Newsweek Trolls the Right

Mike Riggs | 1.15.2012 6:25 PM

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

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

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

Hide Comments (360)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

rather 13 years ago

Hmm, I would have loved to have seen "why are Obama's supporters so smart?" -it has more of the funny to it
1. @gusalo 13 years ago
  
  yes, that's unbiased, right?
2. Jose 13 years ago
  
  so "smartass" you mean.
  1. rather 13 years ago
    
    I could write a fun SNL skit on mine, the other is just brain jussulence
    1. PapayaSF 13 years ago
      
      They're both equally idiotic. Every President has a full range of critics. Only partisan blinders make it seem otherwise.
3. - 13 years ago
  
  No worries. It's one of those irrelevant dead-tree-media publications. Right?
  1. rather 13 years ago
    
    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. Suki 13 years ago
    
    Remember, Newsweek lied; People died
  3. Hazel Meade 13 years ago
    
    Probably the only way they can get people to read them anymore.
    1. wareagle 13 years ago
      
      I'm sure all 32 readers will run out and buy an issue immediately.
  4. Mr Whipple 13 years ago
    
    Newsweek bought The Daily Beast. TDB used to be half-decent, now, it totally sucks ass.
4. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
  
  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. Father Jack 13 years ago
  
  Feck Obama and his supporters. Drink!
6. Ghost 13 years ago
  
  Hello Photoshop!
  1. I'll Bite 13 years ago
    
    http://www.redstate.com/absent.....sweek4.jpg
7. rather 13 years ago
  
  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. Lisa Simpson 13 years ago
  
  Mr. Obama, your presidency has the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
invisible furry hand 13 years ago

"The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one."
1. Stark Fist Of Removal 13 years ago
  
  I approve of this message.
2. Anne 13 years ago
  
  I smiled at that comment. Thanks for the humor.
Erik 13 years ago

He must have gotten tired about trolling them about Sarah Palin's uterus.
1. Richard 13 years ago
  
  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. PapayaSF 13 years ago
    
    Al Sharpton has a TV show, so that should tell you what lefty windbags can get away with.
    1. WWNGD? 13 years ago
      
      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. WWNGD? 13 years ago
        
        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. WWNGD? 13 years ago
      
      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. WWNGD? 13 years ago
      
      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.
Bill Dalasio 13 years ago

I'm sure if Newsweak's readership, all 15 of them, tells them about it, they'll be furious.
P Brooks 13 years ago

Shouldn't that be Why Are Obama's Critics So RACIST?
1. El Commentariosa 13 years ago
  
  To some people that's the same question
2. Jingles 13 years ago
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jVAHAuiS4
3. Tony 13 years ago
  
  Because he's black and they can't help themselves.
  1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    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. Tony 13 years ago
      
      I get the feeling you think this actually makes sense.
      1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Of course it does, dumbfuck.
  2. wareagle 13 years ago
    
    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. Mitch 13 years ago
    
    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. Tony 13 years ago
      
      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. heller 13 years ago
        
        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.
4. DDavis 13 years ago
  
  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. protefeed 13 years ago
    
    The way the left pats itself on the back for it's intelligence
    
    that should read "its intelligence".
    
    Joe'z Law strikes again.
  2. PapayaSF 13 years ago
    
    Don't forget "cissexist"!
5. Suki 13 years ago
  
  +100
Andrew S. 13 years ago

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?"
Joe R. 13 years ago

So...did they just call the Washington Post dumb?
1. wylie 13 years ago
  
  the ensuing Periodicals-Sissy-Slapfight will be awesome.
2. Joe R. 13 years ago
  
  Linky.
Bradley J. Fikes 13 years ago

Newsweek's increasingly desperate campaign to get attention.
Chris 13 years ago

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. El Commentariosa 13 years ago
  
  Gotta read something on the shitter. it makes good tp.
  1. Richard 13 years ago
    
    No it doesn't. The paper's too glossy to be absorbant.
    1. wylie 13 years ago
      
      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. DDavis 13 years ago
  
  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. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
    
    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. Vake 13 years ago
    
    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. rather 13 years ago
  
  ...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
Dave Keays 13 years ago

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. The Angry RPh 13 years ago
  
  But couldn't they have at least started with a photo which made him look like LESS of an arrogant prick?
  1. Koan 13 years ago
    
    With the Bamster, there is no "less". Only more.
2. Spoonman. 13 years ago
  
  That collar does look hideously uncomfortable.
  
  Or maybe that's just what your neck skin gets like at 40. I have no idea.
spencer 13 years ago

I assume its because he's just a Republican anyway...
1. Sevo 13 years ago
  
  Depending on the particular Repub, you could make that point.
Bill Dalasio 13 years ago

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. wylie 13 years ago
  
  I'd like to see anyone top this. jeez.
2. John C. Randolph 13 years ago
  
  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. DDavis 13 years ago
    
    Sweet.
  2. protefeed 13 years ago
    
    "Newspeak" would be more accurate, but pointing out their Orwellianism might cause some drop in circulation.
3. Umbriel 13 years ago
  
  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. Raven Nation 13 years ago
    
    "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. Bill Dalasio 13 years ago
    
    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. Bill Dalasio 13 years ago
    
    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. Robert 13 years ago
    
    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. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      And somewhat ambivalent about felines
    2. Newsweek (ca 2004) 13 years ago
      
      "Why is George W. Bush such a JEW?"
4. killazontherun 13 years ago
  
  Andrew, Andrew, Andrew. Why did you catch AIDS, bareback rider? 'cause you are fucking retard.
5. Vake 13 years ago
  
  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."
P Brooks 13 years ago

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. wylie 13 years ago
  
  Unbelievers; that's what's wrecking this country.
  
  The last gasp of authoritarians throughout history.
  1. Cytotoxic 13 years ago
    
    Jesus lets hope you're right.
    1. Coeus 13 years ago
      
      That last gasp is usually followed by a violent spasm of purging the unbelievers. Be careful what you wish for.
2. Wasn't that 13 years ago
  
  intercontinental rail connecting New York to Paris?
  1. Fluffy 13 years ago
    
    What a beautiful world it will be
    What a wonderful time to be free
    1. Xenocles 13 years ago
      
      +1 nightfly
    2. dbcooper 13 years ago
      
      +1 win
      
      More leisure time for artists everywhere.
      1. Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Trust machines to make big decisions /
        Programmed by fellows with passion and vision
        
        Top. Men.
        
        Barack the Jaunty Jacketeer 13 years ago
        
        Spandex jackets! One for everyone!
  2. Jerry 13 years ago
    
    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. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      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. Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Why would anyone ever go back?
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        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?
        
        El Commentariosa 13 years ago
        
        Space elevators
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        You can add ten years to your life by flying west around the world 3652 times.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Then you can spend the frequent flyer miles when you're done! There's no downside!
        
        Mensan 13 years ago
        
        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. Live Free or Diet 13 years ago
      
      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. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
        
        "You conservatives are always wanting to turn back the clock, right? Well, this is a great opportunity for you to do so!"
        
        mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
        
        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. Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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. Spoonman. 13 years ago
      
      Holy shit, there are journalists who don't understand the International Date Line?
  3. Ted S. 13 years ago
    
    Transatlantic Tunnel dates to 1935.
3. DDavis 13 years ago
  
  "...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. PapayaSF 13 years ago
    
    Exactly. It's worthwhile, cost-effective big things it can't do any more.
4. The Angry RPh 13 years ago
  
  ...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?
P Brooks 13 years ago

"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. Fluffy 13 years ago
  
  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. Chloe 13 years ago
    
    Fluffy, stop with the logic, these are politicians you're speaking at.
  2. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    I hate the green line out past Fenway.
  3. invisible furry hand 13 years ago
    
    There you go again Fluffy, thinking that facts and logic trump the vision thing
  4. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    So, do they go so slow, one can just stroll on/off without sprinting?
  6. Mensan 13 years ago
    
    I have literally gotten off the Green Line at Babcock, walked east, and passed BU Central before the train got there.
  7. ## 13 years ago
    
    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. Chloe 13 years ago
  
  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. Night Elf Mohawk 13 years ago
  
  "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. protefeed 13 years ago
    
    Pretty much any car now made can hit 100 MPH.
    
    Doing it on crowded urban streets, not so much so.
    1. Mensan 13 years ago
      
      The new Mustang GT500 can hit over 200 mph.
  2. Chloe 13 years ago
    
    That is if you are only a few steps from public transportation.
4. GB 13 years ago
  
  Over 100 miles an hour? Truly we live in an age of miracle and wonders.
Ken Shultz 13 years ago

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. Tony 13 years ago
  
  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. Tulpa 13 years ago
    
    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. shanee 13 years ago
    
    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. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
    
    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. protefeed 13 years ago
    
    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. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      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. Ken Shultz 13 years ago
      
      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. Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
    
    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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    Anything for the Team, eh, Tony?
  7. John C. Randolph 13 years ago
    
    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
Jose 13 years ago

Because no one reads "Newsweak" anymore. Much like no one watches "pmsnbc".
1. Zing! 13 years ago
  
  On your face, liberal media!!!
End Child Unemployment 13 years ago

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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  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).
Thorbie 13 years ago

Alternative Headline: "Ed Good? ROCKO BAD!"
Well I am more interested... 13 years ago

in Mrs Santorum's "past" than anything in Chief War Pig Barack's present or future.
1. Gannicus 13 years ago
  
  Yeah, what exactly is so surprising in Mrs. Santorum's past? Turned tricks before she met Rick?
  1. Jerry 13 years ago
    
    That they had an abortion?
    1. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      No they didn't. Stop lying.
      
      She had a fucking miscarriage you fucktwat.
      1. Well I am more interested... 13 years ago
        
        Who in the fuck knows, ya gotta buy the magazine....
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        Oh yeah, I'm sure Newsweek is going to break some truthful new information in that story.
        
        Well 13 years ago
        
        Maybe they'll reveal that she played hookey in junior high school or something of international importance. I'm breathlessly waiting.
        
        AlmightyJB 13 years ago
        
        She was a libertarian.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        Forget truthful. How is it at all relevant?
      2. capitol l 13 years ago
        
        She had a fucking miscarriage...after the doctor "accidentally" stabbed the baby in the head with pruning shears... you fucktwat.
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        wareagle 13 years ago
        
        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?
        
        rather 13 years ago
        
        I know women who have done just that
        -they seemed at peace with their choice, and that is what it was: theirs alone
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        What sane human being does that?
        
        One who believes that sacrifice is not without meaning.
        
        Of course he's wrong. Everything is without meaning.
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Tony 13 years ago
        
        But scoring cheap partisan points is fun!
        
        Well, as long as it's Democrats reaping the benefits.
        
        capitol l 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        I should have expected as much from an engineering major.
El Commentariosa 13 years ago

Victoria Azarenka has a strange tennis moan.
angus 13 years ago

ESPN's balls have dropped, 'bout time.
1. Jumbie 13 years ago
  
  I mean, how old are they now, about 20?
A Serious Man 13 years ago

Newsweek has fallen and it can't get up.
1. Obama's Volt 13 years ago
  
  I know the feeling.
Pkorman 13 years ago

Newsweek is finished. Why do we even bother to notice or care for its deathbed delusions?
Bok Sux 13 years ago

Unbelievers; that's what's wrecking this country

Kulak Wreckers!!!
1. Koan 13 years ago
  
  +100
Tulpa 13 years ago

I would be pissed about the Obama thing, but in their favor they did also criticize ESPN.
shanee 13 years ago

Why does Newsweek scratch your butt so much worse than cheap tp?
Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago

This is pretty shocking. Who knew Newsweek was still in print?
A Serious Man 13 years ago

And why do the Packer receivers look like they are the ones bothered by the cold? 8 dropped passes and 3 lost fumbles.
1. CheeseHead... 13 years ago
  
  I am very down right now.
2. Xenocles 13 years ago
  
  Discount double check!
  1. A Serious Man 13 years ago
    
    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. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
      
      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. Eli Going For 2nd Title! 13 years ago
        
        His third down conversion rating is the best in the league.
        
        The best when it counts.
        
        Deserves it, and you haters know it.
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        Every down counts.
        
        An elite quarterback doesn't need three downs in the first place.
        
        A Serious Man 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        What if your aunt had balls? I feel like there should be a word to describe the resulting person...
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        cisaunt
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Xenocles 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        But that's no fun!
        
        juris imprudent 13 years ago
        
        13-3 Chargers, 1 and done at home. It is a sure playoff scenario.
        
        Fuckers.
        
        Eli Going For 2nd Title! 13 years ago
        
        You bitches can either get on the bandwagon or keep standing in horseshit!
        
        I'll make room!
  2. Tulpa 13 years ago
    
    Those commercials are soon going to be as out of place as the Pepsi ads with Rex Ryan.
    1. Xenocles 13 years ago
      
      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. A Serious Man 13 years ago
      
      He still had an MVP caliber season and is in his prime. This disappointmnet doesn't change that.
      1. Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        Perhaps, but it will certainly prevent every member of the team down to the practice squad punter getting a spot on those commercials.
        
        Eli Going For 2nd Title! 13 years ago
        
        Clay is auditioning for the sequel to The 13th Warrior.
mustard 13 years ago

That's not Newsweek you tards. It's Neeek.
1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
  
  That, mustard, was probably the best post you'll ever make.
  1. Tulpa 13 years ago
    
    We should encourage him to retire on top, on his own terms.
    1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      And to enter into a suicide pact with Max.
Aresen 13 years ago

"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. protefeed 13 years ago
  
  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. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    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. Sean Healy 13 years ago
      
      Um, so bike it. Do you think the T was optimized exclusively for trips between Somerville and Allston?
2. A Serious Man 13 years ago
  
  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. Auric Demonocles 13 years ago
    
    He mentioned it!
    1. A Serious Man 13 years ago
      
      Yes he did. Sorry, for some reason my mind skips over parentheses.
  2. Crotchety Old Man 13 years ago
    
    But they'll be high-speed agents!
  3. 35N4P2BYY 13 years ago
    
    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. Sevo 13 years ago
  
  "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. Priestess 13 years ago
    
    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. Sean Healy 13 years ago
  
  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.
Bee Tagger 13 years ago

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. Fist of Etiquette 13 years ago
  
  An Idiot Abroad is pretty good, but I don't really credit Gervais for that.
2. Ted S. 13 years ago
  
  People watch awards shows?
Artie 13 years ago

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. califronian 13 years ago
  
  Their name is Obomney. And they will win the election.
Tulpa 13 years ago

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. Sevo 13 years ago
  
  "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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    Wow... Newsweek pays people to read it? Hell, sign me up. I'll soak 'em for some foldin' money!
Bok Sux 13 years ago

The hell with this. An infomercial on Brazilian Butt Lift exercises is on. Ahhhhhh...... Brazilian butts......
John 13 years ago

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"
Binky 13 years ago

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. Sevo 13 years ago
  
  "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. Priestess 13 years ago
    
    It does appear as if his collar is choking the life out of him.
Auric Demonocles 13 years ago

Riggs, this is worse than late Morning Links. No alt-text?
cathrine 13 years ago

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!
cathrine 13 years ago

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.
cathrine456 13 years ago

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.
cathrine 13 years ago

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.
Anonymous Coward 13 years ago

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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  I suppose being half black is part of his strategy? Cause that's the only reason he beat Hildog.
  1. The Derider 13 years ago
    
    Unless you've got some specific proof, that's some racist shit right there.
2. angus 13 years ago
  
  "...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.
American Youth 13 years ago

Oh, News-Week!

All this time I thought it was New-Sweek.
1. Winston Smith 13 years ago
  
  Newspeak?
Aresen 13 years ago

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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  It doesn't say "Why Some Of Obama's Critics Are Dumb", does it?
2. mitch 13 years ago
  
  When Obama wins reelection we are all going to be saying, "Why are Obama's critics so dumb?"
  1. Marshall Gill 13 years ago
    
    No, if that happens we will be asking "Why are the American voters so dumb?"
either way 13 years ago

we are so fucked!

Campaigning together in South Carolina.
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Fuck, I just took an shower.
  1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    Hey, now... John Bolton is a good man.
    
    Those other two fuckers... not so much.
    1. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      You got 1/3 right.
      1. Cytotoxic 13 years ago
        
        No Bolton a good man he's just wrong about some stuffs.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        I'd take him being wrong on occasion, over 99% of people in office right this minute.
        
        Cytotoxic 13 years ago
        
        My sentiments exactly. Fuck Sarah Palin looks get next to almost all of the 'choices' running for president right now.
  2. John 13 years ago
    
    You leave CPT Kangeroo alone. He did a lot of good things for kids.
    1. Jerry Sandusky 13 years ago
      
      Me too!
stacy 13 years ago

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!
capitol l 13 years ago

If awesome lunatics ran airlines

Oldie, but goodie.
1. capitol l 13 years ago
  
  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.
sara 13 years ago

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. Aresen 13 years ago
  
  I would say "fuck you", but that might lead to some loathsome, uncomfortable, fatal disease.
  1. Anthony Weiner 13 years ago
    
    How ya doin'?
P Brooks 13 years ago

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?
AlmightyJB 13 years ago

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.
Critical Mess 13 years ago

The GOP's not called "The Stupid Party" for nothing.
1. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
  
  I suppose you think the only people criticizing Obama are card-carrying members of the Republican party?
  1. Critical Mess 13 years ago
    
    Of course not. That'd be dumb.
  2. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
    
    I would bet, however, that the article assumes as much.
juris imprudent 13 years ago

The Man with a Plan or The Man with The Plan?
1. A Serious Man 13 years ago
  
  You know who else had a Plan?
  1. Sevo 13 years ago
    
    FDR!
    Did I win?
  2. Tulpa 13 years ago
    
    Fred Marshall
  3. The Ghost of Bela Lugosi 13 years ago
    
    Aliens in skating skirts.
    1. rather 13 years ago
      
      the letter B?
  4. Anacreon 13 years ago
    
    Along with a Man and a Canal, Panama.
Underzog 13 years ago

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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Dredging up liberal triumphalism from 2009 is no fair.
2. Triumphant 2009 Liberal 13 years ago
  
  The market broke. We're the only game in town, now!
Bok Sux 13 years ago

The Man with a Plan or The Man with The Plan?

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama?
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Nothing will ever be funny again
  1. Koan 13 years ago
    
    Seriously, what the fuck was that shit Tulpa? What.The.Fuck?
mitch 13 years ago

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. John 13 years ago
  
  Because some people are too insecure to tolerate anyone anywhere not being like them.
2. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Moving is a bitch.
El Commentariosa 13 years ago

And now Huntsman is dropping out.
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Yes
  1. Bee Tagger 13 years ago
    
    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. John 13 years ago
      
      Oh Bloody Norah. What is wrong with these people?
    2. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      Yeah, that Twilight Zone anti-RP ad and the harping on Bain Capital was really civil....
      1. Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        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?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Of course they will. They don't need any of your bourgeois truth with all of your objective facts.
        
        Eduard van Haalen 13 years ago
        
        "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."
2. Chupacabra 13 years ago
  
  He just wan't racist enough to win the GOP vote.
John 13 years ago

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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Newsweek's potential readers skew old and left already.
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    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.
El Commentariosa 13 years ago

Ricky Gervais had his funny removed.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  You mean he had one to begin with?
  1. El Commentariosa 13 years ago
    
    Last year he was just vicious. This year he's being too polite.
    That was the funny, it was so over the top.
Tulpa 13 years ago

OK, I've been hurt before, but this Napoleon Dynamite show is all right so far.
John 13 years ago

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. green bay packers 13 years ago
  
  .Best defense is a good offense.
  ------------------
  yeah, that's what we thought, too. Then the good offense forgot to show.
2. Maxxx 13 years ago
  
  That's been the dem-socialists game plan since at least 1952.
3. mad libertarian guy 13 years ago
  
  But they WILL play the race card, from now to infinity. It's rule #1 in their play book.
John 13 years ago

And honestly, couldn't that cover be an Onion cover? So crude. So over the top.
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  Maybe Newsweek is trying to cut in on their market.
  1. juris imprudent 13 years ago
    
    It would be a more promising business model.
2. Cytotoxic 13 years ago
  
  You owe Onion fans everywhere an apology John.
3. Old Soldier 13 years ago
  
  That was my first thought.
Ted Levy 13 years ago

Frankly, I'm surprised they even ALLOW criticizing the President any more... I mean, tolerance of stupidity can only go so far.
1. Andrew Sullivan 13 years ago
  
  Principled opposition? I...don't understand.
Jeffersonian 13 years ago

Whoever it was tht forked over $1 for Newsweek got fucked.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  But it is the Obama critics who are the dumb ones.
Mr. FIFY 13 years ago

Need a good knee-slapper?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....06227.html
1. John 13 years ago
  
  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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    I'm glad my cable company doesn't carry Current. I'd be afraid to accidentally land on it while channel-surfing.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      Direct TV does. They have some majorly stupid stuff on there
      1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Gosh. Guess I'll never get to watch The Albert Gore Vanity Team Blue Channel.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        It is kids with cameras man. It is kids out there changing the world man. Dig it?
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        ...but only *lefty* kids!
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Imagine the kittens liberals would have if the Kochs set up a vanity TV network?
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        The Kochs should buy PBS. Hell, how expensive could it be?
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        Could you imagine the whaling that would happen if they bought PBS and made it put out actual libertarian slanted programing?
        
        juris imprudent 13 years ago
        
        Whaling is evil, but I'm sure there would be plenty of wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes.
        
        Anonymous Coward 13 years ago
        
        "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.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        John 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        It *would* make Sesame Street more interesting...
        
        Lewis H 13 years ago
        
        Libertarian Sesame Street:
        "Sharing? There's no SHARING allowed. You take what you can get and keep it no matter what."
        
        Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Sorry, Lewis, but the real lesson to teach the kids is "sharing is voluntary, not coerced".
        
        Lewis H 13 years ago
        
        I don't care if you're starving, I'm not sharing my PBJ!
        
        Oscar the Cheerful 13 years ago
        
        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?
        
        Oscar the Cheerful 13 years ago
        
        Remember kids: when wealthy rich people throw stuff away after using it the first time, that's more free salvage for me!
        
        juris imprudent 13 years ago
        
        Unfortunately I don't think the Kochs would be as amused by that as we would.
        
        Cytotoxic 13 years ago
        
        With explosive vests.
      2. Ted S. 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Timon19 13 years ago
        
        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.
Hazel Meade 13 years ago

Part of the general degeneration of thought on the political left, is that they are not longer capable of being subtle.
1. John 13 years ago
  
  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. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  It's not just the left. Remember "Treason"?
  1. John 13 years ago
    
    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. Cytotoxic 13 years ago
      
      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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        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.
        
        Cytotoxic 13 years ago
        
        Both. The important part is to be aware of when you are poo-slinging or you will degrade yourself.
    2. Hipster 13 years ago
      
      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?
John 13 years ago

Doctors' offices everywhere will be ringing with the prose of Andrew Sullivan.
Lewis H 13 years ago

Huntsman is smart, principled, effective, experienced and a genuinely nice person. Apparently Republicans aren't used to that.
Mr. FIFY 13 years ago

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. John 13 years ago
  
  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. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
    
    At least make the Times neutral. No bias either way.
    
    That, would piss off both Teams.
    1. John 13 years ago
      
      Make it Libertarian. that would drive both teams sufficiently nuts.
      1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
        
        Or that. In fact, I kinda like that better.
    2. Tulpa 13 years ago
      
      Personally, I would make all the articles ridiculous parodies of the journalism profession.
      1. Cytotoxic 13 years ago
        
        So...the same as now?
        
        Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        zzzzziiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggggg
  2. juris imprudent 13 years ago
    
    hostile takeover of the New York Times
    
    Que?
    1. Mr. FIFY 13 years ago
      
      If "hostile takeover" involved heavily-armed mercenaries... oh, man. Sorry, was just letting my inner voice come out to play.
  3. El Commentariosa 13 years ago
    
    Liberals would just say how they never really cared for the NYT anyway.
F Hart 13 years ago

What's wrong with ESPN?
1. Tulpa 13 years ago
  
  QBR
2. rather 13 years ago
  
  What's wrong with ESPN?
  
  It's a sports channel
  1. El Commentariosa 13 years ago
    
    And GURLZ hate sports, right? so cliche.
    1. rather 13 years ago
      
      No we like sex; are there any naked men on ESPN?
      If I want to look at tits, I can lower my gaze
      1. AlmightyJB 13 years ago
        
        Why can't you like sports and sex both?
        
        rather 13 years ago
        
        Ask me that question again when they have half-naked men jumping on the sidelines
        
        AlmightyJB 13 years ago
        
        Hopefully that will be never.
      2. Tulpa 13 years ago
        
        Here you go
        
        rather 13 years ago
        
        Holy shit, I do like football
  2. angus 13 years ago
    
    It's a sports channel
    
    Not enuff man on boy reportage for Newsweek.
El Commentariosa 13 years ago

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. Bono 13 years ago
  
  Fucking brilliant!
Bok Sux 13 years ago

What's wrong with ESPN?

Not enough Tebow.
wallispat 13 years ago

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.
Danner Jones 13 years ago

lol, I never thought about it like that before.

http://www.anon-vpn.tk
Bob D 13 years ago

Boy, these Mormons stick together, even when they don't like each other.
X 13 years ago

Obama has a very precise and complicated plan.
I-defy 13 years ago

Scared magazine writers are scared.
Christian Louboutin Shoes 13 years ago

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 log in to post comments

Newsweek Trolls the Right

Latest

RFK Jr. Hires a Vaccine 'Skeptic' To Find the Cause of Autism

Liberation Day

America Is Losing Trump's Trade War to Itself

Brickbat: Never Forget a Face

The Senate Just Passed Rand Paul's Bill To Block Trump's Tariffs on Canada

Recommended

Login Form