Liberal Idiot of the Week
Friday, May 14, 2010 at 3:21PM Eric Holder - Attorney General
Eric Holder is the socialist hack who oversees the Department of Justice. He seems to frequently find himself in the middle of controversy due to the stupid things he says... or doesn't say. Yesterday he traveled to Capitol Hill for a Congressional hearing where he made more news.
First, he refused to link radical islam to the three most recent domestic terrorist attempts/attacks. How far outside of reality do you have to travel to not link the two? Don't we have enough proof at this point? The last number I heard was that 99% of all terrorism is committed by radical islamists, but he wouldn't want to jump the gun or anything.
Absurd.
Secondly, he admitted that he had not yet read the Arizona Immigration Bill that he spent all Sunday morning savaging on network news shows. Think about this for a second. The chief law-enforcement officer in the land is criticizing - in detail - a highly controversial bill he has not even read. I'm not sure it gets much worse than that.
So, what did we learn from this dolt's appearance yesterday? He finds it more difficult to admit that radical islam played a part in the last three domestic terrorist attacks, than he does to comment on an immigration bill he has not read.
As Dan Quayle once said, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is".
I knew that quote would eventually prove useful. For this and so much more, Eric Holder is our LIOTW.
Click HERE for the previous Liberal Idiot winners.
Reader Comments (30)
That's a great piece Pundit. I laughed when I got to the Quayle line. Hilarious!
Great choice. The guy is a disgrace.
Well said and on the money. I'm with Dan, the guy is an absolute disgrace. If he were any worse, he'd be in the White House.
This is my second time posting here... The last time I found that the FL Pundit and many commenters believe that MOST Western countries are headed by "socialist" governments. So I'm not surprised to now find that you all consider Obama and Holder to be socialists as well.
Point of clarification: are there ANY heads of elected governments (note the word "elected") in the Western World that you people do NOT consider to be socialist? It appears to me that your definition of the word is so preposterously broad that it would include virtually every politician in the West (except maybe a few Republicans in the US).
Holder is an empty shirt and a clueless moron
Ryan,
IYou have posted here only twice and have obviously NOT had the chance to review much of Pundit's site or the comments that occur here. I have been reviewing Pundit's site for over a month and can say that your assertion that Pundit believes "MOST Western countries are headed by "socialist" governments" is untrue. Obama and many of his minions are consistently called socialist with good reasons:
1) The people they have consistently surrounded themselves with throughout their lives and political careers have been admitted socialists, communists, and outright thugs. I could list several but I don't want to deny you your much needed practice at actual research.
2) Many of the comments and papers written by these people support, at a minimum, their socialist leanings and sympathy.
3) Their policies, political procedures and stances, and shady methodologies are the most apparent evidence.
Your statements, while accusing Pundit and his commentators of being broad, are extremely broad and nonspecific. While accusing us of being nonfactual, you include comments that are unsupported by any facts. Do some research, take a break from the Kool-aide, and quit trying to paint a fanatical picture of ignorance over those who disagree with you.
holder is just being a good comrade and does not want to defame the religion of his boss-now will you all pull out that little piece of rug i have provided here, turn to the east and hum along with me-allah ahktooy or something like that
"Their policies, political procedures and stances, and shady methodologies are the most apparent evidence."
As was discussed earlier, the policies, stances, and methodologies of the present US government are among the most right wing in the developed world... I can think of only two Western countries' governments that might be more right wing than our own: Poland's and Italy's. Does anyone think there is another government in the West more to the right (or LESS socialist) than our own? I'm curious.
My point, Marine and others, is that by making these gross generalizations about our government being socialist and having a socialist agenda, you do a disservice to those who are attempting to point out real, significant flaws with our government. When you step back and realize that your definition of "socialist" is so broad that it includes virtually every elected person in the developed world, then you should realize that it is not an affective critique. Seems to me like more evidence of the "paranoid style in American politics," nothing else.
But prove me wrong: Name a single Western foreign government (besides the two I named) that is further right than our own.
Or don't prove me wrong: Step up to the plate and admit that your definition of socialism is so broad that you believe most (what, 90%?) of the developed world is socialist.
Ryan, if I take your comments as fact, that America is at the top of right wing leaning countries, then it is because of people like Fl Pundit and the free thinking people who post here. It is people who believe as we do that resist the efforts of evil men like the ones who inhabit the Obama administration.
Your kind will never drag us to the point you where you have fallen. The Obama administration is more socialist than you will find in most countries, however, America does not instantly change to follow the beliefs of the president. Thank God our country's founders had the foresight to allow us to peacefully change our leadership when we see that they are leading us in the wrong direction.
"The Obama administration is more socialist than you will find in most countries..."
Time to back that up, Horsebutt -- Which countries?
Here's another game for you all to fail at: If Obama is such a socialist, then you all should have no trouble naming some world leaders who are further to the RIGHT than Obama.
Why can't anyone just come right out and admit the obvious implication -- that you all believe that most (what, 90%?) of the developed world is socialist?
i nominate rian the next liberal idiot of the week
Ryan,
you sound like you just fell off the turnip truck....Obama further to the right than any other
world leader is like saying Sister Theresa's views is the same as or equal to Attila the Hun..
I think i hear them calling you over at Huffinton (huff-puff) Post....
Epic fail.
I'll give you a hint, it's not David Cameron. The only Western leader I can think of who is more RIGHT wing than Obama is Berlusconi... but you Know Nothings STILL can't come up with an answer? Do you all still continue to (WRONGLY) believe that "the Obama administration is more socialist than you will find in most countries?" Really???
So we've learned two things here:
1. You all HONESTLY believe that Most of the world is run by socialists. You believe that most of the developed world has elected socialist leaders. LOL
2. You believe that I am a "liberal idiot" and "just fell off the turnip truck" because.... not sure exactly. Because I asked a question that you can't answer? LOL
If you can't answer my simple question, I suggest that you haven't thought through your beliefs very much. I suspect that you all were useful idiots for a while, but my GOP is done with you Know Nothings now. We still have some intellectual pride here -- the faster you can get that Tea Party off the ground, the better.
Hey Moron (Ryan), a welfare state is essentially a socialist country. That's what big government, high taxes and more regulation means, or did you have that confused with smaller government, free market capitalism? Virtually every country that has a democratically elected government is now a welfare state to a greater or lesser degree. The leadership may not always be socialist, but many of the built-in entitlement programs they inherent are.
In our case, your idiot leader is increasing the size of the American welfare state at a 1930's pace. It will take him some time to accomplish his goals because he doesn't enjoy dictatorial power, and because the country he inherited was relatively conservative compared to other democratically elected governments. That being said, what does it matter if another government is left or right of our government? That's a stupid, irrelevant comparison considering the speed at which our country is moving left.
Now please go run your online circle jerk somewhere else. I'm tired of reading your mindless, ill-conceived tripe.
"[A] welfare state is essentially a socialist country." Bingo! We have a player!
So, according to the King of the Know Nothings, socialism means "big government, high taxes and more regulation." Actually, no. Since you're obviously new to the idea, I suggest Wikipedia as a good starting place for your education on different political systems.
Your second fail is not so much a fail as it is a moving of the goal posts: "who cares if another government is left or right of our government... [t]he point is, our executive and legislative branches are moving at light speed to increase the size of [blah, blah, blah]." So, we're not talking about our current government being socialist anymore? Better inform your minions and revise a boatload of entries on your awesome blog.
The real (cogent) point, oh great King of the Know Nothings, is two-fold:
1. Taking your ideas about Obama to their logical conclusion (if our government is socialist then virtually every government in the West is socialist) shows how unhinged from reality they are.
2. A lot of us in the real world are combating the excesses and misguided policies of this group of elected leaders by pointing out their flaws and offering legitimate alternatives; ranting and raving about socialism (and accomplishing nothing) does not further that goal. It may further the Know Nothing goal though. I'm not in a position to impugn your Kingdom, but I am qualified to lament the lack of legitimate, logical discourse on MY SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE these days.
But I'm addressing a "man" who thinks a running column called "Liberal Idiot of the Week" somehow benefits the cause. (Does he?) Actually, not a whole lot of DISCOURSE (legitimate or otherwise) to be found here. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.
This is real simple Dumbo. Smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation and greatly decreased or eliminated entitlement programs. That is the only legitimate alternative to the welfare state. The rest of your previous commentary is unworthy of comment. Wikipedia? Are you in middle school?
And by the way, you're no more a conservative than I am a nuclear physicist. You're a liberal troll stirring the pot with nonsense and ill-conceived logic. I think NAMBLA is probably looking for their IT guy. Better get back to work twit.
Hey Ryan, since some of your comments were directed at me, let me tell you that I will never run from a debate with you unless you, like most liberals, leave the planet with your stupid, meaningless, mouth excrement.
Fl Pundit (dear leader) told you better than I ever could, but the degree to which a person is a socialist is determined by so many factors till it's not apples to apples. One of those factors would be how quickly a person can change another form of government into total socialism. Obama does not enjoy total control over this country as an absolute socialist leader would. However, in a very short time he has been able to bring large portions of capitalism to it's knees. (G.M. etc.)
If our founding documents were not so brilliant, Obama's future for this country would be: every person working where the government told them and the fruits of their labor going to where ever he saw fit. So you compare him with other leaders(I think he is more socialist minded than most others). Is he more of a socialist than Castro, Cameron(Brown) or others? Depends!
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I started off this little discussion by asking for some justification for the liberal application of the word "socialist" here to the current administration. I was wondering if you all either A.) do not know what socialism is, or B.) have your own preposterous definition of it. Something that calls itself "CWC" responded that socialism is "big government, high taxes and more regulation." The idiocy of that statement hit me pretty quick, but you guys seem a little slow on the uptake... So let me repeat it:
According to this blog, the definition of Socialism is the following: "big government, high taxes, and more regulation."
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
And when I press you on your shaky understanding of political systems, you respond by "accusing" me of being a liberal! LOL. (What does that have to do with your inability to answer a question?) Oh well... Just goes to show, you can lead a Know Nothing to the internet but you can't make him think.
Good luck to you, gentlemen. And for the love of God, get some education in ye!
Adieu
Ryan, do yourself a favor and give it up. You got owned.
Ryan,
Maybe we disagree with Obama because of our faith and convictions, and his policies of
turning us into a nanny state has nothing to do with it...Before we thought there was only
one Messiah, but you liberals believe President Onasty ( boy Barry ) was the immaculate
conception of 2008, reincarnated as a liberal Democrat from kenya with virtuous qualities
to save the unwashed conservatives from the evil world...
Please note i called you a liberal Democrat and will until you prove otherwise...