ChrisWeigant.com

The Bigly Historic Banished Words Listicle

[ Posted Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017 – 22:17 UTC ]

From the shores of Gitchee Gumee comes, as always, the official banished words list of the year. Every year (since 1976) the Lake Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan graces us with this list of overused and annoying phrases and the 2017 list is longer than ever. Without further ado, let's get right to this year's crop of banished words and phrases.

You, Sir

Focus

Bête Noir

Town Hall Meeting

Post-Truth

Guesstimate

831

Historic

Manicured

Echo Chamber

On Fleek

Bigly

Ghost

Dadbod

Listicle

"Get your dandruff up..."

Selfie Drone

Frankenfruit

Disruption

While some of these are recent additions to the vernacular (bigly and post-truth, most notably), others are older phrases that have (for some odd reason) been revived (such as "You, Sir," which L.S.S.U. notes hails from the days of dueling.

But some seem rather dated, leaving us to wonder why they didn't make earlier banished lists (town hall meeting would have been appropriate the year the Tea Party rose, for instance, and listicle and guesstimate have been annoying pretty much since the first time they were used). Then there are entries that don't seem all that annoying, but which have been overused (disruption, echo chamber, focus, historic).

Technology and techno-slang always makes an appearance, this year being represented by 831 ("a texting encryption of I love you: 8 letters, 3 words, 1 meaning" -- which we fully admit we'd never heard before), ghost ("to abruptly end communication, especially on social media"), selfie drone, and frankenfruit (a sub-species of frankenfoods).

There are some head-scratchers in there, which haven't ever annoyed us personally (manicured, as in lawns), and one that is just flat-out wrong ("Get your dandruff up..." which really should be "dander"). As always, it is impossible to figure the inner workings of the committee which decides which words and phrases are ban-worthy. Hey, maybe "ban-worthy" will make next year's list if we all start using it like crazy!

In any case, we close with our traditional (and historic) final paragraph, where we focus hard and cram all the banned words in, just to annoy L.S.S.U. with our echo chamber one final time. To the word mavens, we say: "You, Sir, have earned your bête noir status." We had a town hall meeting and decided your list was nothing short of a post-truth guesstimate. Bigly. Your Facebook page deserves ghosting, for all its disruption. Your listicle, in short, gets our dandruff up. If we flew our selfie drone over the manicured lawns of your university to hunt you down, we're guessing you'd be caught stuffing another frankenfruit into your sad dadbods. You may think you're on fleek, but you won't be getting any 831 from us. So there! We've already got enough to worry about in 2017, don't you think?

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

52 Comments on “The Bigly Historic Banished Words Listicle”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, baked-in didn't make the cut. Sad!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nice title, by the way.

  3. [3] 
    michale wrote:

    Then there are entries that don't seem all that annoying, but which have been overused (disruption, echo chamber, focus, historic).

    Heh... I wonder if you can appreciate the irony?? :D

    Technology and techno-slang always makes an appearance, this year being represented by 831 ("a texting encryption of I love you: 8 letters, 3 words, 1 meaning" -- which we fully admit we'd never heard before)

    Have you seen MASTERMINDS?? :D

    In any case, we close with our traditional (and historic) final paragraph, where we focus hard and cram all the banned words in, just to annoy L.S.S.U. with our echo chamber one final time. To the word mavens, we say: "You, Sir, have earned your bête noir status." We had a town hall meeting and decided your list was nothing short of a post-truth guesstimate. Bigly. Your Facebook page deserves ghosting, for all its disruption. Your listicle, in short, gets our dandruff up. If we flew our selfie drone over the manicured lawns of your university to hunt you down, we're guessing you'd be caught stuffing another frankenfruit into your sad dadbods. You may think you're on fleek, but you won't be getting any 831 from us. So there! We've already got enough to worry about in 2017, don't you think?

    Now THAT took talent! :D

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, the ending was pretty good, too. :)

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, nice list. Since I'm as such an age that I never found opportunity to have ever used some of those words is a bit discouraging.

    In the same spirit, here's my own list of:

    Ten Political Terms that Died in 2016

    1. The Tea Party - whether you believe that the TP began as a rant on CNBC, was a project of the Koch brothers, or of Fox News, or was simply an extension of a political stream that manifested once as the Reform Party, you must admit that it's been completely subsumed by Trumpism. RIP, Tea Party.

    2. Gaffe - Now here's a word that died a recent, violent death. The late, great Michael Kinsley defined it as a politician "accidentally telling the truth", and it is usually used in the context of a blunder. This year the term was laid to rest as Trump turned 'accidentally telling the truth' and 'accidentally telling a lie' into some sort of equivocal thing, equaling 'authenticity' and 'telling it like it is'. RIP, Gaffe.

    3. Breaking News - My ex accuses Brian Williams of killing this term, my brother goes with Wolf Blitzer. I think it was overused before either came along, but what I think put the stake in its unfaithful heart was the sight of an empty podium and the words "Breaking News" appearing on my television screen together, in the same frame. That did it. RIP, Breaking News.

    4. Focus Group - In this case, I'm referring to the gathering of 'average voters' that the networks insist we listen to after every debate, a format pioneered by Frank Luntz, the pollster who also popularized 'talking points'. The theory is that these non-media types have insights that the rest of us cannot conger; the reality is usually an incoherent mix of talking points we've already heard from the candidates and/or media. Attempts to make the group more 'representative' can lead to even worse results. Though this embarrassment hasn't officially died yet, I recommend that it be moved to hospice immediately.

    5. Independent - not in the sense of 'independently minded', which I fully support, but rather when stated as if it were a fully functional political party, as in, "I'm an Independent". I've always hated it because it is, a) hopelessly weenie, and b) usually inaccurate. Both Trump and Bernie called themselves Independent before all this started, now each is considered the essence of their respective (mainstream) political parties. I rest my case. RIP, Independent.

    6. Kid's Table - as in, 'forum of candidates for national office who poll worse than polio'. This is one time I'd argue for greater media discretion. The setup they used for this in 2015 was sloppy and insulting, and amounted to hours and hours of wasted time. I seriously doubt that we'll see a repeat, unless the god of boredom gains a seat on the board of Time Warner. RIP, Kid's Table.

    7. Mandate - okay, I admit, this one undergoes quadrennial ritual slaughter, ever since the late '80's (there hasn't been an actual landslide since 1984), but every cycle since, the winners have claimed a 'mandate' based on increasingly slim margins of victory, even when the victor has actually lost the popular vote. Because of that, the term has finally lost its meaning, now being for all intents and purposes the equivalent of tearing down the goalposts at the end of the game. RIP, Mandate.

    8. Far Right - We used to consider the Far Right to be an exotic place where militiamen, survivalists, and white supremacists hung out. Politicians used to go to great pains to disassociate themselves with these folks, who were labeled 'wingnuts' and 'kooks'. Not any more. Not when it has its own intellectual wing and social media. You can't call a philosophy "far" when it has the office next to the president. RIP, Far Right.

    9. Campaign Ads - speaking of giant wastes of cash and time, how about all the money that was put into campaign ads, some of which that might have actually hurt the candidates this year? Trump's early campaign ad spending was laughable, compared to the media blitz of Jeb Bush, and Trump laughed all the way to the nomination. Exit polls revealed voters who cited Hillary's (actually tame) campaign ads as a reason not to vote for her. For these reasons, I think that national campaign ads, as we've known them, will disappear. RIP, Campaign ads.

    10. Truth - this is the saddest casualty of the 2016 campaign, and, though I nurture hope of a rebirth, I fear that it will never be the same again. As Salon puts it, "Trump staged a year-long assault on truth", and Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes summed up their approach: “There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts.” Republicans who voted for Trump have their own responsibility for the success of this tactic, of course. But the real scene of the crime was in the boardrooms of the news networks, where it was apparently decided that Trump was too good for business to be held to such a quaint standard as "truthful". The term was finally interred by the Wall Street Journal's editor-in-chief Gerard Baker just this week, who said, "'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead." He suggested alternatives, such as "questionable" and "challengeable". Oh Truth, you will be missed. RIP, Truth.

    -Balthasar

  6. [6] 
    michale wrote:

    The term was finally interred by the Wall Street Journal's editor-in-chief Gerard Baker just this week, who said, "'Lie' implies much more than just saying something that's false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."

    Which is factually accurate....

    When Bush and the Democrats said that Iraq had WMDs, they weren't lying...

    They were simply wrong..

    When Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan" he knew full well that at least 20% of Americans would lose the doctor/health care plan they liked...

    So, Obama did, in fact, lie...

    I honestly don't understand the big hulaballoo about "truth"... Truth is as subjective as opinions are...

    So you CAN be entitled to your own "truth".

    FACTS is where it's at.....

  7. [7] 
    michale wrote:

    9. Campaign Ads - speaking of giant wastes of cash and time, how about all the money that was put into campaign ads, some of which that might have actually hurt the candidates this year? Trump's early campaign ad spending was laughable, compared to the media blitz of Jeb Bush, and Trump laughed all the way to the nomination. Exit polls revealed voters who cited Hillary's (actually tame) campaign ads as a reason not to vote for her. For these reasons, I think that national campaign ads, as we've known them, will disappear. RIP, Campaign ads.

    "If only..... If only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

  8. [8] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    When Bush and the Democrats said that Iraq had WMDs, they weren't lying...They were simply wrong..

    "Bush and the Democrats", eh? I didn't include historical re-writes as evidence, but I suppose I should have.

  9. [9] 
    michale wrote:

    "Bush and the Democrats", eh? I didn't include historical re-writes as evidence

    Just the facts....

    DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED FOR IRAQ WAR
    Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
    Baucus, Max (D-MT)
    Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
    Breaux, John (D-LA)
    Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
    Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
    Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
    Cleland, Max (D-GA)
    Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
    Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
    Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
    Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
    Edwards, John (D-NC)
    Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
    Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
    Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
    Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
    Kerry, John (D-MA)
    Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
    Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
    Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
    Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
    Miller, Zell (D-GA)
    Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
    Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
    Reid, Harry (D-NV)
    Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV)
    Schumer, Chuck (D-NY)
    Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)

    Just the facts....

  10. [10] 
    michale wrote:

    And that's just in the Senate...

    Any of those names look familiar??

    Hillary Clinton... Hmmmmm I have heard that name somewhere before...

    Chuck Schumer??? Yea, that's another familiar name...

    Harry Reid... Damn, ANOTHER familiar name...

    I could go on, but I believe you get the point.. :D

  11. [11] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Okay, firstly, the Democratic caucus was far more divided than the GOP on the vote, and 42% voted against it, while 98% of Republicans voted for it.

    So there's that.

    Most Democrats who voted for it cited a provision that Bush subsequently ignored:

    That the administration should "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    In otherwords, they expected Bush to act in concert with the rest of the world to restrain the Iraqis, not launch an unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. This is why nearly all of the Democrats on that list call that vote a "mistake".

    There are some liberals who still believe that the invasion of Iraq itself was not a mistake, citing Hussein's human rights abuses as reason enough, as the late Christopher Hitchens used to argue.

    Many of those might say that the mess that the Bush administration made of the occupation is their reason for calling the whole episode a mistake.

    So blaming 'Bush and the Democrats' for the Iraq War fiasco is a bit like blaming The Wicked Witch and the Munchkins for the persecution of Dorothy, since it was the Munchkins, after all, who set her on the road to the Emerald City.

  12. [12] 
    michale wrote:

    WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

    A perfect textbook example of "truth" vs "fact"...

    For the Left Wingery, the "truth" is that the Russians have hacked the US to hell and back...

    The FACTS clearly say something different..

    Like I said... The Left doesn't mind fake news as long as it serves the Left's agenda...

  13. [13] 
    michale wrote:

    Okay, firstly, the Democratic caucus was far more divided than the GOP on the vote, and 42% voted against it, while 98% of Republicans voted for it.

    So there's that.

    And THAT is nothing more than a self-serving mitigation..

    If we were discussing the "enthusiasm" of the Partys in their votes, you would have a point...

    But we're not, so you don't..

    You called into question my statement of "Bush and the Democrats".. I proved to you that Democrats (MANY) followed Bush willingly into the Iraq war...

    In otherwords, they expected Bush to act in concert with the rest of the world to restrain the Iraqis, not launch an unsanctioned invasion of Iraq. This is why nearly all of the Democrats on that list call that vote a "mistake".

    Again, more self-serving mitigation that has nothing to do with my original statement that you called a rewrite of history...

    So blaming 'Bush and the Democrats' for the Iraq War fiasco is a bit like blaming The Wicked Witch and the Munchkins for the persecution of Dorothy, since it was the Munchkins, after all, who set her on the road to the Emerald City.

    OR....

    It's a bit like blaming James Comey for prosecuting Hillary's illegal and unauthorized email server.....

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    In short....

    Denying Democrat involvement in the run-up to the Iraq War is nothing but ideology-based rewriting of history...

  15. [15] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Denying Democrat involvement in the run-up to the Iraq War is nothing but ideology-based rewriting of history.

    I'm not denying Democrat involvement in the run-up to the Iraq war. Dupes come in many colors. I'm saying that using the term "Bush and the Democrats" in this context is deliberately misleading.

    The Republican desire to purge itself of the memory of Bush is understandable, but you can't get away with shoving him down a memory-hole, or worse, foist him on US. He's your historical problem.

  16. [16] 
    michale wrote:

    I'm not denying Democrat involvement in the run-up to the Iraq war. Dupes come in many colors. I'm saying that using the term "Bush and the Democrats" in this context is deliberately misleading.

    No, it's factually accurate...

    The Republican desire to purge itself of the memory of Bush is understandable, but you can't get away with shoving him down a memory-hole, or worse, foist him on US. He's your historical problem.

    I have no problem with it... I think that taking down Saddam Hussein was as morally justifiable as taking down Adolph Hitler.. I fully and completely support Bush and the Democrats' push to rid the world of Saddam's Iraq...

    MY only problem is how you want to cleanse your Party history of the responsibility and the many colored dupes you have in the Democratic Party....

    "Dupes" (your word, not mine) by the name of Reid, Clinton and Schumer...

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess it's a good thing that Hillary lost the election, eh??

    I mean, who would want such a moronic DUPE as POTUS, eh?? :D

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh... And all those jobs that Obama "created" that ya'all like to brag about???

    MILLIONS of those jobs were created IN SPITE of the Obama Administration, not BECAUSE of the Obama Administration...

  19. [19] 
    John M wrote:

    Balthasar wrote:

    "So blaming 'Bush and the Democrats' for the Iraq War fiasco is a bit like blaming The Wicked Witch and the Munchkins for the persecution of Dorothy, since it was the Munchkins, after all, who set her on the road to the Emerald City."

    GOOD ONE!!!

  20. [20] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "MILLIONS of those jobs were created IN SPITE of the Obama Administration, not BECAUSE of the Obama Administration..."

    ACTUALLY, MILLIONS of those jobs were created IN SPITE of Republican control of Congress, NOT BECAUSE OF Republican control of Congress.

    There, FIXED it for YOU!!!

  21. [21] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "MILLIONS of those jobs were created IN SPITE of the Obama Administration, not BECAUSE of the Obama Administration..."

    And YET, you BLAME OBAMA for running up the deficit during his term in office.

    Even though it is Congress, and NOT the President, which controls both spending and the budget, in the end.

    SO, either the President IS responsible for everything that happens to the economy during his term, or he is NOT. you CAN'T have it BOTH ways.

    You have to concede that OBAMA is BOTH responsible for the deficit AND for creating millions of jobs at the same time, or he is not responsible for EITHER.

    I am willing to accept that, are you???

    "I think we'll find what we're looking for at the cetatian institute in Salsalito. Pair of humpback whales named George and Gracie." -- Kirk, "How do you know this?" -- Spock, "Simple logic." -- Kirk, TVH

  22. [22] 
    michale wrote:

    There, FIXED it for YOU!!!

    Not really...

    Over 40% of those new jobs were in the fossil fuel industry...

    Yunno... The industry that Obama and the Democrats stated that they would put out of business??

    Even though it is Congress, and NOT the President, which controls both spending and the budget, in the end.

    You would have a point if Obama had gone thru Congress on everything..

    But he didn't so you don't..

    Remember... Obama had a pen and a phone.. He had no use for a Congress that wouldn't rubber-stamp everything he wanted...

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2531054/america-special-forces-russian-border-lithuania-obama-putin/

    And Obama is sending American SOs to directly confront Russia....

    Looks like it's going to be OBAMA and not Trump who is going to start WWIII....

    Ya'all's predictions were wrong.... AGAIN.... :D

  24. [24] 
    michale wrote:

    PANIC EN MEXICO: TRUMP TAKING OUR JOBS!
    SCUTTLED FORD PLANT HAS MEXICO FEARING MORE UNDER TRUMP

    Two weeks before inauguration, the scuttling of the planned Ford factory and Trump's pressure on General Motors should be a "much-needed wake-up call," said Mexico analyst Alejandro Hope.

    Hope said more decisions like Ford's are likely to come. And while the loss of a single planned plant probably does not fundamentally change the U.S.-Mexico economic relationship, "it certainly shows that the idea that the status quo was entrenched was false."

    "This should put us on notice that when he says that he wants to renegotiate NAFTA, he means it," Hope said.
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_MEXICO_FORD?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-04-14-45-38

    America First, baby!!! :D

    You had your chance to make nice with the new Administration..

    "But you thought it would be more fun to insult {us}... Well, now it is {our} turn, wise ass..."
    -Walter Peck, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  25. [25] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Not really...

    Over 40% of those new jobs were in the fossil fuel industry...

    Yunno... The industry that Obama and the Democrats stated that they would put out of business??"

    Nice of you to misquote and get things wrong yet again. I believe it was the COAL industry they said they would put out of business, not the entire fossil fuel industry.

    You know, the same COAL jobs that TRUMP said he was going to BRING BACK, but which are actually being transferred to the natural gas industry instead due to FRACKING.

  26. [26] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You would have a point if Obama had gone thru Congress on everything..

    But he didn't so you don't.."

    UM, since WHEN did YOU REWRITE the CONSTITUTION??? I STILL have a POINT. Since spending authorization still originates in Congress, and not in the Executive branch.

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    Talking about dupes, it is hilarious that Trump trusts Assage over the U.S. military.

    America First Baby, unless an Australian helped you win the White House with illegally obtained materials.

  28. [28] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Looks like it's going to be OBAMA and not Trump who is going to start WWIII...."

    Want to MAKE a BET on that???

    TRUMP isn't DONE with NORTH KOREA YET.

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yunno... The industry that Obama and the Democrats stated that they would put out of business??

    Maybe we need to add some new words - like "Trump-Fact" - something that is a complete lie but it makes you feel good.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting take on the motivations for "rust belt" voters who switched from Obama to Trump.

    This eviscerates the "downtrodden masses" theory - it turns out that the areas that switched were better off after 8 years of Obama:

    http://politicalorphans.com/when-whiteness-fails/

  31. [31] 
    neilm wrote:

    Here are the real stats on the oil/gas industry (note this does not include coal, which has seen job loses).

    Jan 2009: 165,100
    Sep 2016: 172,300

    Source: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES1021100001?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true#

  32. [32] 
    neilm wrote:

    Remember when Trump said he was going to save $300B on Medicare Drugs (best negotiator E.V.E.R. har har) and the program only costs $111B in total? (Trump-Fact).

    This is like Michale's claim that 40% of new jobs are in the fossil fuel industry.

    There are 149,000,000 people working in the U.S.:

    Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction: 917,000

    Source: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.pdf

    Fact, those things that destroy Trump-Facts.

  33. [33] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [13]

    Michale -

    WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

    A perfect textbook example of "truth" vs "fact"...

    For the Left Wingery, the "truth" is that the Russians have hacked the US to hell and back...

    The FACTS clearly say something different..

    Like I said... The Left doesn't mind fake news as long as it serves the Left's agenda...

    The USA has seventeen intelligence agencies. Every single one of them has signed on on the conclusion that the Russians hacked American data bases and emails and interfered in the election.

    So I guess you're saying all seventeen agencies are lying, Michale. What a pity your congressional republican mates refuse to investigate - what are they so afraid of finding? Or more likely, what are they so anxious to cover up?

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM [1, 2] -

    I'd vote for "baked-in" to be banned, personally...

    And thanks for the kind words... wasn't sure if the title was too over the top or not...

    :-)

    Don Harris [5] -

    Dude, lighten up. LSSU is an obscure state university in a border town with a storied past which figures heavily in Michigan history (look up "voyageurs" to see some of it). I like their chutzpah, that's all. After all, they've been doing it since 1976...

    Plus, I've been featuring them in an annual column since 2008, so you can't call this just "nothing to write about" -- in fact, it's a revered CW.com holiday tradition.

    So, to you and everyone else bent out of shape when I occasionally take a vacation day, here goes:

    If you really want to send me an article, then just do it.

    I'm opening this up to all those disgruntled with re-run articles or fluff articles or articles where I just write something I think is amusing in order to save my own sanity (the frequency of which may be increasing in the new year, I might point out, especially given the absence of Craig Ferguson on late-night TV...).

    If you think you've got something, then send it along. Haven't done too many guest authors in the past year that it'd be too much to feature a few now, so here's your chance.

    Use the "Email Chris" link at the bottom of every page to get my attention, if you don't already have my actual email address.

    The gauntlet is down. Picking it up is up to you.

    How's that?

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Balthasar [6] -

    Hoo boy.

    OK, one by one.

    Tea Party -- count me in the CNBC crowd, but it's hard to disagree with you. We'll see what happens in the House this year, though...

    Gaffe - also a good point. Kinsely would be astonished by Trump, that's for sure...

    Breaking News - I agree, this was dead long ago. See my rant on "This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead," from the Chevy Chase era of "Weekend Update" on SNL. I can dig it up if you'd like...

    Focus group - OK, I see your point, but I think this zombie will live for quite a while, yet...

    Independent - fair point. Can't argue with that.

    Kid's table - I always preferred "kiddie table" because it was even more demeaning, but speaking as someone who had to sit through all of the undercard debates, I certainly hope you're right. When there's too many damn candidates, then you just have to bite the bullet and EXCLUDE some of them. Period.

    Mandate - OK, this one I have to disagree. Obama's 2008 win was indeed a landslide. And a mandate. Something Bubba never achieved (due to Perot).

    Far right - I would've voted for "alt-right" instead, personally... but maybe I'm just quibbling...

    Campaign ads - OK, this one we're in total agreement. We saw this out here the year that Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman were supposed to flood the airwaves with their ads, and win. Neither did. Sometimes, when the dogs just don't want to eat the dogfood, all the advertising in the world won't help. See: Jeb!

    Truth - We'll see, we'll see... I have hopes for this one, based on the fact that for the past half-century (at least) the saying has been around: "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." I can give you citations, if you need them. This is a very old phenomenon, actually...

    :-)

    -CW

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [7] -

    I'd put it: Dubya was mistaken. Cheney was lying. Look into the history of the cherry-picking of the intelligence, for proof.

    As for Obama, he was telling the truth for 85% of the public. So was that a lie, or not? I realize differing opinions exist, but 85% is a pretty high bar to shoot for.

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [17] -

    OK, just curious -- how do you feel about the eventual fate of Muammar Quaddafi?

    Just trying to keep you consistent, that's all...

    -CW

  38. [38] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [19] -

    Want to bet a few quatloos on how Obama's job creation record will stack up with Trump's?

    I'm in for 500 quatloos that Trump's first term record will be worse than Obama'a, how's that?

    :-)

    -CW

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JohnM [21] -

    OK, now THAT made me laugh. Well done!

    :-)

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    JohnM [22] -

    Oooh, nice Star Trek quote. You obviously know how to bait michale... heh...

    :-)

    -CW

  41. [41] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [25] -

    Oh, woo hoo, Trump has "saved" like 10K jobs?

    Call me when it hits 14 million:

    Since the job market bottomed out in January 2010, in the depths of the Great Recession, the U.S. economy has produced more than 14 million jobs. That's pushed the total level of payrolls some 5.7 million higher than when the recession hit in late 2007

    Facts, as you point out, are facts.

    -CW

  42. [42] 
    michale wrote:

    Nice of you to misquote and get things wrong yet again. I believe it was the COAL industry they said they would put out of business, not the entire fossil fuel industry.

    Obama said that he is going to force everyone's electric bill to go higher..

    Same effect...

    America First Baby, unless an Australian helped you win the White House with illegally obtained materials.

    Like I said.. It was the CONTENT of those illegally obtained materials that helped Trump win the White House..

    Not the fact that they were released...

    So blame your Democrats for being such hypocritical assholes.

    I am also constrained to point out that the Pentagon Papers were ALSO "illegally obtained materials"...

    Let's face reality... The Left LOVES "illegally obtained materials"... But, apparently, only when it furthers the Left Wingery agenda...

    The USA has seventeen intelligence agencies. Every single one of them has signed on on the conclusion that the Russians hacked American data bases and emails and interfered in the election.

    Each of those seventeen agencies are OBAMA agencies and will say what Obama tells them to say...

    Let's see what those seventeen agencies says when they are TRUMP agencies, K? :D

    So I guess you're saying all seventeen agencies are lying, Michale. What a pity your congressional republican mates refuse to investigate - what are they so afraid of finding? Or more likely, what are they so anxious to cover up?

    I am saying that either those agencies are being told what to say or are just saying what they know their boss wants to hear...

    EVERY data security agency queried has said the evidence is flimsy and is no where near conclusive...

    There is absolutely NO evidence that Russia "hacked" the election...

    At WORST, all Russia did was enforce complete transparency on the Democrats...

    At WORST, all Russia did was show the world EXACTLY what the Democrats are all about...

    I thought ya'all were really big into transparency???

    Ahhhhh that's right. Ya'all only are into transparency for your political opponents..

    As for Obama, he was telling the truth for 85% of the public. So was that a lie, or not? I realize differing opinions exist, but 85% is a pretty high bar to shoot for.

    If Obama had said, "For 85% of Americans, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" then he wouldn't have been lying...

    But you and I know that if Obama had been truthful and factual about TrainWreckCare, then it NEVER would have passed...

    It's a moot point... ObamaCare is going to be thrown on the trash heap of history where it belongs. Along with ObamaDeal and ObamaDreamer...

    OK, just curious -- how do you feel about the eventual fate of Muammar Quaddafi?

    I think it couldn't happen to a more deserving scumbag...

    Now, let me ask you.

    What do you think about Hillary Clinton gloating over the fate of Mo Quaddafi???

    Want to bet a few quatloos on how Obama's job creation record will stack up with Trump's?

    I'm in for 500 quatloos that Trump's first term record will be worse than Obama'a, how's that?

    Yer on.....

    Trump has already saved/created thousands of jobs and he ain't even PRESIDENT yet!!! :D

    Facts, as you point out, are facts.

    Yes.. And the FACT is that over 40% of those jobs were from the fossil fuel industry, an industry that Obama has sworn to put out of business..

    In other words, almost HALF of those jobs were created *IN SPITE* of Obama, not BECAUSE of Obama...

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    So, the first order of business in the new GOP Congress is to gut an ethics committee...

    How utterly brain dead, tone deaf and moronic do you have to be to try a stunt like that...

    But in swoops SuperPresidentElect and slaps down the Republicans into reversing course...

    Gods, ya just gotta love our new President, eh?? When he says he is going to drain the swamp, he MEANS it...

    Not even the leaders of his own Party are safe!!

    Like I said.. Trump isn't a Democrat OR a Republican....

    He's an AMERICAN....

    Cue the Left Wingery hysterical conspiracy-theories, "IT WAS ALL STAGED!!!!" :D

    It's going to be a fun 8 years... :D

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I am also constrained to point out that Obama has a LOUSY track record when it comes to proclamations such as this..

    Remember when Obama and all his intelligence agencies said that the Benghazi attack was actually just a protest caused by a YouTube video??

    I wouldn't trust an Obama agency if it told me that the sky was blue and water was wet... I would have to see for myself..

    Like I said.. Let's see what those Obama agencies are saying when they become Trump agencies..

    If they are saying the same thing, then I'll concede that there might actually be a "there" there....

    But, as I said before, even if it's shown that the Russians were frakin' with our elections, so what??

    It's what enemies do. It what the US has done to our enemies for a hundred years...

    If you can point to me ONE scintilla, one IOTA of evidence that shows that Russia hacked into the election and changed a SINGLE Hillary vote to a Trump vote.....

    THEN you will have a case to make..

    But if all you have is that the Russians made it possible for the American people to find out exactly what Democrats are really all about???

    Well, then I would say you have nothing but a nothing-burger...

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    One only has to look at the total BS put out by WaPoop that had to be constantly retracted to know that the "Russian Hack Election" movement is complete and utter BS and has the EXACT same goal as the Birther movement....

    To call into question the free and fair election of a US President....

    That's all there is here...

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama’s Self-Serving Cybersecurity Spin
    There’s real cause for alarm, but it isn’t the recent malware.

    Misleading the American people to advance a political narrative has been a hallmark of President Obama’s foreign policy. The most recent example is the administration’s attempt to conflate the hacking of the Democratic Party with potential cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.

    Last week, federal officials told the Washington Post that malware linked to Russian hackers was found on a laptop at Burlington Electric, a Vermont power company. By Monday the Post had recanted, writing that investigators “are finding evidence that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort.”

    But Americans could be forgiven for feeling spooked—for worrying that the hack of the Democratic Party was a lot more serious than previously thought, and that perhaps critical systems are facing a new and dangerous threat.

    This simply isn’t the case. The kind of malware involved in these two intrusions is neither new nor particularly sophisticated. It is run-of-the-mill spyware that has probably been implanted on thousands of networks around the world, from home computers to those inside banks, power companies and government agencies.

    These bugs are freely available online, and the code found at the Democratic National Committee and the power company isn’t even the latest version. The notion that such a mundane piece of software reveals a new and ominous threat to critical infrastructure is laughable.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-self-serving-cybersecurity-spin-1483488382

    Like I said.. It's ALL spin.. There is very VERY little fact to be found in this whole Birther-esque "Russian Hack" movement...

  47. [47] 
    michale wrote:

    And in other news..

    Dan Rather teaching ‘Truth in the News’ course
    Move comes despite anchor’s own past ethics issues

    https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2017/01/dan-rather-teaching-truth-in-the-news-course

    Dan Rather teaching about Truth In News is like Bill Clinton teaching a sexual harassment awareness course..

    :^/

  48. [48] 
    michale wrote:

    HATE CRIME CHARGES FILED AGAINST 4 IN TORTURE OF TEEN IN FACEBOOK LIVE VIDEO
    http://abc7chicago.com/news/hate-crime-charges-filed-against-4-in-torture-of-teen/1687517/

    Ahhh yes... The peace and love of Anti-Trumpers.....

    And the condemnation from the Left???

    {{chhhiirrrrrppppp}} {chiiiiiirrrrrrrrrppppppp}

    But let some phony fake claim of Trump supporters attacking a muslim and the Left is ALL over that...

    Political bigotry at it's finest...

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, the Left Wingery and the White House say that, when 4 black men attack and torture a white homeless guy, it's "too early to tell if it's a hate crime"....

    Gods, this administration doesn't even TRY to hide their bigotry and racism anymore...

  50. [50] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Well gang, we have a new entry in the 'political tactics' division: media overload, or MO. To wit:

    "The nominees preparing to go in front of the Senate on Wednesday are: Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) for CIA director, Betsy DeVos for secretary of education, Rex Tillerson for secretary of state, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general, John Kelly for secretary of homeland security, and Elaine Chao for secretary of transportation."

    That's right, all on the same day. The same day, incidentally that Trump plans to hold his first press conference.

    This MO, taken directly from the Trump playbook, is designed to mitigate any bad moments from any of these events by dividing the attention of the general public, even those wanting to pay attention. Bravo.

    Trump might have even gotten the idea from a heist movie, who knows?

    I've got news for the clever folks who thought this up: this is a multi-tasking, split-screen, time-shifting multi-media environment.

    We'll keep up.

    Simba: You guys have to create a diversion.
    Timon: What do you want me to do? Dress in drag and do the hula?!

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    We'll keep up.

    HA!

    The Democratic Party is so leader-less and rudder-less and direction-less...

    They won't even be able to find the BATHROOMS!!! :D

    Kudos to Trump and the GOP for this shock and awe!!!!

    The Democratic Party ain't gonna know what hit 'em!!!!

    :D

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Remember all the BREXIT predictions when ya'all and the entirety of the Hysterical Left claimed that if the UK left the EU, it would destroy the British economy???

    Britain has world’s top economy
    Brexit vote was Bank’s ‘Michael Fish moment’

    Britain ended last year as the strongest of the world’s advanced economies with growth accelerating in the six months after the Brexit vote.

    Business activity hit a 17-month high last month, meaning that the economy grew by 2.2 per cent last year — more than the six other leading nations, including the US, Germany and Japan.

    Far from slowing after the referendum in June, as predicted by the Treasury and Bank of England, growth appeared to have improved. GDP grew at 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent in the first two quarters of last year, compared with 0.6 per cent and an estimated 0.5 per cent in the final period.
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britain-has-worlds-top-economy-after-brexit-rt7j9lccb

    Don'tcha all EVER get tired of being wrong???

    This is EXACTLY what happens when predictions are based SOLELY on Party ideology.. When one ignores the inconvenient reality, one is surprised by the BREXIT vote or the Trump vote....

    One of these days ya'all will concede the logic and reality of my position..

    Yea... When monkees fly outta my butt! :D

    "Hay there, you anal dwelling little butt monkey!!"
    -Jim Carrey, BRUCE ALMIGHTY

    :D

Comments for this article are closed.