Top Ten Liberal Morons

[The1calledTKE]

Ok we have reasons for a few on the list now. How about the rest? Are they morons because you just don't like them or is there a reason they are morons?

[Kevin]

Only 10? How do you rank them.. I mean clearly Barbara Streisand is #1.. But only 10 spots.. geez.

Should be lots more.

[The1calledTKE]

Well she was tring to be like the other thread because it was a list from a website that did top 10. I am sure either side could come up with alot more than 10 if they wanted too.

[bethany1982]

The Ivy League only counts for liberals. Why? Because! Because! Just Because! Stop it! I gave you an answer. It's just because!

Why are they Morons? Well, I'm not sure that's the term I'd use to describe the vast liberal disease represented here, but it is the title of the thread, so I'll go with it.

1) Howard Dean - So many reasons, so little time. I think I'll go with his statements profiling certain white men from the South (who gives a damn about them anyways, they are white males... come on) while trying to attract their votes. Imagine that, the Democratic front runner courting the Stars and Bars. Yep, I wanna be the candydate (Misspelled on purpose) of all you pickup truck driving rednecks waving the rebel flag. What an ass.

2) Al Gore - For actually believing that 8 years of serving Bill Clinton would be advantageous to his own presidential bid. Gore only scores half a moron though; according to last night’s news, he and William the Impeached have not been on speaking terms for quite some time. Good for Al!

3) Hillary Clinton - For concocting the "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" BS story in defense of William, rather than looking at her husbands Vast Marital Infidelity. She could have saved herself that TV interview. On the other hand, the good senator likes a good media op. Actually, I think Mrs. Clinton is a Moron for believing anything this man has ever told her, including, “I Do”.

4) Bill Clinton - For having absolutely no respect for women. No respect. None. Period!

5) Al Franken - Give me a break. He's a satirist. I think he’s funny, in an asinine sort of way. Anyone, who takes anything this nut has to say seriously, probably deserves a spot on the Moron List.

6) Paul Patton - I'll stay out of this one. It's not my backyard

7) Gray Davis - Ah yes, Gray the Recalled. For lying, ummm, I mean, for being deceitful to the people of California in order to get re-elected. Then, after the success of a dirty campaign, politically misplacing the support of even his favorite special interest groups. Face it, any Democrat who can't keep the teachers union on his side, is a moron.

8)Al Sharpton - Again, this one is not my backyard... but it's tempting.

9) Barbara Streisand - For spoiling such a dynamic voice with such unbelievable political stupidity

10)Alec Baldwin - Move already!

11)Nadine Strossen (president ACLU) - Come on, it’s the ACLU. Enough said!

[UKDaisy]

To add onto Bethany's post:

3) Hillary Clinton - For concocting the "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" BS story in defense of William, rather than looking at her husbands Vast Marital Infidelity. She could have saved herself that TV interview. On the other hand, the good senator likes a good media op. Actually, I think Mrs. Clinton is a Moron for believing anything this man has ever told her, including, “I Do”.



And destroying White House material (a 60 yr old lamp and a table) after a press conference early in Bill's term. Wow, there are so many reasons! The whole scandel at the end where her and Bill were pardoning people. I hear people say they want her to run for president. If she did I honestly believe her life would be in danger. (this was a PHI 330 discussion one day)


6) Paul Patton - I'll stay out of this one. It's not my backyard


This is my backyard......Patton had an ongoing affair - when charged, he (oh wait this sounds familar) lied about it to KY. Then the woman proved that she was hired, given a raise, and extra benefits all during their affair. Then he had to admit it. He has ruined our education system, taxs a bitch, and he overall is a hypocrite.

[Betarulz!]

Here's an excerpt from Michael Moore's own website: you can read the rest here


How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them – and, then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!


Some things about the statements made from the website AlphaGam1019 utilized: Obviously the authors of the website are incapable of reading at a level above the 8th grade. Their reading comprehension is mired in absolute literalism. Moore may call the Democrats losers, but that doesn't mean there isn't a candidate who has the best chance of winning among the Democrats does it? I think not.

You can read Moore's own defense about Bowling for Columbine on the link above, however I figure most ultra-conservatives probably won't, simply for the fact that they'd rather remain ignorant so they can bitch rather than actually listen, blindly attack rather than think.

As for Stupid White Men: Moore did not say that Bush stole the election because convicted felons were not allowed to vote, he said that Bush stole the election because 1000s of people who were not convicted felons were prevented from voting. Jeb and Katherine Harris purged the voting status of people who shared the same birthday, last name, first name or race with the convicted felons. No where does he say that he thinks convicted felons should have voted. However, he does say that simply because you share the same birthday and color of skin as the convict does not mean that you should not be allowed to vote.
In terms of Enron the reader is obviously unable to understand sarcasm though they seem to be able to use it themselves...

As for "Dude" it's pretty easy to take three words out of a 250 page book and twist it into a statement that serves your very politically slanted purpose. If one goes on to read on to the next page Moore says this,

"Now when I say there is no terrorist threat, I am not saying that there are no terrorists, or that there are no terrorist incidents, or that there won't be other terrorist incidents in the future. There ARE terrorists, they HAVE commited evil acts, and, tragically, they WILL commit acts of terror in the not-too-distant future. Of that I am sure.

But just because there are a few terrorists does not mean we are all in some exaggerated state of danger. Yet when they speak of terrorists, they speak of them as if they are in the millions (emphasis by author), that they're everywhere, and they are never going away. Cheney has called this a "new normalcy," a condition that "will become permanent in American life." They only hope.

Quite the different story when you go beyond three words...

[mullet81]

Originally posted by bethany1982
11)Nadine Strossen (president ACLU) - Come on, it’s the ACLU. Enough said!

Speaking of the ACLU, one of my favorite quotes from a movie is this one from the American President

"For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago."

Whats so wrong with the ACLU

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by mullet81
Speaking of the ACLU, one of my favorite quotes from a movie is this one from the American President

"For the record, yes, I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, but the more important question is "Why aren't you, Bob?" Now this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the question, why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for President, choose to reject upholding the constitution? Now if you can answer that question, folks, then you're smarter that I am, because I didn't understand it until a few hours ago."

Whats so wrong with the ACLU

mullet, I love you. That's one of my favorite movie quotes.

[PhiPsiRuss]

for "inventing" the internet.

[AlphaGam1019]

oh puulease. I'm afraid to say more in fear of a naked protest.

[AlphaGam1019]

Originally posted by kappaloo
The existance of one doesn't neccessarly justify the other. Micheal Moore is far more complicated that that piece suggests. I'm not going to get into that here though... (attempting not the hijack)

If the conservative idiots thread uses a "non-biased" source, let me know. Until then, everything is fair game.

[kappaloo]

Originally posted by AlphaGam1019
If the conservative idiots thread uses a "non-biased" source, let me know. Until then, everything is fair game.

As as I said before... I was talking about the Michael Moore Shpeal... not the lists.

... what ever happened to taking the high road, btw?

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by russellwarshay
for "inventing" the internet.

Do I have to go find my favorite post ever that I made? Kitso probably has it saved.

[imsohappythatiama]

Notice that conservatives on this site have pretty much left the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" thread alone, while liberals on this site have taken it upon themselves to counter most things posted in the "Top Ten Liberal Morons" thread.

I feel like this whole conservative vs. liberal thing on GC has turned into the same fiasco we have with the Britney-lovers vs. the Britney-haters: When one side posts a thread which is OBVIOUSLY going to be about why (for example) some group of posters LOVES Britney, the Britney-haters--for no reason other than sheer confrontational glee (it seems)--come into the thread to tell everyone how horrible Britney is.

Why is this necessary? Conservatives know that liberals don't agree with them, and vice versa. Same with the pro- and anti-Britney folks. If one side wants to start a thread in which they talk about why they perceive their side to be best, you KNOW you're going to disagree and start a fight for no good reason. Why do people just inherently enjoy in stirring up drama?

Now, don't get me wrong--I am all for public discourse and the free marketplace of ideas. But what's going on in this thread here is just a lot of liberals coming in to say "you're wrong, you nasty, one-sided conservatives," without any salient points, nor (more importantly) any interest in actually engaging in discourse. Instead you just seem to want to agitate because you can.

Here's the thing--we've heard all of your points before, and you aren't adding anything new to the discourse. Many conservatives do find fault with the 10 (or eleven, as the case may be) folks listed in this thread, and will continue to find fault with what they do....just as you will find fault with the people on your similar, but conservative-targeted list on GC.

I (as a conservative) understand why liberals don't like the people on your conservative idiots list. I don't agree with you, but I understand that from where you stand as liberals/democrats/leftists (whatever), those 10 people look pretty unappealing. I disagree with you, but I'm not going to waste my time coming into that thread to try to bash your viewpoint, or to change your mind--because you have the right to think the way you want to think, and to vote the way you want to vote.

I guess I just don't understand why (at least in this thread) that same courtesty or respect hasn't been extended. It's somewhat hypocritical, if you ask me.

There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion. I'm just asking everyone to simmer down and RESPECT the beauty of a difference of opinion.

[End hijack]

[moe.ron]

both liberals and conservative eat poo. Viva Anarchist.