’ll add like a sentence of “analysis.”

  13. An American Tragedy.

    A national high-speed rail network would not only support tens of thousands of construction and manufacturing jobs, but it would get Americans out of their cars, revitalize struggling downtowns, and spare the environment millions of tons of carbon emissions and travelers untold hours wasted in traffic or in airport terminals waiting out delays.

    Obama set a goal of providing 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. But that lofty vision is yielding to the political gravity generated by high costs, determined opponents and a public that has grown dubious of government’s ability to do big things.

    Unbelievers; that’s what’s wrecking this country.

    1. Unbelievers; that’s what’s wrecking this country.

      The last gasp of authoritarians throughout history.

      1. Jesus lets hope you’re right.

        1. That last gasp is usually followed by a violent spasm of purging the unbelievers. Be careful what you wish for.

    2. intercontinental rail connecting New York to Paris?

      1. What a beautiful world it will be
        What a wonderful time to be free

        1. +1 nightfly

        2. +1 win

          More leisure time for artists everywhere.

          1. Trust machines to make big decisions /
            Programmed by fellows with passion and vision

            Top. Men.

            1. Spandex jackets! One for everyone!

      2. Via Siberia and Alaska?

        At twice the length of the Channel Tunnel that connects Britain and France, it will be an ambitious engineering project – but one which could bring considerable benefits for travelers.

        It could mean, for example, a spectacular overland train journey from Europe to New York City, traveling through Moscow and the icy landscapes of Siberia and Alaska before heading down to warmer climes.

        In one direction, it would even save travelers time, as the tunnel would pass straight through the International Date Line, changing the clocks of those taking the journey by nearly a full day.

        1. In one direction, it would even save travelers time, as the tunnel would pass straight through the International Date Line, changing the clocks of those taking the journey by nearly a full day.

          WTF? Whoever wrote this fails everything forever.

          1. Why would anyone ever go back?

            1. It’s not just that, either; civil time is not absolute. You don’t save any actual time traveling west across the IDL, it’s just that the clocks there have been set at a different time all along.

              1. Maybe the real plan is to build the tunnel worldwide and then run the trains fast enough to reverse the rotation of the earth. That winds time backward, right?

                1. Space elevators

                2. You can add ten years to your life by flying west around the world 3652 times.

                  1. Then you can spend the frequent flyer miles when you’re done! There’s no downside!

              2. But in terms of time dilation you actually would gain time. The faster you go time slows down. Of course, the difference in time at 1 mph vs. 200 mph is practically infinitesimal. Since time on the train is moving slower than time outside the train, it essentially becomes a time machine moving into the future. It’s just not a very effective time machine. I don’t think anyone would get very excited about riding on a train for 12 hours to travel 53 femtoseconds into the future.

        2. In one direction, it would even save travelers time, as the tunnel would pass straight through the International Date Line, changing the clocks of those taking the journey by nearly a full day.

          Great. They’re so short of justification for this dinosaur they have to toss in a spurious, arbitrary, subjective, capricious… Oh, no, I can’t seem to end that sentence…

          1. To be fair, the justification that it would be pretty sweet (not the glorious train ride part, but the ground based connection part) is sort of valid. This time travel one is dumb.

            1. “You conservatives are always wanting to turn back the clock, right? Well, this is a great opportunity for you to do so!”

              1. I’ve never understood the “conservatives/libertarians want to bring us back 100 years” argument when Dear Leader compared himself to a president from about 100 years ago, and promised to do all of the same things.

          2. Discovery Channel had a special episode of Extreme Engineering on the (would-be) BST. They went through and got your hopes up about how cool it would be for 48 minutes before noting the inconvenient fact that the nearest railheads are a few hundred miles from the Bering on the US side (in Fairbanks) and a couple of thousand miles away on the Russian side (at the Lena River in Siberia)…and much of that track has to be laid on permafrost. So the tunnel itself isn’t the entire challenge.

        3. Holy shit, there are journalists who don’t understand the International Date Line?

    3. “…a public that has grown dubious of government’s ability to do big things.”

      The public is perfectly aware that the government can do idiotic things in truly colossal fashion.

      1. Exactly. It’s worthwhile, cost-effective big things it can’t do any more.

    4. …yielding to the political gravity generated by high costs…

      How much longer will the evil capitalists and profit seekers be allowed to destroy our children’s futures?

  14. “Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,” Obama said in announcing his vision for high-speed rail in April 2009. “Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America.”

    What, no flying unicorns?

    Fuck it.

    1. What’s funny to me is that it’s absolutely impossible to have rail that both goes fast AND allows you to board or detrain “just blocks from your destination”.

      There are an awful lot of fucking “destinations” out there and a fast train can’t stop near ALL of them.

      A really, really slow train can. Maybe.

      In Boston the Green Line (when above ground) will stop at any corner you want. People can get on at any corner, too. And those are the slowest motherfucking trains in Creation…as you might expect, if you stop and think about it for two seconds.

      1. Fluffy, stop with the logic, these are politicians you’re speaking at.

      2. I hate the green line out past Fenway.

      3. There you go again Fluffy, thinking that facts and logic trump the vision thing

      4. Also, it’s only impossible if your destination doesn’t happen to near one of the stations. As long as your destination is blocks from Grand Central Station, it’s plausible.

      5. So, do they go so slow, one can just stroll on/off without sprinting?

      6. I have literally gotten off the Green Line at Babcock, walked east, and passed BU Central before the train got there.

      7. Ahhh….I see the fallacy in your logic. You’re assuming that the train will have to slow down to allow the passengers to board or detrain. Once the inertial dampers are installed the train will never need to stop. Until then, notice that he said nothing about the passengers actually surviving the trip.

    2. I want a flying unicorn that shits teddy bears and spits rainbows. You think a guy that can heal the world and push back the seas could do this!! Funkin Republicans, getting in his way!!

    3. “Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination…”

      It wasn’t too long ago that I whisked through towns at speeds over 100 miles per hour, walked only a few steps to my garage and ended up exactly at my destination… and did it with pretty decent fuel economy. Maybe we all need R1s more than high speed rail.

      1. Pretty much any car now made can hit 100 MPH.

        Doing it on crowded urban streets, not so much so.

        1. The new Mustang GT500 can hit over 200 mph.

      2. That is if you are only a few steps from public transportation.

    4. Over 100 miles an hour? Truly we live in an age of miracle and wonders.

  15. Obama’s forced sacrifice mantra…

    …as in, we all gotta make sacrifices for Wall Street if we’re gonna get through this thing, and we all gotta make sacrifices if we’re all gonna get equal access to health care…

    That provoked a visceral reaction that Obama’s critics may not express eloquently, but after a president’s squandered $350 billion out of our future paychecks on bailing out Wall Street and the UAW? After the president’s forced through legislation that sics the IRS on marginally poor people if they can’t afford to buy health insurance–and fines their employers if their benefits are too good?

    Why should behavior like that from a president elicit an eloquent response?

    A better question would be: Why are Obama’s defenders so completely out of touch with average Americans?

    1. The healthcare bill expanded Medicaid. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry. The Wall Street bailout happened under Bush.

      1. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry.

        Paid back with more loans, you mean. And GM/Chrysler is a small subset of the auto manufacturing sector in the US.

        The Wall Street bailout happened under Bush.

        I don’t remember BO standing on the floor of the Senate in opposition to it. You?

      2. 500 BILLION taken fromMedicare to pay for obamacare. The loans have NOT been repaid-some payments were made with the BAILOUT MONEY itself! They still owe billions.The Wall St. bailout started under Bush, but continued ferociously under Obama. (Whose largest campaign financial supporter was Goldman Sachs)

      3. Why pretend the facts are other than they are?

        The healthcare bill expanded Medicaid.

        ObamaCare sics the IRS on people who can’t afford to buy health insurance. That’s what the controversy over the mandate is all about. Why pretend otherwise?

        The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry.

        Paid back to whom? That was funded with bond issues. The principle on those bonds hasn’t been paid back to the people who bought the bonds!

        In fact, the principle on those bonds hasn’t even been collected yet. If those were mostly ten year treasuries that were issued, then that money won’t come out of the taxpayer’s paychecks for another 7 years. How can it be paid back when it still hasn’t even come out of the taxpayer’s paychecks yet?

        Oh, and in case you missed Gillespie and de Rugby’s piece on the issue, GM and Chrysler were given an addition $50 billion or so in free tax credits. Those huge profits GM has been making since the Fukushima disaster? As far as I can tell, they’re not paying taxes on any of it.

        The Wall Street bailout happened under Bush.

        That’ a lie!

        Bush did half of the $700 billion in TARP, and Obama did the other half. That’s why I said he squandered $350 billion out of the taxpayer’s future paychecks rather than $700 billion.

        Here’s the Huffington Post explaining how Obama won approval for his half of the $700 billion in Congress…

        “TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion”

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..58292.html

        The headline says it all! That’s from February 15 of 2009.

        Anybody that says Obama didn’t squander $350 billion out of working Americans’ future paychecks to bail out the UAW and Wall Street–either doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is lying.

        Everybody that criticizes the Republicans for favoring the rich–and turns around and ignores Barack Obama squandering $350 billion out of working Americans’ paychecks to bail wealthy Wall Street investors out of their bad investments?

        Should be ashamed of themselves.

      4. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry.

        So, without the bailouts, no cars would be available for sale in the U.S.?

        Seriously?

        1. I think he’s trying to say that they wouldn’t be built in the US in significant numbers. Which is only slightly less daft, of course.

        2. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry.

          And the money was not paid back!

          A small fraction of what we gave them was in the form of loans–the U.S. government still owns a huge chunk of GM!

          The reason Barack Obama doesn’t want to sell the U.S.’s stake is because for the time being, he can still pretend it’s just a “paper loss”. If he sold all those shares right now, there’s no way we’d break even on GM.

          And none of that even mentions the fact that NONE of the “repaid” TARP money has been used to cut taxes or retire debt. Believe me, if we’d had $700 billion in tax cuts or debt retirement, we’d have all heard about it!

          That $700 billion that was “repaid” to the treasury–was spent! It’s gone. No debt retirement. No tax relief with that $700 billion. They approved it on a, supposedly, emergency basis.

          There was no debt reduction. There were some Republicans who argued, when TARP was initially approved, that there should be a stipulation that any repaid money should go only to pay down the debt–but that measure was defeated.

          So, what have we learned.

          1) We still own a huge chunk of GM, at least the part that UAW doesn’t own.

          As of March 31, 2010, the U.S. Treasury had committed approximately $52.4 billion to GM.

          Only a fraction of that, $6.7 billion, was in the form of loans. Most of the government’s GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in the New GM, the company that emerged from bankruptcy: $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8 percent of the company’s common equity.

          http://www.politifact.com/trut…..oans-full/

          We won’t get our money back until that stock sells–that’s 60% of the shares in GM that currently aren’t even trading–and there’s no freaking way we’d get our money back at today’s price.

          2) The money wasn’t paid back.

          3) GM gets a huge tax break–tax-free earnings for a number of years–I heard it amounts to some $50 billion or so. That’s money that would have funded expenses the taxpayers will pick up instead of GM.

          4) Even when GM does pay the TARP money back, there’s an enormous difference between GM paying the government back–and the government paying back the taxpayers, whose paychecks funded all of this!

          Barack Obama is crony capitalist extraordinaire, and the fact that he has so many people snowed on the facts is embarrassing.

      5. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back and saved the industry.

        Paid back by Fiat. With a loan. From the Department of Energy. So in short, deck chairs were shuffled, Fiat owns Chrysler (for a nominal sum), and the Detroit Titanic is still sinking.

        Thank you, fuck you, bye.

      6. Anything for the Team, eh, Tony?

      7. The auto bailouts were actually loans that were largely paid back

        Tony, your grasp of financial matters is such that you should really find a guardian to make sure you don’t spend your 401(k) to facilitate the transfer of 86 MILLION DOLLARS into your account by some nice man in Nigeria.

        -jcr

  16. Because no one reads “Newsweak” anymore. Much like no one watches “pmsnbc”.

    1. On your face, liberal media!!!

  17. The last 2-3 times I’ve tried to read newsweek the current issue feels like it’s four months out of date. I imagine their subscribership is declining and they’re grasping for attention.

    1. Very few people read magazines for news anymore, so it’s to be expected they’re trying to morph into an opinion magazine (though to some extent they’ve been such for quite a long time).

  18. Alternative Headline: “Ed Good? ROCKO BAD!”

  19. in Mrs Santorum’s “past” than anything in Chief War Pig Barack’s present or future.

    1. Yeah, what exactly is so surprising in Mrs. Santorum’s past? Turned tricks before she met Rick?

      1. That they had an abortion?

        1. No they didn’t. Stop lying.

          She had a fucking miscarriage you fucktwat.

          1. Who in the fuck knows, ya gotta buy the magazine….

            1. Oh yeah, I’m sure Newsweek is going to break some truthful new information in that story.

              1. Maybe they’ll reveal that she played hookey in junior high school or something of international importance. I’m breathlessly waiting.

                1. She was a libertarian.

              2. Forget truthful. How is it at all relevant?

          2. She had a fucking miscarriage…after the doctor “accidentally” stabbed the baby in the head with pruning shears… you fucktwat.

            1. Really? You got a cite for that contention?

              The miscarriage was the result of treatment of a life-threatening peritoneal infection. They didn’t want to kill the baby.

              Listen, I hate Santorum as much as anyone but he’s not a hypocrite on that issue. Criticize him for things that are actually true; god knows there’s plenty of material there without resorting to lies.

              1. no, he’s not a hypocrite; he may be something even worse. Let’s see: the baby was going to die, something no one disputes; there was a likelihood of his wife dying right along with fetus, also not in dispute; yet, he goes along with the notion of carrying the fetus to term. What sane human being does that?

                1. I know women who have done just that
                  -they seemed at peace with their choice, and that is what it was: theirs alone

                2. What sane human being does that?

                  One who believes that sacrifice is not without meaning.

                  Of course he’s wrong. Everything is without meaning.

            2. Here’s the actual story, for people who are more interested in truth than scoring cheap partisan points. Not sure how many of those people are left around here, but just in case.

              1. But scoring cheap partisan points is fun!

                Well, as long as it’s Democrats reaping the benefits.

              2. Nice cite, some weird ass blog that nobody reads.

                Well, I was fucking there man. And ol’ Rick gave me a Benjamin to fish the corpse out the toilet ala Trainspotting. Thing smelled like green peppers. True story.

                1. I should have expected as much from an engineering major.

  20. Victoria Azarenka has a strange tennis moan.

  21. ESPN’s balls have dropped, ’bout time.

    1. I mean, how old are they now, about 20?

  22. Newsweek has fallen and it can’t get up.

    1. I know the feeling.

  23. Newsweek is finished. Why do we even bother to notice or care for its deathbed delusions?

  24. Unbelievers; that’s what’s wrecking this country

    Kulak Wreckers!!!

  25. I would be pissed about the Obama thing, but in their favor they did also criticize ESPN.

  26. Why does Newsweek scratch your butt so much worse than cheap tp?

  27. This is pretty shocking. Who knew Newsweek was still in print?

  28. And why do the Packer receivers look like they are the ones bothered by the cold? 8 dropped passes and 3 lost fumbles.

    1. I am very down right now.

    2. Discount double check!

      1. I’m seriously watching that right now on YouTube just to cheer me up. Fuck, why’d they have to lose to the Giants? I hate Eli Manning.

        1. I also dislike Manning (mostly because people sometimes try to claim he’s elite when he’s clearly slightly better than average), but let’s take joy in the fact that Tebow time is over.

          1. His third down conversion rating is the best in the league.

            The best when it counts.

            Deserves it, and you haters know it.

            1. Every down counts.

              An elite quarterback doesn’t need three downs in the first place.

            2. He’ll never be as good as Peyton or Brady or Brees or Rodgers.

              Hell, if the Cowboys didn’t blow several games in the final two minutes the Giants wouldn’t even be in the postseason.

              1. What if your aunt had balls? I feel like there should be a word to describe the resulting person…

              2. True. Of course, last year if the 6-10 Lions didn’t upset the 10-6 Bucs in Tampa in Week 16 the Pack would have been eliminated. So those butterfly effects happen a lot.

                1. The surest way to overcome tricks of fate like that is to win your games. Like a lot of your games. The playoff scenarios get a lot less complicated when you’re 13-3 instead of 9-7.

                  1. But that’s no fun!

                  2. 13-3 Chargers, 1 and done at home. It is a sure playoff scenario.

                    Fuckers.

            3. You bitches can either get on the bandwagon or keep standing in horseshit!

              I’ll make room!

      2. Those commercials are soon going to be as out of place as the Pepsi ads with Rex Ryan.

        1. They make good fodder for haters once the endorser’s team is eliminated – even in the following season. I remember a year or two of “Cut that meat!”

        2. He still had an MVP caliber season and is in his prime. This disappointmnet doesn’t change that.

          1. Perhaps, but it will certainly prevent every member of the team down to the practice squad punter getting a spot on those commercials.

            1. Clay is auditioning for the sequel to The 13th Warrior.

  29. That’s not Newsweek you tards. It’s Neeek.

    1. That, mustard, was probably the best post you’ll ever make.

      1. We should encourage him to retire on top, on his own terms.

        1. And to enter into a suicide pact with Max.

  30. “Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination,”

    Imagine leaving your house to walk 5 minutes to the bus stop where you wait 10 minutes (because if you are 3 second late you have to wait 30 minutes for the next one) for a 30 minute bus ride to the nearest subway station where you take 3 minutes to walk to the platform where you wait 10 minutes for the next train that takes 20 minutes to get to the HSR station where you need 10 minutes to get to the HSR platform (40 minutes if TSA is doing checks of all passengers) where you wait 20 minutes for the HSR, which takes 3 minutes for boarding and 4 minutes to get back up to 100 MPH which it cruises at for 8 minutes before decelerating for 4 minutes and then it takes you 3 minutes to disembark and 10 minutes to walk to the subway platform where you wait 10 minutes to board the next subway train to take you to the stop nearest your destination where you wait 5 minutes for the next bus that takes 30 minutes to get to the stop nearest your destination just five minutes’ walk away. And you feel so rested after having covered a distance of 25 miles.

    1. This. ^^^

      I used to live less than a mile away from a BART station near San Francisco, and worked in downtown SF. Two times I tried it, and both times it doubled my door-to-door total commute time, from 45 minutes each way to 1.5 hours each way, for the reasons noted above.

      1. I live in Boston and if I try to take the T (subway) from Somerville to Allston it takes over an hour. It’s about 3 miles and you can bike it in 20 minutes.

        1. Um, so bike it. Do you think the T was optimized exclusively for trips between Somerville and Allston?

    2. You left out waiting in line to get your crotch patted down by TSA agents before boarding the train. Good luck bringing your morning coffee on the train.

      1. He mentioned it!

        1. Yes he did. Sorry, for some reason my mind skips over parentheses.

      2. But they’ll be high-speed agents!

      3. You left out waiting in line to get your crotch patted down by TSA agents before boarding the train. Good luck bringing your morning coffee on the train.

        Hell I usually have to pay extra to get my crotch patted.

    3. “Imagine leaving your house to walk 5 minutes to the bus stop where you wait 10 minutes (because if you are 3 second late you have to wait 30 minutes for the next one)”

      And imagine doing the four or five transfers dragging you luggage behind you if you choose to use HSR for long-distance travel.
      The SF Chron published a piece intended to support HSR, and any reading of it says they should have read it before they published it:
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/……DTL&tsp=1
      No, it doesn’t pencil-out in Spain any more than it does anywhere else. Unless you belong to one of the unions working on it.

      1. One should also imagine adding a toddler/infant combo, a diaper bag, and a bag of groceries and you’ve perfectly imagined the hell of my 3 years as a mom without a car.

    4. I don’t know much about the HSR Obama is dreaming of, but I recently had a very good experience of HSR between Brussels and Frankfurt, journey of about 300 miles. If you’re travelling from one downtown to another and would like to get work done and/or eat on the way, it is far, far better than the alternatives (flying, driving). In other words, HSR is great for interurban business travel or tourism. This is a separate issue from whether it is something the government should pay for or whatever, but if you oppose government funding of HSR, argue on that basis – don’t pretend the concept itself is worthless. It has a place in the transportation matrix.

  31. Please tell me someone else here is completely underwhelmed by the whole Ricky Gervais thing. And I don’t just mean the Golden Globes.

    1. An Idiot Abroad is pretty good, but I don’t really credit Gervais for that.

    2. People watch awards shows?

  32. Well, a lot of them seems to think they can run Romney against him and that the campaign wouldn’t boil down to “Obama-vs-whiter-Obama”.

    1. Their name is Obomney. And they will win the election.

  33. What I don’t get about this is that attention, by itself, does not do Newsweek any good. They only make money when people go to their website, buy their magazine, or at least read the magazine.

    The only people who are going to do that because of this cover are a few die-hard liberals seeking a pat on the back. Not exactly a large market to target.

    Even the younger superlefties are just going to laugh with the cover and say “+1” and then not visit/buy the mag.

    1. “What I don’t get about this is that attention, by itself, does not do Newsweek any good. They only make money when people go to their website, buy their magazine, or at least read the magazine.
      The only people who are going to do that because of this cover are a few die-hard liberals seeking a pat on the back. Not exactly a large market to target.”
      If your news-stand sales are 5/issue, adding three is a good move.

      1. Wow… Newsweek pays people to read it? Hell, sign me up. I’ll soak ’em for some foldin’ money!

  34. The hell with this. An infomercial on Brazilian Butt Lift exercises is on. Ahhhhhh…… Brazilian butts……

  35. Phrases you’ll never see on Newsweek:
    “Why are Reagan’s critics so dumb?”
    “Why are Bush’s critics so dumb?”
    “Why are -insert Republican here- critics so dumb?”

    Does anyone remember a time when the media so relentlessly defended a president against criticism?
    “Question authority” has become “Defend authority”

  36. Don’t leave us in suspense, Mike. Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?

    Serious question: Is that cover ‘shopped? I have never seen an image of Obama like that.

    1. “Serious question: Is that cover ‘shopped? I have never seen an image of Obama like that.”

      By now, it’s pretty doubtful that *any* print images that make it to print haven’t gone through some ‘process’ or other.
      The question I have is why did the editors think that image was the one to choose of the several submitted.

      1. It does appear as if his collar is choking the life out of him.

  37. Riggs, this is worse than late Morning Links. No alt-text?

  38. Bi-sexual information?Seeking for the people have the same sexual orientation. please consult the site “Datebi.com”, you will find the like-minded people!

  39. Bi-curious?Datebi.com is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  40. Bi-curious?Datebi.com is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  41. Bi-curious?Datebi.com is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  42. Andrew Sullivan

    “[I]t remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game ? [T]he president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.”

    Politico

    BARF. RETCH. GAG. VOMIT. SPEW.

    1. I suppose being half black is part of his strategy? Cause that’s the only reason he beat Hildog.

      1. Unless you’ve got some specific proof, that’s some racist shit right there.

    2. “…he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue…”

      Earth to Andrew – being a consistant liberal moderate makes you an ideologue in all places except left wing politics.

      It worked against Hillary Clinton, because Obama secured the ideological middle ground within the Democrat primaries. But he has continued the same pattern for 4 years and by now everyone knows he is definitely a liberal moderate. Which makes him a known ideologue.

  43. Oh, News-Week!

    All this time I thought it was New-Sweek.

    1. Newspeak?

  44. Just to back up a minute: Most of the comments above has been assuming that Sullivan is saying that Obama’s critics are dumb because they disagree with him. [This is the most likely point of the article, given that Sullivan is writing it.] With only a twitter feed of the cover to go by, this cannot be stated as a certainty.

    OTOH, it is just possible that he is pointing out some of the really stupid things that Obama’s critics have said and done. With so many examples to choose from, one could fill a multivolume encyclopedia discussing things like birthers, the failure to hold Obama’s feet to the fire on the Libyan War, etc.

    1. It doesn’t say “Why Some Of Obama’s Critics Are Dumb”, does it?

    2. When Obama wins reelection we are all going to be saying, “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb?”

      1. No, if that happens we will be asking “Why are the American voters so dumb?”

    1. Fuck, I just took an shower.

      1. Hey, now… John Bolton is a good man.

        Those other two fuckers… not so much.

        1. You got 1/3 right.

          1. No Bolton a good man he’s just wrong about some stuffs.

            1. I’d take him being wrong on occasion, over 99% of people in office right this minute.

              1. My sentiments exactly. Fuck Sarah Palin looks get next to almost all of the ‘choices’ running for president right now.

      2. You leave CPT Kangeroo alone. He did a lot of good things for kids.

        1. Me too!

  45. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!

    1. An excerpt:

      Don’t get us wrong, we take the threat of terrorism very seriously. We don’t trust any of you motherfuckers, and that’s why when you get on board we hand each of you a gun. If you pull it out first, you’re the terrorist. If you pull it out second you’re EVERONE ELSE. Good luck, first guy.

      Nice.

  46. Hello,my friends!Here’s the most popular dating site for now__SeekCasual*com, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 happy members are waiting their lovers.Join free and have a try,nothing to lose!!

    1. I would say “fuck you”, but that might lead to some loathsome, uncomfortable, fatal disease.

      1. How ya doin’?

  47. it is just possible that he is pointing out some of the really stupid things that Obama’s critics have said and done.

    Like not pointing out to the Occutards at every opportunity how much money their idol has gotten from the evul banksterz?

  48. Newsweek and Time have been nothing more than a joke for decades. Anyone who believes the tripe they publish is worthy of nothing but distain.

  49. The GOP’s not called “The Stupid Party” for nothing.

    1. I suppose you think the only people criticizing Obama are card-carrying members of the Republican party?

      1. Of course not. That’d be dumb.

      2. I would bet, however, that the article assumes as much.

    1. You know who else had a Plan?

      1. FDR!
        Did I win?

      2. Fred Marshall

      3. Along with a Man and a Canal, Panama.

  50. But Obama is G-d, isn’t he? That is what the editor of “Newsweek,” Evan Thomas (grandson of socialist leader, Norman Thomas), said.

    Anyone who criticizes Obama criticizes G-d in “Newsweek’s” eyes.

    Bohemian Rhapsody by Freddy Mercury

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

    1. Dredging up liberal triumphalism from 2009 is no fair.

    2. The market broke. We’re the only game in town, now!

  51. The Man with a Plan or The Man with The Plan?

    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama?

      1. Seriously, what the fuck was that shit Tulpa? What.The.Fuck?

  52. I totally understand people who like to ride the train instead of driving a car. I totally understand people who like to go to exciting downtowns.

    What I don’t understand is why these people, instead of moving to New York City or Northern New Jersey or Southern Connecticut or Chicago, want to take the tax payer’s money and spend it on an impossible quest to turn the entire country into New York City, Northern New Jersey, etc.

    1. Because some people are too insecure to tolerate anyone anywhere not being like them.

    2. Moving is a bitch.

  53. And now Huntsman is dropping out.

      1. Let the historical rewrite begin:

        But the campaign of “civility, humanity and respect” that Mr. Huntsman promised quickly faded into the background as his Republican rivals seized the attention ? and the support ? of a party faithful that seemed more interested in red meat politics.

        1. Oh Bloody Norah. What is wrong with these people?

        2. Yeah, that Twilight Zone anti-RP ad and the harping on Bain Capital was really civil….

          1. From the NYT article:

            Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

            “Generally”? So there are on-topic, non-abusive comments that they still censor?

            1. Of course they will. They don’t need any of your bourgeois truth with all of your objective facts.

              1. “Reason editors will delete comments which promote pornography, insult anyone’s intelligence, ancestry, etc., invoke Hitler, use huge walls of text, or respond to any of the above…

                “Wait, that will cut down *how much* of our traffic?

                “Never mind, carry on as usual.”

    1. He just wan’t racist enough to win the GOP vote.

  54. Let’s see, Newsweek is losing millions continuing a dying business model. Last I looked more than half the country disapproved of Obama’s performance in office. So Newsweek decides to help their situation by insulting the majority of its potential readers.

    But Obama’s critics are the dumb ones. Got it.

    1. Newsweek’s potential readers skew old and left already.

      1. And a lot of them are probably pissed off at Obama too. If Andrew Sullivan is your readership, you are probably not going to make much money.

  55. Ricky Gervais had his funny removed.

    1. You mean he had one to begin with?

      1. Last year he was just vicious. This year he’s being too polite.
        That was the funny, it was so over the top.

  56. OK, I’ve been hurt before, but this Napoleon Dynamite show is all right so far.

  57. Obama’s defenders have figured out they can’t play the race card anymore. So now they will just call them dumb. Anything to avoid actually having to defend him on the merits. Best defense is a good offense.

    1. .Best defense is a good offense.
      ——————
      yeah, that’s what we thought, too. Then the good offense forgot to show.

    2. That’s been the dem-socialists game plan since at least 1952.

    3. But they WILL play the race card, from now to infinity. It’s rule #1 in their play book.

  58. And honestly, couldn’t that cover be an Onion cover? So crude. So over the top.

    1. Maybe Newsweek is trying to cut in on their market.

      1. It would be a more promising business model.

    2. You owe Onion fans everywhere an apology John.

    3. That was my first thought.

  59. Frankly, I’m surprised they even ALLOW criticizing the President any more… I mean, tolerance of stupidity can only go so far.

    1. Principled opposition? I…don’t understand.

  60. Whoever it was tht forked over $1 for Newsweek got fucked.

    1. But it is the Obama critics who are the dumb ones.

  61. Need a good knee-slapper?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..06227.html

    1. Of course MSNBC is not sufficiently progressive. If any outlet was, then they would have to explain why its ratings or so low. The ideology is never wrong. People just never adhere to its true form.

      1. I’m glad my cable company doesn’t carry Current. I’d be afraid to accidentally land on it while channel-surfing.

        1. Direct TV does. They have some majorly stupid stuff on there

          1. Gosh. Guess I’ll never get to watch The Albert Gore Vanity Team Blue Channel.

            1. It is kids with cameras man. It is kids out there changing the world man. Dig it?

              1. …but only *lefty* kids!

            2. Imagine the kittens liberals would have if the Kochs set up a vanity TV network?

              1. The Kochs should buy PBS. Hell, how expensive could it be?

                1. Could you imagine the whaling that would happen if they bought PBS and made it put out actual libertarian slanted programing?

                  1. Whaling is evil, but I’m sure there would be plenty of wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes.

            3. “He’s fine,” said Gore, chairman of the network in 63 million U.S. homes

              Excellent use of weasel words, but there’s a difference between being in 63 million U.S. homes and being watched in 63 million U.S. homes.

              1. Yeah, John, but only if the Kochs refused even one penny of taxpayer funding.

                Hell, I’d settle for the current owners of PBS, if they did that.

                1. That would be even better. The government stops funding it allowing the evil Kochs to buy it. That would be too much for liberals to bear. I swear there might be suicides in Cambridge over it.

                  1. It *would* make Sesame Street more interesting…

                    1. Libertarian Sesame Street:
                      “Sharing? There’s no SHARING allowed. You take what you can get and keep it no matter what.”

                    2. Sorry, Lewis, but the real lesson to teach the kids is “sharing is voluntary, not coerced”.

                    3. I don’t care if you’re starving, I’m not sharing my PBJ!

                    4. Now that those socialist bastards no longer run this place, I’m much less grouchy.

                      And no, I don’t want a handout, why do you assume I do?

                    5. Remember kids: when wealthy rich people throw stuff away after using it the first time, that’s more free salvage for me!

                  2. Unfortunately I don’t think the Kochs would be as amused by that as we would.

                  3. With explosive vests.

          2. Current replaced Newsworld International, the moderately good CBC-sponsored news channel, on the DirecTV lineup.

            I remember when it first came on wondering how long it would be before I first saw the Ernesto image. It was sometime in the first weekend, and it wasn’t even as if I was watching all that much.

            1. Talk about trading down. Newsworld International actually managed to have straight news from all over the place rather than Film Studies majors on summer break.

  62. Part of the general degeneration of thought on the political left, is that they are not longer capable of being subtle.

    1. That is why the best way to deal with them is through humor and ridicule. There is no point in debating them. They are incapable of making an honest argument. But nothing hurts than more than ridicule and not taking them seriously.

    2. It’s not just the left. Remember “Treason”?

      1. The Right hasn’t been subtle for a long time. It was the left who had all of the humor and irony. No more. They have none of either.

        1. This comment and the above are really true and important. Most lefties are not worth trying to convert it’s much better to embarrass them even of it means being a d-bag. Don’t sink to their level. Go lower.

          1. I can’t decide if I like the poo-slinging, or want it to escalate into Senators hitting each other with metal chairs live on C-SPAN.

            1. Both. The important part is to be aware of when you are poo-slinging or you will degrade yourself.

        2. Who the fuck are you, John, to say that I don’t have any fucking irony?

          I wear scarves in the middle of the fucking summer. I wear pants that were designed to be worm by a member of the opposite gender. I wail about the sanctity of the environment even though I can’t manage to get out in the woods more than once year. I preach tolerance even though I hate you uneducated rednecks who don’t think like me. Though I wear massive, thick rimmed glasses, I couldn’t see reality if it were right in fucking front of me.

          So again I ask: who the fuck are you?

  63. Doctors’ offices everywhere will be ringing with the prose of Andrew Sullivan.

  64. Huntsman is smart, principled, effective, experienced and a genuinely nice person. Apparently Republicans aren’t used to that.

  65. More hilarious hijinks from the Huff:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..?ref=media

    Fuck, I’d read Newsweek for an entire decade, before I’d sully my hands with an issue of TNR.

    1. I always thought that if I were an evil billionaire, I would conduct a hostile takeover of the New York Times. God the fun you could have running that paper and drinking in the liberal tears that resulted.

      1. At least make the Times neutral. No bias either way.

        That, would piss off both Teams.

        1. Make it Libertarian. that would drive both teams sufficiently nuts.

          1. Or that. In fact, I kinda like that better.

        2. Personally, I would make all the articles ridiculous parodies of the journalism profession.

          1. So…the same as now?

            1. zzzzziiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg

      2. hostile takeover of the New York Times

        Que?

        1. If “hostile takeover” involved heavily-armed mercenaries… oh, man. Sorry, was just letting my inner voice come out to play.

      3. Liberals would just say how they never really cared for the NYT anyway.

  66. What’s wrong with ESPN?

    1. What’s wrong with ESPN?

      It’s a sports channel

      1. And GURLZ hate sports, right? so cliche.

        1. No we like sex; are there any naked men on ESPN?
          If I want to look at tits, I can lower my gaze

          1. Why can’t you like sports and sex both?

            1. Ask me that question again when they have half-naked men jumping on the sidelines

              1. Hopefully that will be never.

            1. Holy shit, I do like football

      2. It’s a sports channel

        Not enuff man on boy reportage for Newsweek.

  67. I know how to keep award speeches short:
    Tell them every second they go over, $10 million dollars will be going to the Repbulicans.

    1. Fucking brilliant!

  68. What’s wrong with ESPN?

    Not enough Tebow.

  69. Have you tried casualmingle dot ‘c o m, a wonderful place where you can find the right one for you or just dating or one night stand thing. It is all up to you, come on and sign up free, nothing loose if you do not like it.

  70. lol, I never thought about it like that before.

    http://www.anon-vpn.tk

  71. Boy, these Mormons stick together, even when they don’t like each other.

  72. Obama has a very precise and complicated plan.

  73. Scared magazine writers are scared.

  74. When Hearing the name of Christian Louboutin red bottoms will undoubtedly make fashionistas sigh. The designer’s dreamy and exceptional choice of different staples for the upcoming weeks is complemented using a

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.