Genuine conservative Southern belle born
in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Idiotarian of the Year nominees
Little Green Footballs has posted a list of people they think qualify for the LGF Annual Robert Fisk Award for Idiotarian of the Year. Ward Churchill and Chris Matthews made it onto the list, along with about 18 others.
Think there are a few people missing off that list (which was narrowed down)? Post your nominee in the comments section here 
RSS feed for comments on this post.
21 Responses to “Idiotarian of the Year nominees”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
Little green footballs screwed up the list the top 3 in my opinion are 1) George W Bush. 2)Donald Rumsfeld and thridly but maybe not last is Mike Brown our former esteemed leader of FEMA. He was a hell of a guy right?
so there you go dudes. And the Giants are in the playoffs where they belong.
There were 732 comments when i got there, so I couldn’t take the time to read them all. Nevertheless, it seems as though the lovely Cindy Sheehan may take this year’s award, with Jimmy Carter receiving the lifetime achievement award.
Personally, I wanted to nominate the guy who emasculated himself to celebrate his soccer team winning a championship, although, being a serious Darwin Award candidate, maybe that’s overkill.
Perhaps I could suggest Mulkos Muilitsas, who runs The Daily Kos, for his celebration of all things Left Wing and Left Coast, but apparently can’t afford to live there much longer.
Tommy, you wonder why you are greeted with such hostility? Look at your hostile posts.
There is a blog reader by the tag of Robert who says Liberalism is a mental disease. Who is to say he isn’t right.
Shoot I’m not looking for hostility PCD. Just sometimes youse on the right don’t care about doing the right thing youse just do stuff for your self interests. Which directly conflicts with mine. Sooooooo…………. bottom line is this I once read a post on a blog called BLACKFIVE which said if I don’t support the war in Iraq then I don’t support the troops. Well since I am a veteran of Persian Gulf 1 you can imangine my resentment of such a statement. See taht’s how the right-wing slime machine works just bash,bash,bash and sooner rather later it starts to stick. We all on the left are just a bunch of hippies right? That’s why I’m a little cynical. You ever do time in the military PCD? Bush 43 is the problem not the solution thank God it’s only 37 months to go.
Tommy wrote, “slime machine works just bash,bash,bash and sooner rather later it starts to stick
That’s my perception of the left’s tactic’s (at the leadership level which you mimic). Your first post on this thread attacks. We haven’t seen the leadership of the Republican party step up and fight the Democrats back and we are happy to see the President finally say a few words about the left leadership’s inaccurate accusations.
We’ve had to deal with your accusations (yes yours) ad naseum for years. So will you stop with the inaccurate accusations Tommy?
Let’s debate on the playing field of ideas. Let’s talk about Social Security reform ideas and permanentizing the tax cuts and what the government can do to let the economy grow as opposed to stifling the economy. When the economy grows tax revenues into the government grows as it has done by double digits this last year.
Nobody should ever say, “I served in such and such war and therefore nobody should question my behavior or words”. Your behavior and words have been attacks. It doesn’t let you off the hook for your behavior just because you served. I served. That discussion is over.
Tommy, you are so blind to Democrat slime machine. I could start with Bob Beckel and Bob Mulholland trying to blackmail Electoral College electors into voting for Gore. I will remind you that 2 current Chuck Schumer staffers, who are long time, senior staff, stole a man’s identity to access his credit record in order to smear him out of the Maryland US Senate race. Need I go on about the 900 FBI files Clinton grabbed the first day in office??
Take your hate rhetoric elsewhere. We know the truth here, and you don’t tell it.
Well……………… to Baklava whose military service I totally respect let’s talk about ideas Bush 43 wants to totally dismantle the social security system in my opinion. This guy thinks unions and social security are reminiscent of communism. They are not. The middle class of our great nation was built because of these 2 instituions and this guy who by the way was born with a silver spoon shoved so far down his mouth you’d need a crowbar to get it out is 100% determined to dismantle the very fabric of American society which has lifted many out of poverty. With every breath in my body I will not take any B.S. period. And that’s what Bush 43 is selling the American public. What really pisses me off about the guy is that he campaigned for a freakin segranionist!!! in 72′ in the guard because his dad was a congressman instead of doing his duty. Then he turns around and wraps himself in the flag.FLUNK HIM DUDES.
by the way I would like to hear Sister Toldjah’s opinion on what I just commented on.
My comment would be:
I like the empty rhetoric. Just how is GWB going to;
“dismantle the very fabric of American society which has lifted many out of poverty.”
Social Security needs changing. I find it funny that so many Dems had no problem with private ownership under Clinton, but under Bush we here comments such as the one quoted above. I often times feel that they know that private ownership will work, they just want to make sure they, the Dems, will get the credit. I continue to see Dems being less interested in the good of the country and more interested in how do we get back in power. My first bit of advice would be, clean your house. Get rid of the buffoons who are presently leading you into a sink hole. Number 2 would be stop being obstructionists. Good Lord let’s try to reason together for the good of all. I just don’t see this happening presently. I am certain that I am not alone in my advice. – Lorica
tommy, that was truly empty of you to say that. Do you need to be reminded once again about Robert “KKK” Byrd??? Also that Sen. Al Gore, Sr., not only voted against the 64 Civil Rights Act but was in the pocket of Armand Hammer? Oh, you might forgive the Gores for being in Hammer’s employ since Hammer was such a good friend of the USSR.
Do you want to talk about Kennedy and Kerry getting out of the service early? We don’t even have to play back Bubba’s words.
Just get off the Bush hate. The more you spew it out, the more wrong you prove yourself to be.
Tommy wrote, “Bush 43 wants to totally dismantle the social security system in my opinion.”
There’s another flaw in the tactic of liberals (like yourself) when debating. You actually think you can talk about what others want. You nor anyone else can tell us what is in someone else’s head (what they want). I disagree with your premise and your ability to state such a premise. Look at Heritage Foundation or Cato’s research on the actual proposal from the White House. It is a very modest change letting you the payer of money into the Social Security System MANAGE 6% of your contributions towards MUTUAL FUNDS (not stocks) in a diversified way. The last 100 years shows that there isn’t a 40 year period where anyone lost money with mutual funds. There was always significant growth (higher than inflation). Giving people a NEST EGG that they can call their own is something they can pass down to family members when they die. Currenlty, african-americans/black men die earlier than white men and that means they didn’t draw out as much social security as they paid in and there is NOTHING to show for it when they die.
You proved the pattern again with your attack. It was an inaccurate attack on what Bush wants when you couldn’t possibly state what he wants.
Tommy continued his pattern by stating, “This guy thinks unions and social security are reminiscent of communism.
So. now you think you can state what someone else thinks… He hasn’t stated such thing ever yet that’s what he thinks. I personally think that unions siphon people’s paychecks of $50-$70 per month towards the DNC (and in CA to fight Arnold), and when 40% of union members of Republican, it should be made so that union members can opt to not have thier union dues go to politics. The 3 props in CA stating such failed because of lying by the left in advertising. And why do government employees need unions anyway? Before the unions it’s been always known that a government job gives mediocre pay and good benefits. Now, 20 years later the unions have done nothing but propoganda. The government employees STILL have mediocre pay and good benefits.
Democrats like yourself also use these kinds of arguments, “who by the way was born with a silver spoon shoved so far down his mouth you’d need a crowbar to get it out
We were faced with choices of Gore and Bush and Kerry and Bush. You could use the same argument with either of the 3. Gore and Kerry have been politicians (just like Clinton also) for more than the past 20 years. Not earning a living. I would say that any one of them could’ve been said to have a silver spoon in their mouth. But what would you rather have? Someone who hasn’t been near a rich person for the last 20 years and hates them like yourself. Someone who’s inclined to remove the wealth from wealthy in order to redistribute it? And then what does the government do for the next 20 years. There would be no more wealth to confiscate as it was confiscated and nobody would take the risk of starting businesses or being CEO’s or anything that would give them wealth again only to have it confiscated. Your arguments are just attacks not debates of ideas.
Tommy asserted he knows what someone wants or think again by saying, “determined to dismantle the very fabric of American society which has lifted many out of poverty
Know you know what someone is determined to do?
The rest of your post is more hate and no debate. I’d say you flunked.
BTW, As you stated, “FLUNK HIM DUDES”…. you should know, flunking him doesn’t flunk conservativism. Bush is a little to the left of center and while conservatives would’ve liked to see a social security plan that was more daring and larger tax cuts than what was enacted and no federal spending on stem cell research (where’s that in the constitution) and stopping of illegal immigration (the Congress finally got to that this year)… the Democrats aren’t about to do any of that and the conservatives don’t have enough conservative Republicans in Congress.
This country has moved left for over 6 decades and the recent plurality (since 1994) of Republican governors, state legislatures and Congressional members and then finally with the 2001 Republican President to match those pluralities doesn’t mean the country is moving right. If anything it just means we were able to be more tough on the war on terror yet not as tough as conservatives have wanted. National security is important. Shrinking government to it’s constitutionally bound duties is important. Providing for a strong safety net would be important. If you want to talk about WANTS, I’d say the Democrats want to dilute the strong safety net into a hammock as the safety net should be for the elderly and non-able-bodied not for anyone who doesn’t want to have personal responsibility and be lazy.
Jim Crow was big government (the left).
Unions had a time and place and now they are mostly present in government jobs (higher percentage than private sector jobs) and only seem to provide mass mayhem and no improvements lately (with the timed UPS strike and the MTA strike last week). With a VERY good economy the employers have had to pay more to entice good workers and good workers can write their destiny. Nobody in the Republican party is saying that unions should be banned. What we are saying is that unions shouldn’t be able to siphon off everyone’s paychecks towards the DNC.
Answer to your question.. .Easier. I left home at the age of 17. I served. Everything I have is everything I’ve earned. I’m 35 and much farther along spiritually, financially, emotionally than my parents were. My children are happier than I was as a child. We’ve evolved. We know more as parents. We can accomplish more faster. I’m sorry you don’t think so and are unhappy but that colors the way you view things. You should learn and I believe the more you stay here on this site you will learn how to communicate and debate solutions/policies/ideas as opposed to discrediting/attacking/accusing.
And… No, I’m not delusional. Thank you for attempting the serious discussion. Your last sentence failed that attempt again.
Well baklava ‘m 35 yrs old too and I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints. Your crack about Jim Crow being the era of big government was uncalled for and inaccurate. You fail to understand that left unchecked laizze-fair capitilism will divide Americans more than unite. If you take a job with a union you can not pick and choose how your dues are spend. Same as the government officals that we elect. It is a good thing that we are moving away from name-calling and bashing. Hopefully youse on the right begin to realize that the left is not the Taliban or Al-Queda. Simply put we just have different opinions on how this great nation deals with adversity in the future.
I do recognize that in the low income sectors that the presence of illegal immgrants drives down wages for “legal” immigrants as well as other low skilled 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation americans. I do believe that it is not an excuse that americans won’t do the work of picking lettuce or strawberries.
I believe you should join the conservatives in fighting “illegal” immigration as you say you “care” about “blue collar” workers being able to make a living. Most Americans are earning a good wage in this good economy and can afford to pay twice as much ($2) for their lettuce. Taking into account inflation, fruits and vegetables used to be a WHOLE lot more expensive. Produce has essentially deflated in price substantially in the last 3 or 4 decades. The same as other consumer items.
I welcome you stepping away from the Demcrat leadership’s talking points and coming to an age of intelligent debate and working in this country’s best interest with conservatives.
Tommy,
You contradicted yourself tremendously in your 3:32 post. I missed this at first.
Here it is:
You say moving left over the past 6 decades has been a good thing. And then you think that if anyone thinks this country is better off than when their parents were growing up they are delusional. Me thinks the characterization fits?
At any rate, the government has grown big time over the last 6 decades. The government hasn’t shrunk one of those years during the last 60. It has spent more every year. I for one would welcome a trim back.
There is a company of 100 employees here in the Sacramento Area. It’s purpose in life is to help the over 600 school districts in CA to file over 12,000 “filings” to claim monies from the federal government. Why? Because there are over 45 federal regulations/laws giving money to schools for various reasons. There are over 180 illiteracy programs.
What it boils down to is propoganda and accusations by the left against conservatives.
Over 90% of education money is spent by the states. The Department of Education was started in 1979. When Republicans talked about getting rid of the newly created Department of Education, Democrats demonized Republicans as not caring. That was pre 1995. If a Republican voted against another illiteracy program because there is already more than 180 they were called anti-education. Time and time again folks like you Tommy will villify and demonize as opposed to getting to the root of the problems and debating solutions and ideas to tackle the problems. The way you think apparently is that the 50% of America who is conservative just don’t care. But what conservatives generally understand is that 99% of people care we just have different ideas/solutions for the problems. I used to be a liberal in 1991. Now I look at what the results would be for a proposed solution as opposed to what I “feel” about a proposed solution. I wish you’d do the same.
I am a centrist conservative? Why? Because I’m a realist. I know that it’d be impossible to actually cut government in the stage we are in now. Not only that but cutting government would actually hurt the economy. I am in favor of keeping the size of government the same size for the next 10 years while we reprioritize what the government spends money on to it’s constitutional requirements (federal requirement is national security) and strenthening the safety net and paying it’s obligations and debts.
Tommy wrote, “Gen Dwight Eisenhower summed it up best when he mentioned that we as a nation need to look out for a military-industrial complex. That’s one reason us on the left are skeptical of when the right starts yapping about smaller government.
We are spending the smallest percentage of our wealth (4% of GDP) on defense since post WW2 yet we are in a time of war. And for the record, it’s not yapping, it’s re-informing you that the constitution talks about the federal government providing for our defense. It is the foremost important thing and yet liberals ONLY bring up cutting government for national security (defense). You’ve got it backwards my friend. Completely. liberalism is to the left and on a political scale of -10 to +10 0 (zero) is zero growth and -10 would be maximum growth of government (communism/socialism) and to the right would be cutting government. Libertarians want government to be cut by 80%. To the left of that would be anarchy.
A centrist conservative like me is very much interested in a strong nation with strong national security (defense) and I recognize to cut 80% would severly hurt this country’s economy and ability to protect itself.
Tommy wrote, “If you are not 100% in agreement with our current commander in chief then you you don’t support the troops right?
Nope. I don’t know who you are referring to but all we are stating is that you keep making inaccurate accusations AND in a time of war. If you don’t like someone telling you you are making inaccurate accusations then stop making them. I myself only agree with the president between 50%-70% of the time. I am a centrist/conservative and Bush is to the left of me. Therefore I don’t agree with him 100% as your premise asserted (inaccurate).
Toomy inaccurately asserted his knowledge again of what someone else thinks by saying, “What I will say is this the G.O.P. IMHO does not nor will it ever care about working-class America
I’d say in rebuttal (stooping to your level) that the Democrat party does not care about working americans and only wished to penalize success and reward those who don’t work. And never will the Democrats care. nah nah nah nah. Is that debate more to your liking??
Tommy showed his lack of economic knowledge by writing, “Tax cuts during wartime is not the same sacrifice as rationing that my parents went thru during WW11
First. During this war we haven’t had to ration. Secondly, why would we raise taxes in 2001 (during a recession). Raising taxes has the effect of taking more money from what people and companies earn. When people and companies have less of what they earned they have less to spend. When they have less to spend less goods and services are purchased. When less goods and services are purchased companies aren’t given as much money for goods and services. When companies aren’t given as much money for goods and services, companies must cut back on the production of goods and services. When that happens they must also decrease the amount of employees they have producing the goods and services. When that happens LESS government revenues are received than if the taxes weren’t raised. That is a recogniztion of supply side economics. Taxes aren’t static. REVENUES INTO THE GOVERNMENT in these last 2 years have increased in the DOUBLE-DIGIT range even though taxes were lowered due to the booming economy. Why is it booming? Because the reverse happened. Companies and individuals were able to keep more of their money and therefore they had more to spend. More goods and services were purchased. More individuals were needed by company to produce the goods and services.
Tommy propogandized non-truth with saying, “All I know is that 43′s rheatoric does not match his actions with a spiralling defecit and tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans cause’ they the ones who made out because of them.
True deficits went up in 2001. Why? Revenues declined due to deep recession. People argue as to who caused the recession. Terrorists/Y2K decline in spending after large surge/business cycle. But what can’t be argued is that the revenue went down in Bush’s first 2 years. The Tax cuts for ALL (I noticed your lie asserting only for the top 1%) income tax payers helped the economy and added more revenues into the government of up to double-digit increases these last 2 years. The problem lies on the growth of government (you lefties). President Bush has signed Congresses bills authorizing very high increases in Domestic as well as defense spending (due to the war). Bush’s increases in spening in the domestic arena have been larger than Clinton’s increases. Therefore, big government IS the problem and Bush HAS been to the left of center (grown government). I WELCOME you to the side of reducing the growth of government to the center or right as that IS the solution to a defecit problem and not raising tax rates as I explained above.
tommy, tommy, you are so misinformed that I don’t know where to start with you. Eisenhower’s farewell is not an anti-war, anti-”Military-Industrial complex” speech as many propagandists on the left try to spin. You take 2 sentences out of context and try to paint Eisenhower falsely with it. That isn’t honest, tommy.
When you and other liberals insist on such behaviour, you wonder why you are derided as being liars and intellectually dishonest. You give us no other examples or evicence contrary to the behaviour you exhibit to prove otherwise.