Comments:Savage on Santorum on Savage

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
immature421:04, 31 March 2012

i don't like santorum, but "Savage's readers voted to define santorum as: "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."" is really immature and only cements the wedge between the right and the left.

Randal6546 (talk)19:44, 22 March 2012

That happened back in 2003.

-- Cirt (talk)20:42, 22 March 2012

And it suits the purpose oh so well

NotinREALITY (talk)11:24, 31 March 2012

The most cogent justification I've heard for the neologism is a remark by Savage, quoted in one of the earlier Wikinews articles: "... it is an insanely dirt joke. It is vile, as are Santorum's comments about gay people."

The most cogent objection I've heard (irl) to the neologism is that it's a cruel thing to do to all the other people in the world whose family name is Santorum.

Pi zero (talk)13:00, 31 March 2012

Indeed, both these comments have merit. :)

-- Cirt (talk)21:04, 31 March 2012