Comments on: Michelle Malkin’s Bogus Legal Theory

By: WTF?

WTF? — Sun, 21 May 2006 03:53:13 +0000

Only in liberal la-la land do you find moonbats cracking on the way Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter look. Since their looks seem to carry so much weight in their arguments, I propose we settle the whole left-wing/ right-wing debate with a beauty contest.
On the right we have: Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, the Bush Twins, Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Mary Cheney, Laura Ingram, and the late Barbara Olsen.
On the left we have: hmmmmmmmmm…. let’s see……. Helen Thomas. No, wait a minute. I really don’t think we want to go there…… ummmmm….. Randi Rhodes. Nope….. disqualified for using a bogus name. Ummmmmmm…. I’ve got it…Madeleine Albright. OWWWW….cut it out…. I’m really trying here, OK? Then it’s gotta be….. Janet Reno. Damn….. disqualified for burning people alive in Waco and forcing little boys back to Communist dictatorships at gun point…. besides, if you ever really checked under the dress, I’m sure you’d find a really large pair… three strikes… he’s errrrr she’s out. Crap…. Barbara Boxer….. Nancy Pelosi…..
I frickin’ surrender… and I’m feelin’ a little queasy. I think I’ll go have a stiff drink and try to get that last parade out my head.

By: Reality Pundit » Blog Archive » Who’s Intolerant Again?

Reality Pundit » Blog Archive » Who’s Intolerant Again? — Sat, 20 May 2006 19:28:31 +0000

[...] Not surprisingly Michelle is pretty upset, here’s her response: Pat yourselves on the backs, you tolerant liberal bastards. ***This is hardly the first time liberals have made Asian whore ping-pong ball jokes about me. But Wonkette has now mainstreamed it. And I’m sick of it. Are you proud of yourselves? Do you get a bonus from Nick Denton for scraping the bottom of the barrel? [...]

By: Think Progress » Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology

Think Progress » Malkin Owes Jane Harman An Apology — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:23:21 +0000

[...] She was promptly criticized by right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who lashed out at Harman with a post titled “Jane Harman’s Bogus Attack.” ThinkProgress noted, and Malkin later admitted, that Malkin’s rebuttal was based on a legal provision that was totally irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, Malkin stuck to her general claim that Harman was wrong. [...]

By: big papa

big papa — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:23:31 +0000

but Iâ€™ll exercise my logic to suspect itâ€™s probably been a VERY long tome since youâ€™ve had a consentual sexual relationship – with an adult woman.

Comment by mighty aphrodite #78

If that’s a proposition, I don’t do pigs…

Can we get off the sexual innuendo and back on politics.

Conservative right wing inbred Senator Sam Broke Back ‘er Brownback is “troubled” by the criminal Bushite junta’s “legal explanation” of their authority to wiretap sans warrants…

Does this mean that Bushiva and L’il dick stepped into some legal caca?

By: unbelievable

unbelievable — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 02:24:51 +0000

#71 – As usual, unbelievable, you throw verbal rocks without addressing the premiseâ€¦.yawnâ€¦.zzzzzâ€¦zzzâ€¦

Comment by mighty aphrodite â€” January 8, 2006 @ 8:55 pm

You had a premise? Was hard to tell from all that incoherent babbling and raving. Try not to log-on when you’re that drunk, Magda.

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:55:48 +0000

#71 – As usual, unbelievable, you throw verbal rocks without addressing the premise….yawn….zzzzz…zzz…

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:53:22 +0000

#75 – Fat Papa – The 1st Amendment gives you the right to be as trashy and vulgar as I suspect you enjoy – either in person or probably thru peeping – but I’ll exercise my logic to suspect it’s probably been a VERY long tome since you’ve had a consentual sexual relationship – with an adult woman.

By: Arne Langsetmo

Arne Langsetmo — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:21:52 +0000

Michelle Malkin took note of Think Pessimismâ€™s â€œcorrectionâ€ and then de-bunked Thunk Progress, noting the paragraph before TP assertion – which TP neglected to include.. Who would of thought???

Not much of a rejoinder. As Judd pointed out, the provision Malkin cited had to do with covert activities. Judd cited the other provision to show that “intelligence” activities were covered in a different place, and with different rules. Malkin’s belated citing of the header adds little to Malkin’s argument. It does not provide for any specific exception as does the “covert activities” one (and one rule of interpretation is that if something is specifically excepted in one place and left out in another, it doesn’t apply to the other. All Malkin is left with is some mealy-mouthed stuff about “consistent with”, hardly any real authorization for the withholding of information as required by law.

Cheers,

By: big papa

big papa — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:06:46 +0000

ATTENTION REPUBLISCUM:

Jan. 7-

Tom “Dumb” DeLay announces he’ll never again seek to run the criminal enterprise commonly referred to as the Republican majority (of inbreds in da’ House)…

Jan. 8-

Howard Dean shuts Wolf Bullschnitzers pie hole with an unequivocal announcement that “NOT ONE DEMocrat took money from Abramoff.”

“There’s some (right wing, inbred) ‘hoes’ in dis’ house!”

…the curse is working…

By: big papa

big papa — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:01:50 +0000

Dear Fat Papa – I always knew the â€œhumanitarianâ€ side of progressivism was a facade – â€œCan you spell Stalin, Comrade?â€

Comment by mighty aphrodite #68,

If putting horses with broken legs out of their misery is referred to as a “humanitarian” act then why wouldn’t doing the same for mindless, spineless inbreds be looked at the same?

I’d poke ya, but I wouldn’t know which hole…

By: EconAtheist

EconAtheist — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 07:09:19 +0000

I would not stick my peepee in Malkin’s thingy. Sam I am.

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 03:56:28 +0000

Oh crap, not another homosexual? Even women donâ€™t talk like that.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I â€” January 7, 2006 @ 10:12 pm

er… ahem…. you might want to double-check before you post your nonsense, I-RIGHT-I. That was RightPunch quoting Mighty Aphrodite.

Or maybe you should try reading beyond the first two lines of the post you are replying to. It’s not that hard. Really.

By: I-RIGHT-I

I-RIGHT-I — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 03:12:36 +0000

Dear RightSlap – You sound like a darling neighbor of mine. She has the most wonderful intentions…blah, blah…
Comment by RightPunch

Oh crap, not another homosexual? Even women don’t talk like that.

By: unbelievable

unbelievable — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 01:38:51 +0000

individualism valued by conservatives.

Comment by mighty aphrodite â€” January 7, 2006 @ 4:11 pm

I think you meant ‘homogenization’ valued by conservatives… oh, no, that’s right the word has ‘homo’ in it, and you’re not for that kind of individualism. Just the kind of individualism that entails being a white American conservative…

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:11:54 +0000

#52 – “And of course I-Right-I shows an absolute understanding of Franklin. If IRI were alive back then he would have been a Tory. Hating those pesky liberals like franklin, Jeffeson, Madison…” – Mark
****Once again, liberals try to co-opt the Founding Fathers. Sorry, Mark, with the majority of the left’s aversion to guns most likely many of you would have been left on the sidelines. (come to think of it, that a GREAT place for the majority of progs.) Besides, the “co-operative and communal” spirit of progs allows the ignorant progs to denounce the individualism valued by conservatives. (Unless, of course, the prog in question is guarding the individual rights of terrorists, illegal border jumpers, drug dealers, pornographers, pedophiles and prostitutes.)

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:27:19 +0000

Michelle Malkin took note of Think Pessimism’s “correction” and then de-bunked Thunk Progress, noting the paragraph before TP assertion – which TP neglected to include.. Who would of thought???

By: mighty aphrodite

mighty aphrodite — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:14:24 +0000

Dear Fat Papa – I always knew the “humanitarian” side of progressivism was a facade – “Can you spell Stalin, Comrade?”

By: big papa

big papa — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:40:37 +0000

I would have been a Federalist and you would no doubt not have been allowed to vote.

Comment by I-RIGHT-I #55

I-Treasonousbushitea**licker-I,

You would’ve been hung as a “Loyalist” traitor…

You (like all Bushite inbreds) hate democracy, and want to serve a king…

On the hanging part though there’s still hope!

By: big papa

big papa — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:33:55 +0000

****Dear Fat Papa – No, Pops, theyâ€™re just not hanging around waiting for their share of government cheese. Nor are they filling their faces with the empty calories of fried and fast food, soda, chips and pork rinds or that cheap pi$$y beer favoured by SixPack Joe – (we know heâ€™s not referring to his abs!!)

Comment by mighty aphrodite

Puny Hermaphrodite #60,

BREAKING NEWS!!!!:

Dumb DeLay just officially announced that he will NOT seek to become Majority Leader EVER AGAIN!

BAM! you inbred beeotches…

I’m going to “create” myself a five decker HERO sandwich, with as much fattening crap as I can find to pile on it. Then, I’m gonna wash it down with several fine 2005 vintage beverages made from the finest barley and hops of my choice.

And I’ll still look, smell and THINK better than you, Ann’drew Couldnt’(er), AND Michelle “Al cracker wannabe” Malcontent!

Next time you work up the nerve to address me have the decency to wipe your chin. You’ve got Bushiva and L’il Dick’s “fool juice” dripping from it!

By: purvis ames

purvis ames — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:40:34 +0000

Open Fly Man
Zip it up. Anyone who thinks Michelle Malkin “usually gets her facts straight” is standing in line for the Kool-Aid.