Sensen no Sen: Dennis Prager, Mendacious Hack
Rumproast: The giant teeter-totter of racism.
What About Our Daughters: Action-oriented citizens put up billboards about missing Black women.
Facing South: The politics behind Lindsay Graham's vote for Sotomayor
Jonestown: But hey! If Obama wanted to wipe out seniors, he could find a more cost-effective way than this healthcare reform rigamarole!
Bob Beckel manages to get Sean Hannity to admit that anyone who claims to be a family values politician and doesn't live up to that ought to resign, but Hannity feigns stupidity on knowing where John Ensign stands on the subject.
BECKEL: Can I just speak to what you did in this segment here for a second?
HANNITY: You can do whatever you want.
BECKEL: You go to this thing with John Ensign, right, about Harry Reid. He's more popular than -- now, this is a guy -- you're a big family values guy. Here's a guy that cheats on his wife, not just with somebody, but somebody on his staff who's married. Now what do you think? Are you defending John Ensign?
HANNITY: That sounds like a liberal Democrat to me.
BECKEL: That was good.
PRAGER: Wait, wait, wait. What does have it to do with...
BECKEL: Excuse me. Excuse me for a second, Mr. University Prager. I want -- I want him to answer this question.
HANNITY: My answer is, if you're going to be a family-values candidate and a family-values politician, and you don't live up to that, I think you should resign.
BECKEL: Well...
HANNITY: I don't know where he stands.
BECKEL: Oh, he's big.
HANNITY: But with that said, it is interesting that Harry, you know, Prince Pelosi, Prince Harry and Princess Pelosi. His ratings are lower than the guy that had an affair.
BECKEL: All I'm saying is let the record show that that you called for John Ensign to resign.
HANNITY: I don't know where he stands on the issues.
While discussing whether gay marriage is a big issue or not and if there has been an appropriate amount of media coverage given to the subject, Dennis Prager ends the segment with this whopper:
Prager: I think we are more likely to survive economically than we are the redefinition of marriage.
Yeah that's it Dennis. Gay marriage is going to end life as we know it but a depression....meh. Or maybe he just meant we have a better chance of coming out of this bad economy than we do not seeing gay marriage become legal?? Maybe someone can explain it to me. Who knows but Dennis, when you use the word "survive" it sounds like you're trying to equate gay marriage with something that's going to kill us.
John Aravosis rightfully has a good chuckle at Prager's expense after he made the statement. These conservatives are getting more ridiculous by the day with their rhetoric. Of course Prager also doesn't understand why this is a civil rights issue and why he and his ilk are looked at as bigots for their stance.
I've got a question that either John or Howard should have asked Dennis. What do you think is a bigger threat to marriage? Gays being allowed to marry or someone like yourself being allowed to get divorced twice and married three times? Come on Dennis! If you can do it three times can't the gay people be allowed to get married even once? Conservative...hypocrisy is thy name.
As Paul Krugman pointed out, if you're a right winger --no matter what crazy, f*&ked up thought you utter, it's A-OK.
Case in point is wingnut extraordinare Dennis Prager. Here's a sample:
The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is not in the mood and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.
It gets more preposterous from there. In right-wing culture, it's always the ladies that are at fault.
This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.
I think James Dobson has it wrong. It's right-wing freaks like Prager who want to destroy the institution of marriage. Yet this nut is a frequent guest on CNN. Why does he get the megaphone that he does?
But, to repeat the key point, rejection of sex should happen infrequently. And it should almost never be dependent on mood -- see Part II next week.
5. I know this and that's why I rarely say no to my husband.
This is a wise woman. She knows a sexually fulfilled husband is a happy husband. (At the same time, men need to recognize that complete sexual fulfillment is unattainable in this world.) And because a happy husband loves his wife more, this cycle of love produces a happy home.
Nice wife, good wife, fulfill me when I want so I am happy. WTF does any of this drivel mean? He makes Dr. Phil almost bearable.
Pandagon lets loose.
(24 minute video--critical quote at 6:00)
Self-dubbed "The Three Tenors" of talk radio (a bad analogy, as the actual Three Tenors were talented and at the top of their field, and these jokers are...well, you know, hacks), Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved went to Minnesota to stump for the trio of Michelle Bachmann, Norm Coleman and Erik Paulsen. Prager apparently has a rather different reading of the Constitution than most people:
Prager, who calls Bachmann a “wonderful, wonderful extraordinary human being,” addressed the brouhaha by telling how he would’ve dealt with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews — by asking Matthews if he believes there are “American values” in the first place; if Matthews agrees, then “logic 1.1″ dictates that some people must hold anti-American values.
He added that both parties once upheld the “American value system” — the Democrats in the era of Kennedy and Truman — but the “Sixties Generation, the radicals, have taken over one of our two parties. They must be stopped!” People who “vote blue,” he added, “don’t know they’re voting radical.”
No fan of the Enlightenment, Prager added, “Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value.”
Wow. So I guess that Congress was being oh so continental when they wrote this:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Remind me again who hates American values?
