Conservatidiot of the Day: The Founder of GippersList

Do you remember searching for that used two-string banjo you bought through CraigsList a few months ago? Remember when you contacted the seller, only to discover that he was a Prada-wearing, flag-burning homosexual with an "Obama '08" bumper sticker on his pink Prius? Don't you wish you had a place to go where you can buy and sell items among those who share similar conservative interests as you, where you won't have to buy goods from tax-loving, minority-friendly commie bastards? Well, now you can, thanks to GippersList, a conservative classifieds site similar to CraigsList, but without all those pesky liberals charging 10% sales tax and forcing you to convert to homosexual atheism with your purchase.

The founder of GippersList, whose name is not on the website, thought it was a swell idea to combine the model of CraigsList with the insanity of the modern conservative movement. Apparently, conservatives aren't already isolated enough from the real world by posting inane comments on the Politico forums or preparing themselves for their shipment to those re-edumacation camps Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann think are on the way, so they now need a place where they can buy and sell items exclusively to other conservative crackpots who share their pain. And boy, GippersList is a diamond among gems. Just take a look at some of the "Frequently" Asked Questions on the website:

What is GippersList?
GippersList is a place where conservatives can buy and sell goods and services. It’s for both businesses and individuals.

...Because CraigsList was never designed for both businesses and individuals, right?

How is GippersList different from other classified websites?
GippersList does not contain offensive categories. In addition, we have more communities included (and can easily add communities if there is enough demand) and more subcategories. In our opinion, it is much more user-friendly and intuitive.

First, CraigsList has PLENTY of communities and areas included in their directory. Yeah, Wyoming gets an entire category on its own, but do you know why CraigsList does that? Because no one lives in Wyoming. Why waste bandwidth by having separate categories for Laramie, Casper and Jackson Hole when users post less than one ad in each category every day? Second, what "offensive" material are they talking about? There are dating services on CraigsList, but if you don't want to read about horny daddies searching for college boys with stoma fetishes, you don't have to click on the relationship categories.

So, in other words, GippersList is different because it seeks to waste bandwidth and exclude homosexuals, unmarried teenagers, and other non-Christian monogamists.

How do I know that the person I'm really doing business with is really a conservative?
The million dollar question! There are no “litmus tests” and GippersList is “on your honor.” The publicity we are doing to promote GippersList is geared toward conservative unbiased and unbiased and conservative media outlets and the positioning is clear. That being said, to support our cause and “prove” that you are a conservative, we ask that all GippersList posters sport a GippersList bumper sticker on their vehicle or in their place of business. When you do a transaction—look for the bumper sticker and if you don’t see it…say something.

Brilliant! If you don't buy our crappy bumper sticker promoting our equally crappy business, you can't be a real conservative! Fear mongering, it seems, has drifted away from politics and into the business world. So remember kids, when buying your goods and services on GippersList, look for a GippersList bumper sticker on that 1992 rusted-out Ford Ranger (it will be next to the Confederate Flag sticker and right above the "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" magnet). Otherwise, the guy you're buying from might be a hidden closet socialist homosexual Muslim who will want to kidnap and rape you while shouting verses from the Q'uran and forcing you to watch an episode of Will & Grace.

Or, the answer to the above question should be fairly obvious: The only people who use GippersList are crackpot conservatives in the first place. Idiots...

And, finally, my favorite "Frequently" Asked Question:

Why Gipper?
It’s simple: we love Ronald Reagan. His life story proves that in America—anything is possible. And we will stop talking about him when the “other side” stops talking about JFK.

Us liberals don't spend every waking minute verbally fellating the rotting corpse of John F. Kennedy. Republicans, on the other hand, like to pretend that Ronald Reagan is still among the living. They like to slap Reagan's name on airports, highways, and parks-- some of which he had never been to, in states he never visited-- in some sort of morbid, eternal memorial that seems a tad bit cultish. See, Democrats don't spend every waking minute masturbating to newsreels of our former presidents, because we like to look to the future when selecting our leaders. That's why we never had the eight Democratic presidential candidates debate at a memorial to FDR, JFK or Harry Truman. No, we didn't invite Lady Bird Johnson to any of our debates, we didn't ask the question "What would Truman do?" during the presidential campaign. And we didn't squawk rabidly whenever one of our candidates disagreed with a fundamental policy from one of our earlier leaders.

Republicans, on the other hand, have dephiled Ronald Reagan's memory enough, and GippersList is perhaps the spitting image of delusional obsession taken to the max. If Ronald Reagan were alive today, and able to remember how to formulate a sentence, I'm certain he would denounce this website as utter trash. Why would he want his name associated to the backwards causes of a bunch of redneck extremists whose fear of a liberal America has caused them to create their own CraigsList-like website? If I were Reagan, I'd rise out of my grave and file a lawsuit.

But anyway, I would like to wish GippersList luck. You know, the next time I'm looking for used autoparts, and I desperately want that "tossed all over my front lawn" feeling from them, I may have to consider posting on this website. These people probably aren't all bad. They're just idiots living on the extremist fringe.

Conservatidiots of the Day: Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham

The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor have begun, which means the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have amped up the crazy factor to eleven in order to paint the long-serving judge as a reverse racist, a hothead, and an anti-American villain straight out of a 1960s propaganda film. While there are plenty of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to dissect and analyze, two stuck out like 'lil Southern dandies strapped to a telephone pole in the Bronx, repeating some of the same baseless attacks promoted by the conservative blogosphere while also coming up with some creative attack lines of their own.

First, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) grilled Sotomayor on her Puerto Rican heritage. Not only did he become the one millionth conservative to bastardize her "wise Latina" remarks, but he also voiced his belief that all Puerto Rican judges should vote the same way:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit, and in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could have changed that case. So in truth you weren't bound by that case.

Brilliant! Sessions apparently believes that Sotomayor should refrain from independent thought on the bench, and vote with her colleagues because they are of the same skin color and ancestry. This should come of no surprise, considering Sen. Sessions was a former supporter of the Ku Klux Klan down in good old Alabama, so naturally, all Puerto Ricans are single-minded and dependent on one another when it comes to decision making. By the way, for those of you wondering who this Judge Cabranes is, he is a federal judge nominated to the bench by conservative darling Ronald Reagan in 1986. Surely, you'd think Cabranes would be on the same page as Jeff Sessions, considering Sessions used him as political fodder in his attacks against Sotomayor. Well, think again, as this is what Cabranes had to say when he was made aware of Sessions's comments:

I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our [Cabranes and Sotomayor's] approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging.

BURN! Feel that, Jeff Sessions? That's the kick in the teeth you routinely get whenever you claim minorities should vote the same way simply because of their race. Something else you should know about Sessions and Cabranes: Sessions was nominated alongside Cabranes in 1986 to become a federal judge. Unlike Cabranes, Sessions was not confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. Why not, you ask? Because of Jeff Sessions's previous affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan and his demonstrated insensitivity towards racial groups. And yet, this man is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he is allowed to snarl and huff at an Hispanic nominee for being "racist" because she said that a Latina woman like herself has different experiences than stuffy old white men like Jeff Sessions. Ironic, no?

Our second conservatidiot is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who really went a mile out of his way to attempt to paint Sotomayor not only as a racist, but as a terrorist sympathizer. Graham, who supports the "war on terra," re-read the "wise Latina" remark and then claimed that her comments could be damaging to advancing democracy in the Middle East. Why? Because apparently, insurgents in the Middle East give a shit what some judicial nominee in the United States has to say about race and gender. Apparently, such statements will set women back in Afghanistan and Iraq, since a justice who pays attention to race in the United States has some sort of domino effect on what happens over there. Of course, by that logic, then we never should have allowed Sandra Day-O'Connor or Ruth Bader-Ginsburg to sit on the bench, since the "terra-ists" fucking hate women and those two could have inspired women to seek political positions in those countries, which would surely rile the extremists over there.

Sort of like what's happening in America, come to think of it: An Hispanic woman who is proud of her ethnic background will most likely be the next Supreme Court justice in the United States, and right-wing extremists around the country are freaking out. They're calling her a "racist," implying that she is an activist when her decisions don't say as much, and insinuating that remarks she made which were misconstrued by pandering white Republicans are secretly supporting the mission of "terra-ists" abroad. Thank you, Sen. Graham, for proving, albeit unintentionally, that the "terra-ists" you hope to defeat are no better than the majority of those within today's Republican Party.

Conservatidiots of the Week

Updating this blog is harder than you think. Not because there's a lack of source material, since conservatives are constantly screwing up and mouthing off these days, but because I have to spend a lot of time researching such instances which are both 1) totally astounding, and 2) something I want to write in-depth about. Additionally, many ongoing topics-- such as the "Sotomayor is a big fat racist" mantra or Sarah Palin's secession from the Alaska governor's mansion-- are just too infuriating and tend to make me want to break my already-worn laptop.

Anyway, I did come across several stories which definitely make you want to invoke the "Facepalm" technique. Here are this week's conservatidiots:

• Rep. Peter King (R-NY), for calling Michael Jackson a "pedophile" and a "child molester" without having substantial proof to validate his claim. King proves he is fantastic at invoking that "judge first, ask questions later" mentality holy-rolling social conservatives constantly spew. Jackson was acquitted in 2003, but King, who lives on Long Island and works in Washington, DC., apparently has access to information the general public doesn't have yet regarding this case, therefore giving him the ability to legally say such horrendous things. Or, he's a hot-headed egomaniac who loves to open his mouth without thinking. I'm going with the latter on this.
• The Drudge Report, for publishing a photo which appears to imply that President Obama looked at a young girl's ass while on last week's trip abroad. Leave it to Matt Drudge to take things entirely out of context; as it turns out, Obama's head was tilted down, because he was helping an aid walk up down some stairs. His eyes were not on that other woman at all, and the video footage from which this photo came from proves this. Then again, this is Matt Drudge we're talking about-- a man who published a photo of Obama in Kenyan garb while on a trip to Africa three years ago, using it to imply that he was a closet Muslim.
• Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for not learning to keep his fucking mouth shut. Not only does he cheat on his wife and leave his kids to have a fling with his Argentinian mistress, but he continues to embarass them almost three weeks after the revelation by leaking more and more details about his sexcapades. I don't need to know that Mark Sanford, who looks like a horse with skin cancer, has had relations with numerous women while married. I don't need to know what they talked about, what they considered doing, and where their relationships went. All I need to know is that he screwed up, horribly, so I can have a good laugh without feeling dirty.
• Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), for having his parents give $96,000 to his mistress's family. According to his attorney, this money was given as "gifts" and was not intended to silence his mistress or her husband-- former employees of Ensign's, nonetheless-- from blabbing to the media. Please excuse me while I let out a resounding HA!
• Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), for threatening to sue the media for "defamation of character" because it continues to speculate about her resignation, ethics probes, and her personal life. Because, you know, the big bad liberal media is responsible for her continuous fuck-ups...
• Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL), for posing for a picture while holding a T-shirt which reads "Fire Congress," handed to him by his oh-so-charming Alabama constituents. Bright either 1) doesn't realize he is a congressman, 2) is just as mindless as his constituents by posing with such a useless shirt, or 3) unaware that his constituents probably want to fire him because he belongs to the same party as the Closet Muslim Socialist Babykiller (Alabama slang for "President Obama"). He also gets a shout-out for voting against the climate bill, when his district is one of the most volatile districts towards the environment. No wonder why his constituents want to fire him; he hates their health and prolonged well-being.
  

Conservatidiot of the Day: Sarah Palin

This Fourth of July weekend, Sarah Palin decided to boost her erratic persona up a notch by announcing her resignation as governor of Alaska, effective at the end of the month. While many political pundits expected Palin would not seek re-election in 2010, presumably to divert her attention to a presidential bid, very few expected her to leave office nearly a year and a half before the end of her first term in office. Though unexpected, this isn't entirely surprising; after all, Sarah Palin certainly wins the award for being the most unconventional and unpredictable politician in modern political history, and this stunt certainly validates that title.

There are several possible reasons why Palin is leaving office early. The most immediate assumption is that she wants to set her sights on the White House as early as possible, and her resignation would allow her to travel the country for nearly three years, winning endorsements and re-introducing herself to the American public. Of course, if Palin really plans to embark on such a tour, maybe she should consider hiring a new speechwriter and a grammar coach, since today's announcement was not only incoherent, but chock full of the same ramblings and hillbilly folk sayings which frightened voters away from the McCain-Palin ticket last year. A second reason for her resignation-- and, in my opinion, is most probably-- is that Palin isn't gearing up for a White House run at all, but is in fact thinking about challenging incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski in next year's Republican Senatorial primary. But Palin would be mortally wounding herself should she decide to go this route, since Murkowski is still extremely popular in Alaska, while Palin's approval ratings are currently hovering near 50%. This stunt will probably hurt her even more among Alaskans, considering they did elect her, after all, to serve four years as governor of their state. A third reason for her resignation is that she is "done with politics"-- that is, a year after Palin subjected herself and her family to intense media scrutiny which she apparently can't handle like a normal politician, she is removing herself from the spotlight altogether to live a sheltered family life. And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Alaska I can sell you for a low price.

My honest opinion is that Palin is gearing up for a political campaign, either for the Senate or the Presidency in 2012. And my educated guess is that Palin will lose both should she pursue them. Alaskans must feel betrayed that their governor-- who abandoned them after losing the presidency to get into petty fights with late night talk show hosts and call for the new, democratically-elected Senator from that state to resign after Ted Stevens' conviction was set aside-- has decided to just stop doing her job altogether. Essentially, Palin is saying that she is bored as governor of Alaska, and she wants to do something else-- whatever that is, the cares and concerns of Alaskans aren't nearly as important as her own ambitions. Should she run for the Senate next year, Alaskans might finally question her rationality, considering Palin easily could have run for the Senate as a sitting governor. Should she run for President in three years, Americans are going to look at her track record and wonder why they should elect a fairly oblivious anti-intellectual who only served 30 months as governor of one of the least-important states in the country as President instead of a fairly popular sitting President. Even better, people will be forced to ask whether she will truly be capable of serving out a full term as governor without leaving early because she can't take the heat. Republicans will probably question this, too, and my bet is that she will be destroyed in the Republican primary for this lopsided decision.

Ultimately, Sarah Palin has ruined her political future by deciding to leave office early. Her credibility is in the tank, and any chance for a national political comeback has been obliterated. Thank you, Sarah, for clearing the 2012 presidential field of yet another contender. Hopefully your replacement will actually do what you failed to do upon his succession of the governorship: The job of the governor of Alaska.